Date: 20091001
Dockets: IMM-3998-09
IMM-4664-09
IMM-4721-09
Citation: 2009
FC 993
Ottawa, Ontario,
October 1, 2009
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Lemieux
BETWEEN:
ABADIR ALI
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
AND THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY
AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
Respondents
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
Introduction and background
[1]
The
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and the Minister of Public Safety and
Emergency Preparedness (the “Ministers”) plan to remove the Applicant to his
country of nationality – Somalia. As will be seen, the place
in Somalia where it was first
contemplated he would be removed to is Somaliland where he was born; it is a
region located in northwest Somalia. It now planned to remove him
to Bossaso in Puntland, a region in the northeast. Mr. Ali seeks to stay that
removal which is scheduled to take place in the first two weeks in October of
this year. He is currently incarcerated on Immigration Hold, at the Innes
Detention Centre in Ottawa, he has been there since
February 1, 2008. He has had the benefit of several detention reviews as
required by law, but it has been determined by the Immigration Division he is
to remain in detention.
[2]
The matter
of the Applicant’s stay request first came before me on an urgent basis on
September 22, 2009, in the morning. The Applicant had been informed orally, on
September 15, 2009, his 2004 deportation order would be enforced on September
22, 2009, late in the morning. The travel arrangements contemplated he would be
taken from detention by two CBSA officers who would escort him to Nairobi Kenya on flights from Montreal and Amsterdam; he would then be accompanied
to the point of departure for his flight to Mogadishu, Somalia. Prior to his departure from
Nairobi, the Applicant would be provided with approximately 150 euros to
purchase onward transportation by air or land to the North [of Somalia] if he
so wishes and he, at that time, would also be provided with the daily schedule
of flights from Mogadishu to Hargesia, in Somaliland.
[3]
After
hearing the parties briefly on September 22, 2009, I granted Mr. Ali an interim
stay on condition he not be released from detention. I set the hearing of the
stay for Friday, September 25, 2009 at 15:00 hours. Because of the voluminous
material filed in support of the stay, the fact the Respondent had filed a
written response on the morning of September 22, 2009, which the Court had only
scanned briefly and counsel for the Applicant had not seen and the time
constraints surrounding his removal, fairness dictated the issuance of an
interim stay. During that short hearing, I drew to both counsel’s attention
this Court’s decision in Aden
v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2009
FC 561 (Aden), where I granted a stay of Mr. Aden’s removal, via
Mogadishu, to the north of Somalia; the underlying judicial review application,
in that case, was that of a PRRA Officer’s decision Mr. Aden would not be at
risk.
Background
[4]
Mr. Ali is
26 years old. At the age of eight, he entered Canada with his step mother in 1991;
they claimed for refugee status and were both successful in October 1992.
He became a permanent resident of Canada
on May 28, 1993.
[5]
On
February 10, 2004,
he was the subject of an inadmissibility report, under subsection 44(1) of the Immigration
and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), for serious criminality on account of an
aggravated assault he was charged on February 2001 and convicted on February
4, 2002. He was declared inadmissible; a deportation order was issued
against him on May 12, 2004. He lost his appeal to the Immigration
Appeal Division (IAD), leave to appeal was refused by a judge of this Court.
The May 2004 deportation order is the legal basis for his removal.
[6]
Mr. Ali
was detained by Immigration Officials in 2004 and 2006. On both occasions, he
was released subject to conditions which he breached. In 2006,
Immigration Officials decided not to proceed with his removal to Somalia. He was issued a warning not to
engage in further criminal activity. Prior to the February 2002 conviction, Mr.
Ali had a previous string of four minor convictions in the Youth Court.
[7]
On July
26, 2007, Mr.
Ali was arrested by the Ottawa Police on a charge of aggravated assault on a
young woman. The assault was particularly vicious; the victim was brutally
beaten and was lucky to survive. He was convicted in the late 2007 and
sentenced on January 3, 2008.
