Internal Flight Alternative: Why Evidence Matters
- Citation
- 2025 FC 1116
- Decided
- Court file
- IMM-10358-23
- Full judgment
- Read the decision
Case Law Overview
Tamayo Abondano v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1116
Applicants, Colombian citizens, sought refugee protection based on targeting by a criminal organization, the Carreteros, and alleged affiliation with a larger group, Los Maracuchos. The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) denied their claim, finding a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) in Cali, Colombia.
Court Ruling
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, affirming that the RPD's finding regarding the lack of a credible link between the Carreteros and Los Maracuchos, and thus the agents of harm's means to pursue them to the IFA, was reasonable and procedurally fair.
Key Quote from the Court
I find that it was reasonably open to the RPD to find the Principal Applicant's evidence to be of no assistance in establishing the necessary link between the Carreteros and Los Maracuchos, as it consisted of nothing more than a bald assertion that there was a connection between the two organizations, which was speculative and unsupported by objective documentary evidence. (at para 19)
Expert Takeaways
-
Evidentiary Burden in IFA Claims Applicants must provide concrete, objective evidence to prove that agents of persecution have the means and motivation to pursue them to a proposed Internal Flight Alternative (IFA). Speculation or bald assertions are insufficient.
-
Proving Organizational Links Establishing affiliations between criminal organizations requires more than claimant testimony. Documentary evidence, such as newspaper articles, media reports, or expert reports, is crucial to substantiate such claims.
-
Specificity in Post-Hearing Submissions Any additional evidence submitted post-hearing must directly contradict the decision-maker's reasoning or be 'critical' to the outcome. General information, even if supportive of background conditions, may not sway the decision if it fails to address the specific gaps in the original claim.
-
Procedural Fairness Presumption Immigration officers are presumed to have considered all submitted evidence. A failure to explicitly mention every piece of evidence in a decision does not automatically constitute a breach of procedural fairness unless the omitted evidence was critical and contradictory.
There is a deadline on this
That is the window to file an Application for Leave and for Judicial Review at the Federal Court, counted from the day you were notified of the decision. An extension can be requested, but it is granted at the Court's discretion - it is not automatic.
Check my deadlineDoes this ruling apply to your situation?
Tick whatever is true for you. Nothing is sent anywhere - this stays in your browser.
That combination is worth a proper look. It does not mean you have a case - only a lawyer reading your actual documents can say that - but it does mean the question is worth asking before your filing window closes.
Disclaimer
The information provided in this article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Immigration law is complex and subject to change. For advice specific to your situation, please schedule a consultation with a qualified legal professional.
Want a second look at your refusal?
We assess IRCC refusals and pursue judicial review at the Federal Court when the decision is unreasonable.
No obligation - we review your documents and tell you if a Federal Court application is realistic.
Questions people ask after reading a case like this
Does this mean my own case will succeed?
No. Every application is decided on its own record. A reported decision shows how the Federal Court has reasoned about a particular kind of error - it does not predict the result of a different file. What it can tell you is whether the problem in your refusal is the kind of problem the Court has been willing to intervene on.
How long do I have to challenge a refusal?
Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act you generally have 15 days to file an Application for Leave and for Judicial Review if the decision was made inside Canada, and 60 days if it was made outside Canada, counted from when you were notified. The Court can extend that period, but an extension is discretionary - it is not automatic.
What actually happens at the Federal Court?
Judicial review has two stages. You file the application and a written record, and a judge decides on paper whether to grant leave - permission for the case to proceed. If leave is granted, there is a hearing. The Court does not re-decide your immigration application; it decides whether the officer's decision was reasonable and procedurally fair. If you succeed, the file is normally sent back to be decided again by a different officer.
Do I have to be in Canada to bring an application?
No. Applicants outside Canada regularly bring judicial review applications, which is why the longer 60-day deadline exists for decisions made abroad. Applicants are not normally required to attend in person.
What happens in the free 15-minute review?
You explain what was refused or delayed and when you were notified. We tell you whether your filing window is still open, which issues in the decision look arguable, and what the realistic options are - including reapplying instead of litigating, where that is the better route. There is no obligation to retain us afterwards.
More Refugee Claim / Asylum rulings
Federal Court Slams Refugee Board's 'Unreasonable' Credibility Findings
Federal Court: IRCC's Delays Cannot Justify Further Delays in Refugee PR Case
Federal Court: Failure to Prove Identity is Fatal to a Refugee Claim
Federal Court: Inconsistent Testimony Fatal to Refugee Credibility
Written by
Ali Dadkhah
Ali Dadkhah is a litigator whose practice is dedicated to challenging government decisions at the Federal Court of Canada. He specializes in judicial review, providing a crucial avenue for recourse for individuals and businesses who have faced unfair or unreasonable administrative outcomes. Bilingual legal support in English and Persian (Farsi)