Date: 20250305
|
Docket: IMM-5918-23
Citation: 2025 FC 411
|
Ottawa, Ontario, March 5, 2025
|
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Heneghan
|
BETWEEN:
|
SUNGKOOK PAK
|
Applicant |
and
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
|
Respondent
|
REASONS AND JUDGMENT
[1] Mr. Sungkook Pak (the “Applicant”
) seeks judicial review of the decision of a Senior Immigration Officer (the “Officer”
), dismissing his Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (“PRRA”
) application.
[2] The Applicant is a citizen of South Korea and a defector from North Korea. He sought protection in Canada on the basis of his prior persecution in North Korea.
[3] The Applicant entered Canada in 2012, using a fraudulent passport. His claim for refugee protection was denied in 2014. He submitted a PRRA application in 2019. The PRRA application was refused twice, and each time was sent back for redetermination.
[4] In the decision now under review, the Officer found that the Applicant would not be at risk in South Korea.
[5] The Applicant now pleads that the Officer considered the evidence selectively and did not properly assess his risk of self harm. He also submits that the Officer applied the wrong test for assessing risk pursuant to section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (the “
Act”
).
[6] The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (the “Respondent”
) contends that the Office reasonably considered the evidence and applied the relevant test. He argues that health and medical issues are not risks to be considered under section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Act. He submits that the Applicant is asking the Court to reweigh the evidence.
[7] Following the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, [2019] 4 S.C.R. 653, the decision is reviewable on the standard of reasonableness.
[8] In considering reasonableness, the Court is to ask if the decision under review “bears the hallmarks of reasonableness — justification, transparency and intelligibility — and whether it is justified in relation to the relevant factual and legal constraints that bear on that decision”
; see Vavilov, supra at paragraph 99.
[9] I agree with the position advanced by the Respondent.
[10] The Officer reviewed the evidence and addressed the submissions of the Applicant. The relevant test for protection was applied, that is that the Applicant is required to demonstrate that his fears of persecution were both subjectively held and objectively well-founded.
[11] There is no basis for judicial intervention and the application for judicial review will be dismissed. There is no question for certification.
Email this Content