Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), docket IMM-27344-25

UPON MOTION on behalf of the Applicant, Gurpreet Singh [the Applicant or Mr. Singh], for an Order staying his removal from Canada to India, scheduled for tomorrow December 12, 2025, pending the determination of his Application for Leave and for Judicial Review of the December 10, 2025, decision of an Inland Enforcement Officer at the Canadian Border Services Agency [the Officer]; the Officer refused Mr. Singh’s request to defer his removal from Canada, finding that there was insufficient objective and compelling evidence to warrant exercising the limited discretion to defer removal;

AND UPON considering that the tripartite test established in Toth v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1988), 86 NR 302, 6 Imm LR (2d) 123 (FCA) [Toth] guides this Court in determining whether a stay should be granted and requires that an applicant establish all three elements: that there is a serious issue to be tried in the underlying decision; that, if removed, the applicant would suffer irreparable harm pending the final disposition of the Application for Leave and for Judicial Review of the underlying decision (in this case the decision of the Officer refusing to defer the Applicant’s removal); and that the balance of convenience lies in the Applicant’s favour;

AND UPON noting that in determining whether a serious issue exists in a decision to refuse to defer removal, the threshold for the establishment of a serious issue is significantly higher than for other decisions; in such cases, the Court must consider that the Officer’s discretion to defer removal is limited and that the Officer’s decision is reviewed on the reasonableness standard; and, therefore, Mr. Singh must advance a strong case and show a likelihood of success in the underlying application because the stay, if granted, effectively grants him that same relief (i.e., deferral of removal) (Wang v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2001 FCT 148, [2001] 3 FC 682 at para 11; Baron v Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2009 FCA 81 at para 51 [Baron]);

AND UPON noting that the onus also rests on Mr. Singh to establish with clear, convincing and non-speculative evidence that demonstrates a real probability of unavoidable and irreparable harm to him between the date of his removal and the time his Application for Leave and for Judicial Review of the Officer’s decision is finally disposed of (Glooscap Heritage Society v Canada (Minister of National Revenue), 2012 FCA 255 at para 31) and, further noting that irreparable harm is far more serious harm than that which arises from the inherent consequences of removal (Baron at para 69 ) and deferral of removal should be for circumstances “where failure to defer will expose the applicant to the risk of death, extreme sanction or inhumane treatment” (Baron at para 51; Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) v Shpati, 2011 FCA 286 at para 43);

AND UPON considering Mr. Singh’s submissions that serious issues arise in the Officer’s decision to refuse to defer his removal, including that: the Officer ignored the evidence; fettered his discretion; failed to consider new evidence of the risk he will face in India due to his advocacy and involvement in protests in India advocating for the rights of Sikhs, given the recent articles regarding the measures taken by the Indian Government to supress such activism; failed to consider the new evidence regarding his very recent participation in Sikhs for Justice in Calgary, which he joined only after he received his negative Pre-Removal Risk Assessment [PRRA] on October 24, 2025, and which he asserts has come to the attention of the authorities in India; and also failed to consider the best interests of his young son who will remain in Canada;

AND UPON considering Mr. Singh’s submissions that he will suffer irreparable harm if removed to India and will be persecuted due to his activism in India and in Canada for pro‑Khalistan causes; and upon considering that he relies on the affidavit of his father dated November 18, 2025, which states among other things that: Mr. Singh participated in the Farmer’s Protest in India and also protested in March 2023 opposing the government’s suppression of Sikhs’ freedom of expression; Mr. Singh joined Sikhs for Justice in Canada which will place him at risk upon return given that other Khalistan supporters have been jailed; and, the police have attended their home in India in search of Mr. Singh);

AND UPON CONSIDERING Mr. Singh’s submission that he and his young son will suffer irreparable harm from his removal;

AND UPON considering the Respondent’s submissions that Mr. Singh has failed to raise a serious issue in the Officer’s decision that meets the elevated test; the Officer considered all the submissions and limited new evidence presented and reasonably found that the circumstances did not warrant exercising the limited discretion to defer removal; the Officer reasonably found that while the country condition documents relied on portray risks to Sikh activists in general, the evidence does not establish a personalized risk to Mr. Singh; the affidavit of Mr. Singh’s father does not include any details or dates of any alleged personalized risks; the Officer considered the new evidence tendered by Mr. Singh and explained why his father’s affidavit did not constitute evidence of a new risk not previously considered in the PRRA; Mr. Singh has not provided sufficient evidence of irreparable harm to himself, but rather relies on the same allegations of risk previously assessed and generalized risks; Mr. Singh has not established how his removal will cause irreparable harm to his son, beyond the inherent consequences of family disruption upon removal; and, Mr. Singh has not identified any impact of his removal on his probation order in Canada;

