PHU TAM HUYNH Applicant v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION, 2018 FC 148

Date: 20180208 Docket: IMM-2402-17 Citation: 2018 FC 148 Calgary, Alberta, February 8, 2018 PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Heneghan BETWEEN:PHU TAM HUYNHApplicantand THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATIONRespondent JUDGMENT AND REASONS [1] Mr. Phu Tam Huynh (the “Applicant”) seeks judicial review of the decision of Senior Immigration Officer (the “Officer”), refusinghis Pre Removal Risk Assessment (“PRRA”) application. [2] The Applicant is a citizen of Vietnam. In 1975, he was granted Refugee status in France. He came to Canada in 1985 and wasgranted permanent residence status.

He subsequently lost that status on the basis of a lengthy history of convictions for criminal offenses. [3] In March 2012, a Deportation Order was issued against the Applicant. [4] In the decision, the Officer found the Applicant was not at risk of persecution if returned to France or Vietnam. Prior to the hearingof this application the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (the “Respondent”) advised that he would not be making submissionabout a return to Vietnam [5] A PRRA decision is reviewable on the standard of reasonableness; see the decision in Korkmaz v.

Canada (Minister of Public Safetyand Emergency Preparedness), 2015 FC 1124 [6] According to the decision in Dunsmuir v New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9 , [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190, that standard requires that adecision be transparent, justifiable and intelligible and fall within a range of possible, acceptable outcomes. [7] The only issue then is whether the Officer’s decision, that the Applicant can return to France, meets the relevant standard of review. [8] In my opinion, it does not. [9] The Applicant provided evidence to the Officer that his status as a Refugee in France "“has likely lapsed”".

The evidence was anemail provided by a lawyer in France. [10] The Officer was aware of the Applicant’s submissions that he is a stateless person. It does not appear, on the record, that the Officerconsidered the evidence submitted that supported this contention. [11] It follows that the Officer’s decision is not "“transparent”" or justifiable. [12] In the result, this application for judicial review will be allowed and the matter remitted to another Officer for redetermination, noquestion for certification arising.

JUDGMENT for IMM-2402-17 THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that the application for judicial review is allowed, the matter is remitted to another officer forredetermination, no question for certification arising. "E. Heneghan" Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET: IMM-2402-17 STYLE OF CAUSE: PHU TAM HUYNH v. MCI PLACE OF HEARING: toronto, ontario DATE OF HEARING: november 20, 2017 JUDGMENT AND reasons: HENEGHAN J. DATED: FEBRUARY 8, 2018 APPEARANCES : Richard Wazana For The Applicant Melissa Mathieu For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : Wazanalaw Barrister and Solicitor Toronto, Ontario For The Applicant Deputy Attorney General of Canada For The Respondent