2022 FC, 2022 FC 1618

Date: 20221125 Docket: IMM-6386-21 Citation: 2022 FC 1618 St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador, November 25, 2022 PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Heneghan BETWEEN:DAMASO MILAGRO RODRIGUEZ QUINTERO BRENDA YADIRA GONZALEZ OSORIO SANTIAGO JESUS RODRIGUEZ GONZALEZ LUCIANA RODRIGUEZ GONZALEZApplicantsandTHE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATIONRespondent REASONS AND JUDGMENT [1] Mr. Damaso Milagro Rodriguez Quintero (the “Principal Applicant”), his common law spouse Ms.

Brenda Yadira Gonzalez Osorioand their minor children Santiago Jesus Rodriguez Gonzalez and Luciana Rodriguez Gonzalez (collectively the “Applicants”) seekjudicial review of the decision of the Immigration and Refugee Board, Refugee Protection Division (the “RPD”). In that decision, datedAugust 20, 2021, the RPD found that the Applicants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection within the meaning ofsection 96 and subsection 97(1), respectively, of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (the “Act”). [2] The Applicants are citizens of Colombia.

They sought protection on the basis of the claim of the Principal Applicant who alleged afear of persecution from the paramilitary organization, the Black Eagles, arising from his activities in support of Gustavo Petro’spresidential campaign in 2018. [3] The RPD denied the claim on credibility grounds.

It identified several areas where it found the evidence to lack credibility, includingthe Principal Applicant’s role as a social leader and his work on Gustavo Petro’s 2018 presidential campaign. [4] The Applicants argue that the RPD’s credibility findings are unreasonable, making the decision unreasonable. [5] The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (the “Respondent”) submits that the decision is reasonable. [6] The decision of the RPD is reviewable on the standard of reasonableness, pursuant to the decision in Canada (Minister of Citizenshipand Immigration) v.

Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 , [2019] 4 S.C.R. 653. [7] In considering reasonableness, the Court is to ask if the decision under review ""bears the hallmarks of reasonableness —justification, transparency and intelligibility — and whether it is justified in relation to the relevant factual and legal constraints that bearon the decision""; see Vavilov, supra at paragraph 99. [8] I agree with the submissions of the Respondent that the Applicants are effectively inviting the Court to re-weigh the evidence thatwas before the RPD.

That is not the role of a court upon judicial review. [9] The RPD addressed the Principal Applicant’s claim and reviewed his status as a social leader and active supporter of a candidate inthe 2018 presidential election. It found his evidence to be largely not credible. [10] The assessment of credibility is the core of the RPD’s mandate. I refer to the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Canada(Attorney General) v.

Ward, (SCC), [1993] 2 S.C.R. 689 at 724-725. [11] The credibility findings are reasonable and there is no basis for judicial intervention. [12] The application for judicial review will be dismissed. There is no question for certification. JUDGMENT in IMM-6386-21 THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that the application for judicial review is dismissed. There is no question for certification. “E. Heneghan” Judge

FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-6386-21 STYLE OF CAUSE: DAMASO MILAGRO RODRIGUEZ QUINTERO BRENDA YADIRA GONZALEZ OSORIO SANTIAGO JESUS RODRIGUEZ GONZALEZ LUCIANA RODRIGUEZ GONZALEZ v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: HELD BY WAY OF VIDEOCONFERENCE BETWEEN ST. JOHN’S, NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR AND TORONTO, ONTARIO DATE OF HEARING: OCTOBER 5, 2022 REASONS AND JUDGMENT: HENEGHAN J. DATED: NOVEMBER 25, 2022 APPEARANCES : Terry S. Guerriero FOR THE APPLICANT Nicola Shahbaz FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD : Terry S. Guerriero Barrister & Solicitor London, Ontario FOR THE APPLICANT Attorney General of Canada Toronto, Ontario FOR THE RESPONDENT