In Internal Flight Alternative (IFA), Munoz Perdomo v. Canada, 2026 FC 1148, the Federal Court allowed a Colombian family’s judicial review application and set aside a Refugee Appeal Division decision denying their refugee claim. The Court found that the Division did not address credible evidence that was central to whether Tren de Aragua remained motivated to find the claimants in Colombia.
Case and immigration context
The decision was issued by Justice Danielle Ferron in Montréal on September 11, 2026, in court file IMM-11598-25. The applicants sought judicial review of a May 9, 2025 Refugee Appeal Division decision that had upheld the refusal of their refugee claim.
The principal applicant, his spouse and her minor daughter are citizens of Colombia. They alleged that they feared for their lives after the principal applicant refused demands by members of Tren de Aragua for personal telephone numbers belonging to several influential people in Popayán.
The Refugee Protection Division had found some parts of the evidence credible but identified credibility concerns with other allegations. It ultimately found that Cartagena, Bogotá or Medellín were viable internal flight alternatives. The Refugee Appeal Division independently agreed, finding that the group had the capacity, but not the interest or motivation, to locate the applicants throughout Colombia.
Credible evidence was not addressed in the IFA analysis
A key issue was an event during the applicants’ approximately two-week visit to Colombia in August and September 2022, after more than three years in Chile. The Refugee Protection Division had accepted as credible the evidence that the principal applicant was approached by a man on a motorcycle who said they had been found and that their residence in Chile was known.
The Federal Court held that this evidence was important to the assessment of whether Tren de Aragua had a motivation to pursue the applicants in Colombia. Although the Refugee Appeal Division referred to the applicants’ argument that they had been found upon returning to Colombia, it did not address that event when assessing the group’s motivation.
The Court distinguished the question of motivation in Colombia from evidence concerning whether the alleged persecutors were motivated to find the applicants in Chile. It found that the credible Colombian encounter contradicted the Refugee Appeal Division’s conclusion on motivation and therefore required consideration.
Reasonableness review and the Court’s findings
The parties agreed that reasonableness was the applicable standard of review, and the Court agreed. The Court noted that an administrative decision must rest on an internally coherent and rational analysis that is justified in light of the relevant legal and factual constraints.
The Court also noted that evidence assessment is generally for the administrative decision-maker and attracts deference. However, it held that the Refugee Appeal Division was required to address the significant contradictory evidence concerning the alleged agents’ motivation.
The Court accepted that the absence of threats to some family members in Colombia could be an important indicator relevant to motivation. But it found that the Division failed to weigh that indicator against the credible evidence that the principal applicant had allegedly been located during a short return to Colombia.
Outcome and practical significance
The Federal Court allowed the application for judicial review and returned the matter to the Refugee Appeal Division for redetermination by a different decision-maker. No question of general importance was certified.
The decision does not determine the applicants’ refugee claim or establish that an internal flight alternative is unavailable. It requires a new Refugee Appeal Division determination that considers the record, including the contradictory evidence relevant to the alleged persecutors’ motivation.
Source: Federal Court Decisions