The Federal Court dismissed a Colombian family’s challenge to a negative pre-removal risk assessment (PRRA), finding that the officer reasonably concluded they had not rebutted the presumption of state protection in Colombia. In Palacios v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1275, Justice Régimbald also found that no oral hearing was required.
Case and immigration context
The decision, released on October 19, 2026, concerned an application for judicial review of a June 13, 2025 PRRA refusal. The applicants were Colombian citizens who alleged risks from the Jaime Martinez Front, a subgroup of the Central General Staff, after extortion demands and threats in Colombia.
They also argued that discrimination against Afro-Colombians amounted to persecution. Their refugee protection claim in Canada had previously been found ineligible under the Safe Third Country Agreement, and they later applied for a PRRA after receiving deportation orders.
Officer found no forward-looking personalized risk
The PRRA officer found that the applicants had not established, on a balance of probabilities, a forward-looking and specific risk if returned to Colombia. The officer considered affidavits from the primary applicant’s mother-in-law and two friends, but found the evidence insufficient to establish a future risk of serious harm.
The officer also concluded that the applicants had not rebutted the presumption that Colombia could provide state protection. The PRRA refusal further found that the evidence did not show that discrimination experienced by Afro-Colombians rose to the level of persecution under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
State protection finding was determinative
Justice Régimbald reviewed the substantive PRRA decision on the reasonableness standard. The Court held that the state protection finding disposed of both the applicants’ section 96 and section 97 claims.
The Court noted that the applicants had provided no evidence that they had sought protection from Colombian authorities, or that seeking it would have been futile. It found no evidence of a state breakdown that would excuse the need to seek state protection.
The Court also referred to evidence before the officer indicating that Colombian police had arrested the head of the Jaime Martinez Front and that the military was acting against organized criminal groups. On the record, the Court found it was open to the officer to conclude that the applicants had not provided clear and convincing evidence to rebut the presumption of state protection.
No oral hearing was required
The applicants argued that the officer effectively made a credibility finding about the affidavits without holding an oral hearing. The Court disagreed, characterizing the officer’s assessment as one of evidentiary sufficiency and probative weight rather than credibility.
Justice Régimbald found that the officer did not reject the affidavits as untruthful. Instead, the officer accepted that they could support parts of the applicants’ narrative, but found that they did not demonstrate sustained or escalating efforts to locate or harm the applicants after they left Colombia.
The Court held that an officer’s finding that evidence does not meet an applicant’s burden of proof does not necessarily amount to a negative credibility finding. It also stated that, even if there had been credibility concerns about third-party affiants, section 167 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations does not require an oral hearing to assess third-party credibility.
Afro-Colombian discrimination claim was reasonably assessed
The Court found no reviewable error in the officer’s assessment of the applicants’ Afro-Colombian ethnicity. It accepted that the country evidence described social and economic discrimination and marginalization, but found that the applicants had not shown they had personally experienced discrimination or been denied core human rights.
The officer had directly considered whether the documented discrimination rose to persecution and concluded that it did not on the evidence before them. The Court held that the applicants were asking it to reweigh the evidence, which was not its role on judicial review.
Application dismissed without certified question
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review application. No question of general importance was certified.
The decision is a fact-specific Federal Court ruling. Its practical significance lies in the Court’s emphasis on the evidence needed to challenge a PRRA officer’s state protection finding, and on the distinction between an assessment that evidence is insufficient and a negative credibility finding.
Source: Federal Court Decisions