Background
The applicants were Colombian citizens challenging a Refugee Appeal Division decision that upheld the denial of their claims under sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. The principal applicant, Daysi Castrillon Palacio, had managed customs clearance for an importer in Buenaventura. A criminal group sought her assistance because of her knowledge of port and customs operations, threatened her family, and intercepted her at gunpoint while she was going to report the threats to police.
For Daysi and her immediate family, the Refugee Appeal Division found that Bogotá offered a viable internal flight alternative. Her brother, Wilson Javier Castrillon Palacio, advanced a separate claim based on threats connected to his work as a surveyor and his authority to sign official documents. After his twin brother was abducted by mistake in 2022, Wilson was later confronted and ordered at gunpoint to cooperate, prompting him to resign and leave Colombia.
The Court’s Holding
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, holding that the Refugee Appeal Division’s decision was reasonable. As to Daysi and her immediate family, the applicants challenged only the first branch of the internal-flight-alternative test. The Division reasonably found that the criminal group had the capacity to locate them but lacked the motivation to pursue them in Bogotá. Its conclusion was supported by the absence of contact with relatives remaining in Colombia and by evidence that the group’s interest in Daysi arose from the port-specific usefulness of her former employment, which she no longer held.
The Division also reasonably addressed the children’s circumstances and found no particular vulnerability that made relocation unviable. Regarding Wilson, it reasonably concluded that he faced no prospective risk because the perpetrators’ interest was tied to his professional qualifications, no evidence showed continuing interest after he left that work, and relatives in Colombia had not been contacted. The Division was also entitled to find that requiring him to seek different employment did not infringe a fundamental aspect of human dignity or place him within a protected group.
Key Takeaways
- An agent of persecution’s ability to locate a claimant does not defeat an internal flight alternative unless the evidence also establishes motivation to pursue the claimant there.
- A criminal group’s interest tied to a claimant’s former, location-specific employment may cease when the claimant leaves that position, particularly where relatives who remain in the country are not contacted.
- A claimant generally cannot establish refugee protection merely because avoiding risk may require changing occupations, absent a connection between that work and fundamental human dignity or a protected ground.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the evidence-driven distinction between an alleged persecutor’s capacity and motivation to pursue a claimant within the country of origin. It also confirms that the reasonableness of an internal flight alternative must be assessed at the proposed destination, rather than by relying on generalized conditions in the claimant’s former city.
For occupationally connected threats, the ruling underscores the importance of proving a continuing, forward-looking risk that persists after the claimant leaves the role that originally attracted criminal interest.