TC2-34126

RAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAR : TC2-34126 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and Decision ? Motifs et décision [Translation of the original version] Person who is the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Personne en cause Date of decision May 25, 2023 Date de la décision Panel Me Richard Sheitoyan Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Me Julio Cesar Tulena Salom Conseil de la personne en cause Designated representative N/A Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION OVERVIEW [1] I dismiss the appeal. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX is a citizen of Colombia. As a XXXX XXXX, she was informed that she is a collateral target of a Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) dissident group after her mother, who was mandated with XXXX XXXX XXXX in which XXXX XXXX XXXX, discovered XXXXof their involvement XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Therefore, in XXXX 2019, the appellant left Colombia to come to Canada and claim refugee protection. [2] The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) determined that the appellant is not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection considering that she has an internal flight alternative (IFA) in Bogota, Cartagena and Barranquilla. [3] According to the appellant's memorandum, the RPD erred in its decision by failing to take into account all of the evidence, which shows that she faces a prospective risk and that the designated IFAs are not viable. [4] The determinative issue for the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) is the IFA. DETERMINATION [5] I dismiss the appeal. The RPD correctly determined that the appellant is not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection. ANALYSIS [6] My role is to review all of the evidence and establish whether the RPD's decision is correct.1 In the context of an XXXX XXXX regarding a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, the appellant's mother discovered that the agents of harm were XXXX XXXX. In order to pressure her mother, the agents of harm then threatened the appellant. [7] The appellant's family is employed at different levels of the XXXX, namely, in the XXXX and XXXX XXXX. The appellant is a XXXX XXXX and accepted XXXX from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. She previously worked at the XXXX XXXX XXXX, while her father and brother are also XXXX with a XXXX or as XXXX XXXX for the XXXX. Her mother, who was XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, is a XXXX XXXX. [8] The appellant's trips to the various XXXX in the region are the reason why she is the main target of the threats intended to pressure her mother. As for her parents and her brother, they work in XXXX XXXX and have some police protection, which mitigates the malicious intentions toward them. [9] The test for determining if there is an IFA is two-pronged. The first prong consists in establishing whether, on a balance of probabilities, the appellant would be subjected to a risk to her life, a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment or a danger of torture in the IFA. To do this, it is important to consider her agent of harm and decide if the agent of harm has the motivation to find her elsewhere. Along with this motivation, it is also necessary to consider whether the agent of harm has the ability to do so. [10] According to the RPD's analysis, dissident groups: - represent only a subset of their former unit; - are involved in illegal economic activities; - seek to consolidate territorial control; and - operate in areas where they were active during the armed conflict with the objective of expanding outward. [11] In addition, none of the groups are found in the designated IFAs and, moreover, each one operates independently such that they do not have an associated or unified national network for sharing information. [12] Therefore, since the agents of harm are not found in the designated IFAs and do not have the means of communicating with others who might be there, the RPD concluded that, on a balance of probabilities, they lack the ability to find the appellant and, thus, she would not be subjected to a risk to her life, a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment or a danger of torture in the IFA. [13] According to the appellant's memorandum: - she and her family are priority targets for violence given the nature of their work and their professional profiles as XXXX XXXX XXXX; - the agents of harm are still present even though a peace agreement was signed; and - there is no IFA where the territory is affected by armed conflicts. [14] The evidence on the record shows that the appellant fears FARC dissident members. This is a relatively small group of individuals. Their operations are regionalized and their influence is limited to where they are located. Moreover, there is no mention in the objective documentation of their presence in the designated IFAs. [15] It also seems that the appellant was targeted because of the XXXX carried out by her mother. For their own reasons, the rest of her family chose to stay where the threats were made, relying on the police officers surrounding their workplaces to ensure their safety. [16] Finally, the appellant was not targeted because of her job as a XXXX, but rather because her job as a XXXX took her to various XXXX in the region. Therefore, it would be easier for her mother's agents of harm to retaliate against her. Thus, the arguments that she was targeted for her role as a XXXX are inaccurate. [17] The objective evidence shows that the dissident groups that the agents of harm belong to are not found in the IFA and that there is a lack of unified means of communication. Also, although the groups may have some resources in their territory that prevent those who have been targeted from seeking refuge there, the same is not true elsewhere. However, the conflicts are localized, and even though there may be another dissident group in another region, there is no evidence that points to any coordination that would renew the difficulties that occurred elsewhere. Finally, the appellant is a collateral target of her mother's agents of harm because she is apparently an easy target in the region of XXXX. The same is not true elsewhere because there is no evidence that the agents of harm would know how to or be able to find her. [18] Lastly, according to the appellant's memorandum, the designated IFAs are affected by armed conflicts between different criminal organizations. However, as mentioned earlier, the existence of criminal groups in one region does not support a conclusion that the difficulties encountered with the agents of harm will be transferred to the new region. There are indications that the appellant was not targeted by the criminal groups that are present in the IFAs, and there is no evidence that the risk that she would face in the IFA is different from the risk faced generally by the rest of the population. [19] Therefore, I consider that the RPD correctly concluded that, on a balance of probabilities, the appellant would not be subjected to a risk to her life, a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment or a danger of torture in the designated IFAs. [20] The second prong of the IFA test is its objective reasonableness. The RPD noted the appellant's high burden of demonstrating that if she relocated to one of the designated IFAs, the conditions would jeopardize her life and safety during her trip or her relocation. [21] According to the memorandum, the RPD's conclusion that the appellant did not demonstrate the unreasonableness of her relocation is incorrect in that the burden of proof to be met is the balance of probabilities. It is argued that despite her academic background and profession, the fact that she would be perceived as being associated with the XXXX XXXX and the XXXX XXXX would cause her undue hardship in her relocation. [22] First, it must be noted that the appellant is a XXXX XXXX, a role that involves XXXX XXXX XXXX of individuals in order to ensure the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in relation to the XXXX. This is different from the role played by other members of the XXXX XXXX who XXXX the XXXX. Given that the agents of harm are not present and that there is no means of communication, there is no evidence that the appellant would be unable to continue practising her profession in the IFAs, especially since her role is one of XXXX XXXX. The RPD's conclusion that the designated IFAs are objectively reasonable is correct. CONCLUSION [23] I dismiss the appeal and confirm the RPD's determination that the appellant is not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection. (Signed) Richard Sheitoyan Richard Sheitoyan May 25, 2023 Date IRB translation Original language: French 1 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93; Rozas del Solar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 1145. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- RAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAR : TC2-34126 RAD.25.02 (August 20, 2021) Disponible en français 2 Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada Refugee Appeal Division Commission de l'immigration et du statut de réfugié du Canada Section d'appel des réfugiés RAD.25.02 (August 20, 2021) Disponible en français