AND UPON convening an oral hearing on December 11, 2025, by videoconference and considering the written and oral submissions of the parties and their responses to the Court’s questions, the Records of the Applicant and Respondent, the decision of the Officer, the provisions of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [the Act] and the relevant jurisprudence; and upon noting that given that the Applicant faces removal tomorrow, there is insufficient time for the Court to provide more detailed reasons for its decision;

AND UPON considering that the Officer set out Mr. Singh’s immigration history, noting, among other things that Mr. Singh arrived in Canada in May 2023, and was issued a work permit valid until April 20, 2024; he applied for a spousal open work permit in March 2024 but was removed from his spouse’s application for permanent residency in October 2024, and his spousal work permit application was therefore refused in November 2024; he was issued an exclusion order in December 2024, and his PRRA was refused on March 13, 2025, and this decision was provided to him on October 24, 2025; and also considering that Mr. Singh joined his wife in Canada, his son was born in April 2024, he was subsequently convicted of assault with a weapon and received a conditional discharge and one year probation in October 2025, he is separated from his wife, his wife is the primary caregiver of their son, and by order of the Family Court in Alberta, Mr. Singh has supervised visits with his son twice per week;

AND UPON considering that the decision of the Officer is very thorough considering the limited time the Officer had to determine the deferral request; the Officer addressed all Mr. Singh’s submissions and considered all the recent documentary evidence relied on, including the country condition documents; the Officer also considered the new evidence of the affidavit of Mr. Singh’s father, relied on by Mr. Singh, but concluded that the risks described therein are for the most part the same risks and incidents in India considered by the PRRA Officer, and others are generalized risks, and that there were no details or dates identified related to the alleged visit from the police looking for Mr. Singh, and overall the evidence was insufficient to establish that Mr. Singh’s recent activism in Canada would be known to the Indian Government or that Mr. Singh would be at personal risk upon return; the Officer also considered the short term best interests of Mr. Singh’s young son, noting that Mr. Singh was subject to a court order and only permitted supervised visits with his son and he had not provided a rationale for his request to remain until his next Family Court date; the Officer additionally considered Mr. Singh’s mental health issues, noting he could obtain ongoing treatment in India;

AND UPON noting that the role of the Court is not to reweigh the evidence considered by the Officer but to identify if any serious issue arises; and finding that Mr. Singh has not established a serious issue in the Officer’s thorough decision to defer his removal that would meet the elevated threshold of having a likelihood of success on judicial review; the Officer addressed all the submissions, the evidence and the relevant factors, and found that Mr. Singh’s alleged risk had been evaluated in the previous decisions, most recently in the PRRA, and that there was insufficient new evidence of personalized risk;

AND UPON finding that Mr. Singh has not provided any clear, convincing and non‑speculative evidence to establish any irreparable harm between now and the final disposition of his Application for Leave and for Judicial Review that amounts to exposing him “to the risk of death, extreme sanction or inhumane treatment” but rather relies on the same evidence considered by the Officer; although the country condition documents support that pro-Khalistan activists face risks in India, the evidence does not support that Mr. Singh will be identified for his role in Sikhs for Justice, which by his own evidence, he only very recently joined; and, noting that Mr. Singh’ s immigration history did not include a claim for refugee protection, despite that he now claims he was previously involved in activism in India which places him at risk;

AND UPON noting with respect to the impact on Mr. Singh’s son, which Mr. Singh also asserts as irreparable harm, the Officer considered the short term best interests of the child and concluded that there was insufficient evidence to show any adverse impact, noting that the mother is the child’s primary care giver, which will remain the case, and that Mr. Singh may ultimately be able to seek to return to Canada; as Mr Singh notes, the impact on the family remaining in Canada can constitute irreparable harm, (Tesoro v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FCA 148 [Tesoro]) however, whether it does so depends on the specific facts; as noted in Tesoro at paras 32-34, the facts must demonstrate that the impact goes beyond the usual consequences of removal; in the present case, there is no evidence before this Court to demonstrate that the impact of Mr. Singh’s removal on his young son is more than the unfortunate, yet inherent consequence of removal;

AND UPON finding that the balance of convenience favours the Respondent to ensure the integrity and confidence in Canada’s immigration system, which includes ensuring that the provisions of the Act are carried out including the statutory duty under section 48 of the Act is to enforce a removal order as soon as possible.

THIS COURT ORDERS that :

1. The Motion is dismissed.