[8]
Being a
Convention Refugee, Mr. Ali could not be removed to Somalia unless he was found to be a danger to
the public, under paragraph 115(2)(a) of IRPA. On May 9, 2008, Mr. Ali
received notice the Immigration authorities intended to seek an opinion he was
a danger to the public. Through counsel, he made submissions. On June 30,
2009, the Minister’s Delegate (the “Delegate”) issued an opinion to the
following effect: (1) he was inadmissible on grounds of serious criminality;
(2) he was a danger to the public; (3) he would not be at any more risk than
anyone else in Somalia and any minimal risk he could possibly face in Somalia
was greatly outweighed by the danger he poses to Canadian society. He did not meet
the tests in sections 96 and 97 of IRPA; and, (4) despite the fact he has no
family in any part of Somalia (or Somaliland) there were insufficient
humanitarian and compassionate factors present to warrant favourable
consideration for allowing him to remain in Canada.
The Stay Application and its
underpinnings
[9]
Mr. Ali’s
stay application is grafted to three applications for leave and judicial
review, launched by Mr. Ali’s new counsel over the last couple of months. These
applications are:
(1) IMM-3998-09 where the
underlying decision is the Delegate’s decision, dated June 30, 2009, Mr. Ali
was a danger to public and would not be subject to a personalized risk of
return to Somalia. The application for leave
and judicial review is seemingly filed late. The Applicant as he must, under
Rule 6 of the Federal Courts Immigration and Refugee Protection Rules,
in his leave application did request an extension of time to file and serve his
leave application. According to subsection 6(2) of the Federal Courts
Immigration Rules, a decision on whether to grant the extension is to be
decided at the same time and on the same materials as the application for leave.
Paragraph 72(2)(c) of IRPA provides the Court may, for special reasons, allow
an extended time for the filing and serving of the leave application.
(2) IMM-4664-09 where the
underlying decision is said to be “a Removal Order made by a Senior Immigration
Officer on September 18, 2009 ….”
(3) IMM-4721-09 where the
underlying decision is dated September 21, 2009, made by Enforcement Officer
Gavin Beck (the “Enforcement Officer”), refusing to defer Mr. Ali’s removal to
Somalia and specifically to Mogadishu, leaving it up to Mr. Ali to somehow make
his way to the north.
[10]
At the
hearing of the stay application on Friday, September 25, 2009, it was necessary
to clarify some issues related to the underlying applications for leave, to
which the stay application was grafted, since counsel for the Respondent took
the position in her written material the Applicant was in error, in linking his
stay application to Court File IMM-4664-09, because no removal order was made
by an immigration officer on September 18, 2009. All that happened that day was
that the Applicant was provided with a copy of the 2004 deportation order. In
addition, the previous day his legal counsel was advised in writing Mr. Ali
would be removed from Canada on September 22, 2009.
[11]
After
discussion with the Court, his counsel recognized his client’s stay application
could not be grafted to the leave and judicial review application in
IMM-4664-09. As a result the stay application grafted to IMM-4664-09 is
dismissed.
[12]
Mr. Ali
has also linked his stay application to IMM-3998-09, which is an application
for leave and judicial review of the Delegate’s June 30, 2009 decision he was a
danger to the public and there were no compelling factors which would tip the
scale he not be removed to Somalia. His leave application raises
two problems. First, it is out of time and whether to extend time will only be
decided by a judge at the same time as that judge decides the leave
application. Second, the Applicant is late in serving and filing his leave
application record and his application to extend time to do so is now before a
judge of this Court for decision. If extension of time is refused, that is the
end of the leave application.
[13]
In respect
of his stay request linked to IMM-3998-09, it was not argued before me, I had
no jurisdiction to grant the stay because there was no matter before this Court
since a decision whether to extend time to enable Mr. Ali to commence
IMM-3998-09 has not yet been decided. Moreover, the decision whether to extend
time for serving and filing his application record on the leave application is
outstanding and is being vigorously opposed by the Respondent. In the
circumstances, it is prudent, in my view, not to decide this stay application
linked to IMM-3998-09. Such linkage is too tenuous at this stage of the
proceedings. My decision in this respect does not cause Mr. Ali any prejudice
because the heart of his stay application is the recent change of circumstances
in Somalia, a matter put before the Enforcement Officer who adopted, by incorporation,
the Delegate’s reasoning on the risk Mr. Ali might face if removed to Somalia.
