Rodas v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), (2015) 472 F.T.R. 59 (FC)

• Judge: Zinn, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: January 14, 2015
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2015), 472 F.T.R. 59 (FC);2015 FC 250

Rodas v. Can. (M.C.I.) (2015), 472 F.T.R. 59 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] F.T.R. TBEd. MY.051

Carlos Ramirez Rodas (applicant) v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (respondent)

(IMM-6560-13; 2015 FC 250)

Indexed As: Rodas v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)

Federal Court

Zinn, J.

February 27, 2015.

Summary:

Rodas and Mejia lived in and were citizens of Colombia. Mejia was also a citizen of Venezuela. Mejia worked for an airline. In January 2013, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia-People's Army (FARC) pressured Mejia to carry explosives on an aircraft in February. FARC threatened Rodas and Mejia. On February 7, 2013, Rodas was beaten. Rodas and Mejia quit their jobs the next day. They fled Colombia on March 6, 2013, travelling first to the U.S. In June 2013, they claimed refugee protection in Canada. The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) of the Immigration and Refugee Board denied the claims on credibility grounds. The RPD also found that Mejia had an internal flight alternative in Venezuela. Rodas obtained leave for judicial review.

The Federal Court allowed the application, remitting the matter for redetermination by a different panel.

Aliens - Topic 1322

Admission - Refugee protection, Convention refugees and persons in need of protection - Grounds - Well-founded fear of persecution - [See third Aliens - Topic 1323.4 ].

Aliens - Topic 1323.4

Admission - Refugee protection, Convention refugees and persons in need of protection - Credible basis for claim - Rodas sought refugee protection in Canada, claiming a fear of persecution in Colombia from the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia-People's Army (FARC) - Rodas had been beaten and threatened by FARC - He stated that his father and brother had been murdered by FARC - The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) of the Immigration and Refugee Board denied the claim on credibility grounds - Rodas sought judicial review - The Federal Court allowed the application - The RPD's credibility findings were unreasonable - The findings were made without regard to the material before the RPD - The absence of "collateral details" in Rodas' narrative should not have been a matter of concern - The RPD rejected the documentary evidence regarding the deaths of Rodas' father and brother without reasons - This was a key factor in the RPD's credibility assessment - However, as it was considered cumulatively with the RPD's findings regarding Rodas' spouse, the effect of the rejection of documentary evidence on the ultimate credibility finding could not be known - This alone rendered the decision unreasonable - See paragraphs 17 to 22.

Aliens - Topic 1323.4

Admission - Refugee protection, Convention refugees and persons in need of protection - Credible basis for claim - Rodas and Mejia lived in and were citizens of Colombia - Mejia was also a citizen of Venezuela - Mejia worked for an airline - In January 2013, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia-People's Army (FARC) pressured Mejia to carry explosives on an aircraft in February - FARC threatened Rodas and Mejia - On February 7, 2013, Rodas was beaten - Rodas and Mejia quit their jobs the next day - They fled Colombia on March 6, 2013, travelling first to the U.S. - In June 2013, they claimed refugee protection in Canada - The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) of the Immigration and Refugee Board denied the claims on credibility grounds - The RPD also found aspects of Mejia's story implausible due to "heightened security awareness" at airports, which led to a negative inference against Rodas - Rodas obtained leave for judicial review - The Federal Court allowed the application - The RPD's implausibility findings were unreasonable - This was a subjective assessment of the evidence - The RPD failed to clearly identify the facts that formed the basis for her conclusion - The assessment of what was plausible was "mere speculation" - See paragraphs 23 to 27.

Aliens - Topic 1323.4

Admission - Refugee protection, Convention refugees and persons in need of protection - Credible basis for claim - Rodas and Mejia lived in and were citizens of Colombia - Mejia was also a citizen of Venezuela - Mejia worked for an airline - In January 2013, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia-People's Army (FARC) pressured Mejia to carry explosives on an aircraft in February - FARC threatened Rodas and Mejia - On February 7, 2013, Rodas was beaten - Rodas and Mejia quit their jobs the next day - They fled Colombia on March 6, 2013, travelling first to the U.S. - In June 2013, they claimed refugee protection in Canada - The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) of the Immigration and Refugee Board denied the claims on credibility grounds - The RPD drew a negative inference from Rodas' and Mejia's delay in leaving Colombia despite the fact that they had valid visitors' visas for the U.S. - Rodas obtained leave for judicial review - The Federal Court allowed the application - Delay in leaving the country of origin was relevant to credibility and could provide sufficient grounds to dismiss a claim, particularly where there was no reasonable explanation for the delay - Here, a number of incidents culminated in an event that forced Rodas and Mejia to leave - The delay from the first of the incidents should not be considered as indicative of a lack of subjective fear - Rodas and Mejia had gone into hiding for 26 days after the first threat and fled approximately two weeks after that - This was not an undue delay, particularly where they had explained that they needed to borrow money from relatives to leave the country - See paragraphs 28 to 33.

Aliens - Topic 1326.4

Admission - Refugee protection, Convention refugees and persons in need of protection - Refugee Protection Division and Refugee Appeal Division - Reasons - [See first Aliens - Topic 1323.4 ].

Aliens - Topic 1327

Admission - Refugee protection, Convention refugees and persons in need of protection - Time for claim to refugee status - [See third Aliens - Topic 1323.4 ].

Aliens - Topic 1331

Admission - Refugee protection, Convention refugees and persons in need of protection - Evidence - [See first and second Aliens - Topic 1323.4 ].

Cases Noticed:

Akhigbe v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2002] F.T.R. Uned. 153; 112 A.C.W.S.(3d) 930; 2002 FCT 249, refd to. [para. 17].

Khalifa v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2004] F.T.R. Uned. 186; 129 A.C.W.S.(3d) 978; 2004 FC 369, refd to. [para. 17].

Naqui v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2005), 270 F.T.R. 177; 2005 FC 282, refd to. [para. 17].

Feradov et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, [2007] F.T.R. Uned. 40; 154 A.C.W.S.(3d) 1183; 2007 FC 101, refd to. [para. 17].

Zamora Huerta v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2008] F.T.R. Uned. 418; 167 A.C.W.S.(3d) 968; 2008 FC 586, refd to. [para. 22].

New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190; 372 N.R. 1; 329 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 844 A.P.R. 1; 2008 SCC 9, refd to. [para. 22].

Giron v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (1992), 143 N.R. 238; 33 A.C.W.S.(3d) 1270 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

Valtchev v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2001), 208 F.T.R. 267; 2001 FCT 776, refd to. [para. 26].

Velez et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2010] F.T.R. Uned. 620; 2010 FC 923, refd to. [para. 30].

Duarte v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2003] F.T.R. Uned. 567; 2003 FC 988, refd to. [para. 30].

Guarin Caicedo et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2010] F.T.R. Uned. 732; 195 A.C.W.S.(3d) 233; 2010 FC 1092, refd to. [para. 30].

Ibrahimov v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2003] F.T.R. Uned. 705; 2003 FC 1185, refd to. [para. 31].

Counsel:

Jack Davis, for the applicant;

Prathima Prashad, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Davis & Grice, Toronto, Ontario, for the applicant;

William F. Pentney, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent.

This application was heard at Toronto, Ontario, on January 14, 2015, by Zinn, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following reasons for judgment at Vancouver, British Columbia, on February 27, 2015.