The Federal Court dismissed an IFA challenge brought by a Colombian family after finding the Refugee Appeal Division reasonably concluded that an internal flight alternative was available in Colombia. The September 1, 2026 judgment found that the RAD had addressed the applicants’ circumstances as Afro-Colombians, including evidence of systemic discrimination.
Refugee claim and RAD decision
Aracely Montano Riascos and her children sought judicial review of a July 16, 2024 Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision rejecting their refugee claim. The RAD had upheld the Refugee Protection Division’s February 26, 2024 refusal, finding that the family had a viable internal flight alternative (IFA).
The applicants are citizens of Colombia, and the principal applicant also holds permanent residence status in Chile. Their claim included fears relating to a criminal organization, La Empresa, in Colombia, as well as the principal applicant’s former spouse and former colleague in Chile.
The RAD found no evidence that La Empresa, described as a regionally based gang, had tried to locate or threaten the applicants after they left for Chile in 2018. It also found that they had not established that they were likely targets of the gang. The RAD accepted that return to Chile was not appropriate because of the former colleague’s harassment and inadequate state protection.
The RAD acknowledged systemic discrimination and ongoing barriers affecting Afro-Colombians in Colombia. However, it concluded that the applicants had not shown that the discrimination created a personalized risk under sections 96 or 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, or that relocation to the proposed IFA would be unduly harsh.
Applicants challenged the IFA analysis
At the Federal Court hearing, the applicants focused on the second part of the IFA test: whether relocation would be objectively unreasonable in all the circumstances. They argued that the RAD had not meaningfully assessed the cumulative effects of racial discrimination on access to housing, education, health care and employment.
They submitted that country-condition evidence concerning Afro-Colombians in the proposed IFA showed systemic discrimination and exclusion that could make relocation objectively unreasonable. They also argued that the RAD had focused too narrowly on safety and peripheral features of their circumstances.
Court applied reasonableness review
Justice Ngo held that reasonableness was the applicable standard of review. The Court noted that a reasonable decision must be justified, transparent and intelligible within its legal and factual constraints, and that the party challenging the decision bears the burden of showing it is unreasonable.
The Court restated that an IFA requires both that the claimant face no serious possibility of persecution or risk under sections 96 or 97 in the proposed location and that it would not be objectively unreasonable to seek refuge there. On the second branch, the threshold is high: there must be actual and concrete evidence of conditions that would jeopardize a claimant’s life and safety in travelling or temporarily relocating.
Although the applicants concentrated on the second branch, the Court also found that the RAD’s analysis of the first branch was not unreasonable.
RAD considered applicants’ profiles, Court finds
The Court rejected the submission that the RAD had overlooked the applicants’ personal circumstances. Reading the RAD decision as a whole, Justice Ngo found that it addressed the vulnerabilities, systemic discrimination and barriers raised in relation to the IFA.
The Court noted that the RAD referred to the principal applicant’s profile as an Afro-Colombian woman and single mother, as well as the discrimination asserted by the associate applicants. The placement of part of that analysis before the heading for the second IFA branch did not make the decision unreasonable.
Justice Ngo found that general conditions described in country documentation do not, by themselves, make an IFA unreasonable. In this case, the Court concluded that intervening would require it to reassess the country-condition evidence and reach a different conclusion from the RAD, which is not the Court’s role on judicial review.
Judicial review dismissed
The Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding that the RAD’s reasons were coherent, rational and responsive to the applicants’ submissions. It found that the decision met the hallmarks of reasonableness.
No question was certified for appeal. The judgment concerns the reasonableness of the RAD’s IFA assessment on the record before it, including the evidence and arguments concerning discrimination against Afro-Colombians.
Source: Federal Court Decisions