In this way, the Delegate’s views may be taken into account when reviewing the
Enforcement Officer’s decision, which is being challenged under IMM-4721-09, to
which the stay application is properly grafted.
The Enforcement Officer’s decision not to
defer
[14]
As noted,
Enforcement Officer Beck decided on September 21, 2009 not to defer Mr. Ali’s
removal to Somalia and specifically to Mogadishu. Counsel for Mr. Ali had
requested deferral by letter dated September 20, 2009 (a Sunday), which reached
Mr. Beck on Monday, September 21, 2009.
[15]
The basis
for Mr. Ali’s request for deferral was “on the basis of a recent change in
country conditions.” In support of that proposition, Mr. Ali’s counsel
submitted:
·
The
affidavits of Yusuf Kadie who travelled to Somalia for two months in April and May 2009.
·
The
affidavit of Faisal Jama who is the Applicant’s uncle from his mother’s side.
·
A petition
from members of the Somalia community in Ottawa that Mr. Ali’s removal be deferred on
the basis of recent changes in country conditions.
·
Various
documents from organizations such as M.A.P. (Mentorship – aftercare – presence)
as to Mr. Ali’s chances of being rehabilitated.
·
Various
documents on country conditions in Somalia,
Somaliland and Puntland.
[16]
In his
reasons, officer Beck summarized Mr. Ali’s reasons for deferral to be:
·
Since July
2009, when Mr. Abadir [sic] was served with his Danger Opinion, the
country conditions have changed.
·
Mr. Abadir
[sic] is at risk of returning to Somalia due to new circumstances occurring with
the last two months.
·
The
removal of Mr. Abadir [sic] be deferred until the determination of a
risk assessment, until the country conditions change, and to give a possibility
of rehabilitate.
[17]
He then
listed the documents enclosed in the September 20, 2009 submissions from Mr.
Ali’s counsel.
[18]
He
recognized he had discretion to defer a removal under section 48 of IRPA.
[19]
He next
wrote:
Mr. Abadir’s [sic] counsel is
requesting to postpone his removal date indefinitely or until such time a new
risk assessment can be made.
Since July 2009 when Mr. Abadir [sic]
was served with his Danger Opinion, the country conditions have changed. Thus,
Mr. Abadir [sic] is at risk of returning to Somalia due to the new circumstances occurring
within the last two months.
[20]
Officer
Beck then mentioned the fact Mr. Ali had been found to be a danger to the
public in June 2009 and said: “It is very important to note that this Danger
Opinion supersedes any risk Mr. Abadir [sic] faces upon his return to Somalia.” (My emphasis.)
[21]
He viewed
the scope of his authority, as an Enforcement Officer, in the following terms:
I must mention that as an Enforcement
Officer with the Canada Border Services Agency, it is not within my authority
to make a proper determination of risk that the client may or may not face upon
return. However, I do note that the balancing of risk between Mr. Abadir’s [sic]
return to Somalia and the danger he poses to
the public of Canada has been already addressed in
the Danger Opinion of June 2009. I have taken into consideration the
information presented to me within the deferral request dated on September 21,
2009 and have reasonably concluded that this information would not influence
the balance of risk previously conducted by the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration Canada.
(My emphasis.)
[22]
Officer
Beck next considered the request that (in his terms) “the removal of Mr. Abadir
Ali be deferred until the determination of a risk assessment, until the country
conditions changes and to give a possibility to rehabilitate” to which he
answered:
“I am unable to grant a deferral of
removal for the above mentioned reasons as I am not presented with an
alternative date of removal. Therefore, should I defer the removal of Mr.
Abadir [sic] for any of these reasons the deferral would be for an
indefinite period of time.” (My emphasis.)
