The Federal Court dismissed the Castrillon Palacio refugee case, finding that the Refugee Appeal Division’s conclusions on an internal flight alternative in Bogotá and the absence of a forward-looking risk were reasonable. The decision, Castrillon Palacio c. Canada (Citoyenneté et Immigration), 2026 CF 1116, was issued on September 1, 2026.
Case and decision under review
In Castrillon Palacio c. Canada (Citoyenneté et Immigration), 2026 CF 1116, the Federal Court considered applications for judicial review brought by Colombian citizens. The proceeding was filed under court file IMM-4275-25 and was decided by Justice Negar Azmudeh.
The applicants challenged a February 13, 2025 decision of the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. The RAD had upheld the Refugee Protection Division’s finding that the applicants were neither Convention refugees under section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act nor persons in need of protection under subsection 97(1).
Facts before the Refugee Appeal Division
The principal applicant, Daysi Castrillon Palacio, had worked in customs clearance for a company importing motorcycle and electric-vehicle parts and assemblies in Buenaventura, Colombia. A criminal group allegedly sought her help because of her customs knowledge and threatened her and her family if she refused or reported the group to police. She was also intercepted by two men displaying a gun while travelling to a police station to make a complaint.
Her brother, Wilson Javier Castrillon Palacio, worked as a surveyor and technologist. His claim included alleged intimidation related to his professional ability to sign official documents. In 2022, his twin brother was allegedly abducted after being mistaken for him, and was threatened in relation to demands that Mr. Palacio sign documents. Mr. Palacio later said two men approached him with what he described as a fake gun and gave him one week to comply.
The RAD treated the availability of an internal flight alternative in Bogotá as determinative for the principal applicant’s family. For Mr. Palacio, it concluded that he did not face a prospective risk if returned to Colombia.
Applicants' arguments
The applicants did not challenge the second branch of the internal flight alternative test. Their submissions focused on the first branch: whether the alleged agents of harm would have the motivation to pursue the family in Bogotá.
They argued that the RAD should have considered evidence that family members had moved frequently and that the principal applicant’s refusal to assist the criminal organization gave it continuing motivation to find her. They also submitted that the RAD overlooked potential risks to the children, referring to country evidence describing serious violence, particularly in Buenaventura.
Mr. Palacio argued that he had a fundamental right to continue practising as a surveyor and that there was no evidence he could not obtain another job.
Court finds RAD's reasoning reasonable
The Court applied the reasonableness standard of review. It found that the RAD had accepted that the alleged agents of harm might have had the means and ability to locate the applicants if sufficiently motivated, but reasonably concluded that the required motivation was absent.
The RAD relied in part on the absence of contact with any of the applicants’ relatives in Colombia after the incidents involving the principal applicant. The Court held that it was reasonable for the RAD not to specifically address the family’s frequent moves because there was no basis to conclude that those moves were connected to the applicants or a particular event affecting them.
The Court also accepted the RAD’s conclusion that the criminal group’s interest in the principal applicant was tied to her employment, contacts and knowledge at the port. Since she no longer held that job, the RAD reasonably declined to speculate about continuing motivation. The Court found the RAD’s explanation logical and grounded in the record.
On the children’s circumstances, the Court found that the RAD had specifically assessed the viability of Bogotá for them. The RAD noted that they remained protected by their parents, had access to education, were not required to work and were not exposed to violence. The Court concluded that the country evidence concerning violence in Buenaventura was not relevant to the first branch of the internal flight alternative analysis for Bogotá.
For Mr. Palacio, the Court upheld the RAD’s finding that the alleged perpetrators’ interest was connected to his professional qualifications and that there was no evidence of interest in him for another reason. The RAD also relied on the fact that his relatives in Colombia had not been contacted. The Court found it reasonable for the RAD to reject the argument that refugee protection required him to continue working as a surveyor on the evidence before it.
Outcome and practical significance
The Federal Court held that the RAD had applied the proper legal test, engaged with the evidence before it and provided transparent, intelligible and justified reasons. The applications for judicial review were dismissed.
No question was certified. The decision illustrates that, on judicial review, the Court assesses whether the RAD’s reasoning and outcome are reasonable on the record, rather than reassessing the refugee claim from the beginning. Its conclusions remain tied to the evidence and findings in this case.
Source: Federal Court Decisions