Valencia v. Canada ( Minister of Employment and Immigration )
IMM-5573-93
Reed J.
17/8/94
10 pp.
Application to quash CRDD decision applicant not Convention refugee -- Grounds for application: not given notice before commencement of hearing existence of internal flight alternative (IFA) would be issue, Board's reasons not expressly stating reasonable for applicant to take refuge in such alternative internal location (i.e. some place in Colombia other than Medellin) -- Application dismissed -- Statement in Thirunavukkarasu v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1994] 3 F.C. 589 (C.A.) "neither the Minister nor the Refugee Division may spring the allegation of an IFA upon a complainant without notice that an IFA will be in issue at the hearing" not direction formal notice must be given to refugee claimant ahead of date of hearing -- Linden J.A. explaining, by way of example, kind of notice to be given: question must be expressly raised at hearing by hearing officer or Board and claimant afforded opportunity to address it with evidence, argument -- Notice requirement to ensure individual not taken by surprise, not prejudiced -- Hearing commenced August 27, 1992 whereat Refugee Hearing Officer stating two issues before Board: credibility, possibility of IFA -- Proceedings adjourned, reconvened January, 1993 -- As result of adjournment, after notice given IFA in issue, applicant having abundant opportunity to marshall evidence, address issue in argument -- Given opportunity to address Board's concerns about living outside Medellin -- No prejudice, surprise -- Rasaratnam v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1992] 1 F.C. 706 (C.A.), setting out two criteria for finding IFA: Board must be satisfied on balance of probabilities no serious possibility of claimant being persecuted in new location; conditions in new location must be such that would not be unreasonable for claimant to seek refuge there -- Applicant submitting Board not expressly addressing whether relocating outside Medellin reasonable alternative for applicant -- Board accepting evidence applicant campaigning on behalf of political party and members of family killed as result of involvement in politics -- Noting Colombia violent, lawless society -- Finding strong claim if not reasonable IFA -- Recognizing while five family members killed in Medellin, parents now living elsewhere in Colombia -- Applicant never personally receiving death threats -- Living with friend on outskirts of Medellin for two years -- During 1985-1987 applicant's involvement in politics ceased -- In any event, involvement in politics at all times at low level -- Not really knowing who agents of persecution were -- Board not distinguishing between considerations relevant to possibility of persecution, at present, in Medellin, and whether, if such existed, applicant having viable flight alternative to somewhere outside city -- Analysis of reasonableness of IFA outside Medellin implicit in Board's decision (i.e. reference to fact applicant's parents living elsewhere without threat of persecution) -- No reasons why living outside Medellin unreasonable -- No finding serious possibility applicant facing persecution in Medellin today -- Not reasonable to require Board or RHO to give notice prior to commencement of hearing IFA to be considered -- Decisions not set aside merely because Board not writing decision as fully as might be wished -- Administrative law test whether sufficient evidence to support Board's conclusion.