[23]
He
expressed the crux of his decision in these terms:
“Mr. Ali Abadir is requesting that his
removal be deferred indefinitely because he has stated that he cannot return to
Somalia. I am unable to do so because
it is important to note that an enforcement officer has little discretion to
defer a removal, however, if an enforcement officer does choose to exercise
this discretion, they must do so while continuing to enforce a removal order as
soon as reasonably practicable.
[24]
Officer
Beck concluded, based on the information he had before him, he “was not
satisfied that a deferral of the execution of the removal order is appropriate
in the circumstances of this case.”
The change of travel arrangements and the
Applicant’s response
[25]
The Court
was advised in the morning of September 25, 2009, the day for the hearing of
the stay, that an affidavit had been filed the previous afternoon by the
Ministers which outlined “new travel arrangements [that] have been made for the
Applicant”. They were:
·
CBSA will
arrange to remove the Applicant in or about the first or the second week of
October 2009.
·
CBSA
agents will pick up the Applicant at the Innes Detention Centre in Ottawa and
drive him to Montreal.
·
In Montreal, CBSA agents will board a
direct flight with the Applicant to Nairobi,
Kenya.
·
In Nairobi, private security personnel
will accompany the Applicant to board a direct flight to Bossaso, a Northern
part of Somalia by private charter. Private
security personnel will accompany the Applicant on this direct flight from Nairobi to Bossaso.
·
The
Applicant will not be removed to Mogadishu,
Somalia.
·
The
Applicant will not transit through Mogadishu.
[26]
These new
travel arrangements are an obvious response to the concerns which this Court
expressed in Aden.
[27]
The new
travel arrangements, made on behalf of the Minister, drew a response from Mr.
Ali in the form of an affidavit, dated September 24, 2009, sworn by Mr. Abdirahman
Ali. He touched on a number of points some of which deal with the new travel
arrangements. These points were:
·
Mr. Ali’s
father was a political activist and a Somali National Movement (“SNM”) fighter
and if he is deported back to Somalia “they will capture and torture
him for revenge because of his father’s activism.” (This fact was also before
the Minister’s Delegate.)
·
“If the
applicant is deported to Bossaso, in which there are people who are looking for
his father, he will be killed. Bossaso is on the border between Puntland and
Somaliland and there continues to be tension and conflict between Somaliland and Puntland over the regions
of Sool and Sanag. The Private Security details who escort people which are in
the most part Somali because they are the only ones who can go to Somalia are corrupted individuals who
buy and sell captives as slaves. There is no evidence that Ali, will be dropped
in Bossaso.”
·
The
Applicant “is a young kid who had only bad companions …. and he deserves a
chance to be rehabilitated.”
·
He stated
his knowledge Mr. Ali’s father is Issaq and his mother Warsangeli and
that his father “waged war against Siad Barre and the Darod in Puntland region
and if he is deported in any part of Puntland or Bossaso the son will be killed
or tortured because of his father’s activities.
[28]
Mr. Abdirahman
Ali’s affidavit was corroborated in part by the affidavit of Mohammed Tani also
sworn on September 24, 2009. The thrust of that affidavit is to corroborate the
fact of Mr. Ali’s father’s background is a “prisoner of conscience” who with
him had been jailed for 6 ½ years. He confirmed Mr. Ali’s father was a well
known political activist who belonged to the SNM political movement and angered
a lot of people in the Puntland region. He was of the view, if his son was
deported to Puntland, he will be killed or prosecuted. He considers Mr. Ali’s
deportation to Somalia as a “travesty of justice” because (1) he came to Canada
as a young child and does not know any other place to call home; (2) he will be
in danger in Somalia “that is full of Shahaab extremists who would see him as
an agent of the west”; and, (3) he reiterated because the father was a
political activist against the Southern government, the Applicant would not be
safe in any place in Southern Somalia such as Puntland.
Analysis
[29]
For
reasons previously stated, I will limit my consideration of the stay as only
linked to the decision of Officer Beck not to defer Mr. Ali’s removal to Somalia and, as a result of the new
arrangements, specifically to Bossaso which is in Puntland.
