Date: 20250305
|
Docket: IMM-13070-23
Citation: 2025 FC 412
|
Ottawa, Ontario, March 5, 2025
|
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Heneghan
|
BETWEEN:
|
THI NGOC HUYEN NGUYEN
|
Applicant |
and
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
|
Respondent
|
REASONS AND JUDGMENT
[1] Ms. Thi Ngoc Huyen Nguyen (the “Applicant”
) seeks judicial review of the decision of the Immigration and Refugee Board, Refugee Appeal Division (the “RAD”
), dismissing her appeal from a decision of the Immigration and Refugee Board, Refugee Protection Division (the “RPD”
).
[2] The Applicant is a citizen of Viet Nam. She sought protection in Canada on the grounds that she would suffer persecution in Viet Nam due to her religious beliefs and practice on Thanh Hai. Thanh Hai is a Buddhist sect that is classified as a cult in Viet Nam.
[3] The RPD dismissed the Applicant’s claim for protection pursuant to both section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (the “Act”
). It found that the Applicant had failed to establish both a subjective and objective basis for her claim for protection.
[4] The RAD dismissed the Applicant’s appeal on the grounds that she had failed to establish both a subjective and objective basis for her claim for protection.
[5] It is unnecessary to recite the facts, since they are set out in the decisions of the RPD and of the RAD. It is unnecessary to set out the arguments since they are known to the parties.
[6] Essentially, the Applicant argues that the RAD failed to consider her evidence on appeal, and erred in finding that her practice of Thanh Hai would not lead to more than a mere risk of persecution.
[7] The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (the “Respondent”
) submits that the Applicant is effectively asking the Court to reweigh the evidence which is not the role of the Court upon judicial review.
[8] 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.
[9] 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.
[10] According to the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal in Huruglica v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), [2016] 4 F.C.R. 157, the RAD reviews decisions of the RPD on a correctness standard, in other words upon a de novo review.
[11] Upon review and consideration of the evidence in the Certified Tribunal Record in this case, the affidavit of the Applicant filed in support of this application for judicial review, and of the submissions, both written and oral, I am not persuaded that the RAD made an unreasonable decision or committed any reviewable error that would justify this Court’s intervention.
[12] I refer to the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 689 where the Court said the following:
More generally, what exactly must a claimant do to establish fear of persecution? As has been alluded to above, the test is bipartite: (1) the claimant must subjectively fear persecution; and (2) this fear must be well-founded in an objective sense.
[13] This decision may be “old”
, but it remains good law.
[14] I agree with the position advanced by the Respondent, that the Applicant seeks a reweighing of the evidence and that this is not the job of the Court on judicial review.
[15] In the result, this application for judicial review will be dismissed. There is no question for certification.
Email this Content