Date: 20100520
Docket: IMM-1733-10
Citation: 2010
FC 551
Toronto, Ontario,
May
20, 2010
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Zinn
BETWEEN:
YASEEN AHAMAD HOSEIN
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION AND THE
MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY
AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
Respondents
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1]
The applicant brings a motion for
the stay of his removal to Trinidad which is scheduled for May 31, 2010. The
underlying application is for leave and judicial review of a Call-In Notice
dated March 26, 2010, directing Mr. Hosein to report to the Greater Toronto Enforcement
Centre on April 23, 2010 to sign his Direction to Report for Removal.
[2]
Although he has had a negative
PRRA determination and a refusal to defer his removal, neither of those decisions,
as yet, has been made the subject of an application for judicial review. The
applicant’s position on this motion is that the Call-In Notice ought never to
have been sent to him as he has the benefit of an administrative deferral because
of his outstanding spousal application. The respondents submit that if Mr.
Hosein ever benefitted from such a deferral, the period of the deferral has
expired and thus there is no serious issue shown relating to the underlying
application.
[3]
Mr. Hosein arrived in Canada on July 17, 2005 and
made a claim for refugee status on March 28, 2007.
That claim was rejected by decision made on April 17, 2009.
This Court dismissed an application for leave to judicially review that
decision on July 29, 2009.
[4]
Mr. Hosein was notified of his
Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) in person on October 26, 2009 and his PRRA
was initiated on that date. The applicant submits that there is no certainty
when he was sent a call-in for this purpose. If it was necessary to determine
that fact, I would have accepted the officer’s notes to file which indicate
that it was sent on October 6, 2009.
[5]
The applicant on October 22, 2009
mailed an in-land spousal application which was received on October 28, 2009.
[6]
On February 26, 2010 the applicant
requested a deferral of removal saying that such a deferral is warranted
because his “application for permanent residence as a member of the inland
spouse/common-law class was filed prior to him being served with a Pre-Removal
Risk Assessment and, consequently, he meets the requirements for applying under
this category.” The “category” referenced is the ‘Spouse in Canada Public
Policy’ of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration whereby the Minister
grants an administrative deferral of removal for individuals who have submitted
a spousal application before they become removal ready.
[7]
The respondents take the position
on this motion that the applicant’s spousal application was filed after he
became removal ready and therefore he cannot benefit from the policy. I do not
need to decide that question because I agree with the respondents that if there
ever had been such an administrative deferral, it has expired.
[8]
The Ministerial deferral policy
provides that “for those applicants who are receiving a pre-removal risk
assessment (PRRA), the administrative deferral for processing applicants under
this H&C public policy will be in effect for the time required to complete
the PRRA.” That time has passed and thus any administrative deferral has
expired. Accordingly, even on the low standard of a serious issue being an
issue that is not frivolous or vexatious, I cannot find a serious issue in this
application.
[9]
It was suggested that the Court
nonetheless should issue a stay given the personal circumstances of the
applicant and his family. As compelling as those circumstances may be, I
cannot do so.
[10]
For these reasons the motion for a
stay of removal is dismissed.
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS that the motion for a stay of removal is dismissed.
"Russel W. Zinn"
Email this Content