Castelan v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), docket IMM-24805-25

ORDER

UPON considering the Applicant’s motion for a stay of removal to Mexico, scheduled to take place on December 15, 2025;

AND UPON considering that the motion is brought incidental to an application for leave and judicial review of the decision of a Senior Immigration Officer refusing the Applicant’s Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA);

AND UPON considering the motion materials filed by both parties and hearing the submissions made by the parties in a videoconference hearing held on December 15, 2025;

AND UPON considering that a party seeking a stay of a removal must meet the following three-part test: (1) the application for judicial review raises a “serious question to be tried;” (2) the party will suffer irreparable harm if a stay were refused; and (3) the balance of convenience favours granting the stay (i.e., the harm resulting from the refusal of the stay is greater than the harm resulting from the granting of the stay) (RJR-MacDonald Inc v Canada (Attorney General), 1994 CanLII 117 (SCC), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 311 at 334; Toth v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), 1988 CanLII 1420 (FCA), [1988] FCJ No 587 (FCA));

AND UPON considering that a stay of removal will be granted when it is just and equitable in the circumstances (Google Inc v Equustek Solutions Inc, 2017 SCC 34 at paras 1, 25);

AND UPON finding that the Applicant has not demonstrated that there is a serious issue with the underlying decision, specifically there is no serious issue that the Officer unreasonably rejected the new evidence submitted by the Applicant, nor that the Officer gave little weigh to the new evidence from the Applicant’s mother and brother because it was vague, nor that the Officer mischaracterized the threat posed by the Applicant’s feared agents of persecution, nor that the Officer misapprehended evidence, nor that the Officer breached the principles of procedural fairness;

AND UPON being satisfied that the Applicant has not demonstrated through “clear and non-speculative evidence” that irreparable harm will result if the stay is not granted, either to him personally or in the potential for the remedy in the underlying application to be rendered nugatory, given that there is no serious issue in the underlying application (Erhire v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) 2021 FC 941 at para 65);

AND UPON being satisfied that the balance of convenience favours the Respondent because the Respondent’s interest in expeditiously effecting a removal order under subsection 48(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 is not outweighed by the Applicant’s interest in staying removal from Canada.

THIS COURT ORDERS that:

1. The motion is dismissed and the removal scheduled for December 15, 2025, is not stayed pending the disposition of the underlying application for leave and judicial review.

2. There is no order regarding costs.