Date: 20000118
Docket: IMM-207-00
BETWEEN:
BELA SALLAI and
KATALIN MARIA SALLAINE SZENASI
Applicants
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
BLAIS J.
[1] This is an application for a stay of removal of two Applicants. The decision to have them removed on January 18, 2000 at 5:00 p.m. is dated December 9, 1999. The Applicants waited till the very last minute to file this application.
[2] Justice Teitelbaum in Marenco v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) has mentioned what an Applicant must do to succeed to obtain a stay 1:
| [21] As I have stated and now repeat, it is trite law in order to obtain a stay of a removal order pending an application for leave and judicial review, the applicant must convince the Court that the applicant has, at least, an arguable case, will suffer irreparable harm if removed and that the balance of convenience is in the applicant"s favour. The applicant must convince the Court that all three elements are present and in her favour. The failure to show any one of the three elements is fatal to the application. |
Arguable Case
[3] The Applicants suggests that Maria Cyr, the Officer in this case, has not exercised her discretion in rendering her decision on January 12, 2000.
[4] The Applicants based their argument on Simpson J."s decision in Poyanipur v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)2. In that case, there was evidence that the Officer had mentioned to the Applicant that she lacked any discretion. This is not the same situation in the case at bar.
[5] I have no evidence that the Officer has not exercised her discretion.
[6] The Applicants also suggest that they have submitted an Humanitarian and Compassionate Application in November 1999 (no date was provided). Unfortunately, there is no evidence that this application has been filed.
[7] In my view, I am not convinced that the Applicants have an arguable case.
Irreparable Harm
[8] The Applicants mostly based their arguments on the evidence presented to the Refugee Board.
[9] Referring to the Board"s decision that rejected the Refugee claim:
| I find that the claimants" allegations of what they experienced in Hungary are at best to be considered as discriminatory, but these events do not amount to persecution whether considered singularly or cumulatively. I do not believe that these claimants would face the possibility of persecution if they returned to Hungary, because although of Roma ethnicity, there is adequate and reasonable state protection available to them.3 |
[10] The Applicants have not submitted reliable evidence to convince the Court that they will suffer irreparable harm, if they returned to Hungary.
Balance of Convenience
[11] Given my conclusions on the two others elements of the test, it is not necessary to address the Balance of Convenience.
Conclusion
[12] For the reasons provided, the Application for a stay of the deportation order is dismissed.
"Pierre Blais"
Judge
Toronto, Ontario
January 18, 2000
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
| STYLE OF CAUSE: BELA SALLAI and KATALIN MARIA SALLAINE SZENASI |
Applicants
- and -
| THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
Respondent
| DATE OF HEARING: TUESDAY, JANUARY 18, 2000 |
| PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO |
| REASONS FOR ORDER BY: BLAIS J. |
DATED: TUESDAY, JANUARY 18, 2000
| APPEARANCES: Mr. M. Max Chaudhary |
| SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Chaudhary Law Office |
| Deputy Attorney General of Canada |
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Date: 20000118
Docket: IMM-207-00
Between:
| BELA SALLAI and KATALIN MARIA SALLAINE SZENASI |
Applicants
| THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP |
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
__________________
1 (1994), 86 F.T.R. 299 at p. 303. (Court File No. IMM-4709-94)
2 (1995), 116 F.T.R. 4. (Court File No. IMM-2879-95).
3 Refugee Board"s Decision, at p. 2.
Email this Content