Sign in Subscribe
Emigration and immigration

Federal Court of Canada Dismisses Refugee Protection Claim

Strategic Insights

— 2 min read

A recent decision by the Federal Court of Canada's Justice Madam Anne M. Turley has dismissed a refugee protection claim by Jefferson Rebollendo Lopez, citing failure to establish a serious possibility of persecution in an internal flight alternative (IFA). The court's reasoning relied on a two-pronged test to assess the viability of an IFA, which involves evaluating the agent of persecution's means and motivation to locate the claimant. The court found that the applicant failed to meet the required burden to prove ongoing attempts to locate him by contacting his family members, which supports a lack of motivation to pursue him.

Key Takeaways:

  • The court applied a two-pronged test to determine the viability of an IFA, considering whether a claimant would be subject to a serious possibility of persecution in the proposed IFA and whether it is reasonable to expect the claimant to seek safety in the IFA.
  • The applicant relied on an attempt to locate him through his nephew as proof of ongoing motivation, but the court found that the lack of evidence of ongoing attempts to locate the applicant through his family members reasonably supports the conclusion that there is no ongoing motivation to pursue him.
  • The court recognized that a lack of evidence of efforts by the agent of persecution to locate a claimant by contacting their family members can reasonably support that there is no ongoing motivation to pursue them.
  • The court dismissed the application based on the reasonable and justified assessment of the RAD's decision, finding that the applicant failed to meet the required burden to prove ongoing attempts to locate him by contacting his family members.
  • The decision cites several previous court cases in support of the reasoning, including Singh v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), Adeleye v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), Olusola v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), Lorenzana Villafuerte, Jamal, Ocampo, and Leon.

Statistics:

  • The court cited several previous cases in support of the two-pronged test for determining the viability of an IFA, including Singh v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), Adeleye v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), Olusola v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), Lorenzana Villafuerte, Jamal, Ocampo, and Leon.
  • The applicant made several arguments regarding his risk profile and the reasonableness of the RAD's decision.
  • The court found that the RAD had already addressed the applicant's risk profile in its decision and that the applicant had not met the required burden to prove ongoing attempts to locate him by contacting his family members.
  • The decision notes that the RAD considered the applicant's evidence of motivation and found that there were no ongoing attempts to find out his location other than from the unidentified individuals who questioned his nephew once in 2023.

Sources:

  • Singh v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 996
  • Adeleye v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 81
  • Olusola v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 799
  • Lorenzana Villafuerte v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 1448
  • Jamal v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 1633
  • Ocampo v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 1058
  • Leon v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 428

Read more