Callado c. Canada (Citoyenneté et Immigration)

Callado c. Canada (Citoyenneté et Immigration)

The court dismissed the judicial review because the SAR's conclusions that an internal flight alternative existed in Mérida and that there was insufficient evidence linking the alleged persecutor to incidents outside the applicant's hometown were reasonable and supported by the record; the SAR explicitly considered Directive No. 4 and procedural fairness, and the applicant failed to show a fundamental misapprehension of evidence or a failure to consider relevant factors under the Vavilov standard.

Citation
2024 CF 79
Parties
Applicant / Demanderesse: Irene Contreras Callado; Respondent / Défendeur: The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration / Le Ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l'Immigration
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 January 2024
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review of Refugee Protection Decision / Judgment
Outcome
Application for judicial review dismissed
Legal Topics
Internal Relocation (pri), Reasonableness Review, Gender Considerations (directive No. 4), Procedural Fairness, Evidence Assessment
Source Language
French
Immigration Law Refugee Protection Administrative Law Internal Relocation (pri) Reasonableness Review Gender Considerations (directive No. 4) Procedural Fairness Evidence Assessment

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Irene Contreras Callado

Applicant / Demanderesse

The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration / Le Ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l'Immigration

Respondent / Défendeur

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review of Refugee Protection Decision / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Refugee Appeal Division (SAR) reasonably found an internal flight alternative in Mérida
  2. 2 Whether the SAR failed to apply Directive No. 4 regarding gender considerations
  3. 3 Whether the SAR misapprehended or ignored evidence linking the alleged persecutor to incidents in other cities

Ratio Decidendi

The court dismissed the judicial review because the SAR's conclusions that an internal flight alternative existed in Mérida and that there was insufficient evidence linking the alleged persecutor to incidents outside the applicant's hometown were reasonable and supported by the record; the SAR explicitly considered Directive No. 4 and procedural fairness, and the applicant failed to show a fundamental misapprehension of evidence or a failure to consider relevant factors under the Vavilov standard.

Court Disposition

Application for judicial review dismissed

Orders

  • The application for judicial review is dismissed.
  • No question is certified.