[30]
The law is
clear, to obtain a stay from this Court, Mr. Ali has the burden of establishing
each element of the three part test of: (1) one ore more serious issues; (2) he
will suffer irreparable harm if a stay is not granted; and, (3) the balance of
convenience favours him.
[31]
Before
considering the three part test, it is appropriate to set out the terms of
section 48 of IRPA:
|
Immigration
and Refugee Protection Act
( 2001, c. 27
)
Enforceable
removal order
48. (1) A
removal order is enforceable if it has come into force and is not stayed.
Effect
(2) If a
removal order is enforceable, the foreign national against whom it was made
must leave Canada immediately and it must be enforced as
soon as is reasonably practicable.
(My emphasis.)
|
|
Loi
sur l’immigration et la protection des réfugiés ( 2001, ch. 27 )
Mesure
de renvoi
48.
(1) La mesure de renvoi est exécutoire depuis sa prise d’effet dès lors
qu’elle ne fait pas l’objet d’un sursis.
Conséquence
(2)
L’étranger visé par la mesure de renvoi exécutoire doit immédiatement
quitter le territoire du Canada, la mesure devant être appliquée dès que les
circonstances le permettent. (Je souligne.)
|
[32]
Moreover,
the Court now has the benefit of the Federal Court of Appeal’s recent decision
in Baron v. Canada
(Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2009 FCA 81 (Baron), which
involved a judicial review of the exercise of an enforcement officer’s discretion
not to defer a family’s removal to Argentina pending the determination of an
outstanding H&C application.
[33]
In Baron,
Justice Nadon confirmed: (1) the standard of review of an enforcement officer’s
decision to refuse to defer is assessed on the standard of reasonableness; (2)
the scope of an enforcement officer’s discretion to defer is limited; and (3)
the gauge for the assessment of serious issue on a stay application is not the
lower standard of the issue not being frivolous or vexatious but rather the
higher threshold of whether the issue raised is fairly arguable – has a chance
of success, i.e. the judge must go further and closely examine the merits of
the underlying application (see Baron, at paragraph 67).
[34]
As to the scope of an
enforcement officer’s discretion to defer what Justice Nadon referred to in his
decision in Simoes v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2000] F.C.J. No. 936 and adopted what
his colleague Justice Pelletier wrote in Wang v. Canada (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration), [2001] 3 F.C. 682, when both were member of
this Court. I produce paragraphs 49, 50 and 51 of Justice Nadon’s reasons in Baron,
above:
49 It
is trite law that an enforcement officer's discretion to defer removal is
limited. I expressed that opinion in Simoes v. Canada (M.C.I.), [2000]
F.C.J. No. 936 (T.D.) (QL), 7 Imm.L.R. (3d) 141, at paragraph 12:
[12] In my opinion, the discretion that a
removal officer may exercise is very limited, and in any case, is restricted to
when a removal order will be executed. In deciding when it is "reasonably
practicable" for a removal order to be executed, a removal officer may
consider various factors such as illness, other impediments to travelling, and
pending H & C applications that were brought on a timely basis but have yet
to be resolved due to backlogs in the system. For instance, in this case,
the removal of the Applicant scheduled for May 10, 2000 was deferred due to
medical reasons, and was rescheduled for May 31, 2000. Furthermore, in my view,
it was within the removal officer's discretion to defer removal until the Applicant's
eight-year old child terminated her school year.
50 I further opined
that the mere existence of an H&C application did not constitute a bar to
the execution of a valid removal order. With respect to the presence of
Canadian-born children, I took the view that an enforcement officer was not
required to undertake a substantive review of the children's best interests
before executing a removal order.
51 Subsequent to my
decision in Simoes, supra, my colleague Pelletier J.A., then a member of
the Federal Court Trial Division, had occasion in Wang v. Canada (M.C.I.),
[2001] 3 F.C. 682 (F.C.), in the context of a motion to stay the execution of a
removal order, to address the issue of an enforcement officer's discretion to
defer a removal. After a careful and thorough review of the relevant statutory
provisions and jurisprudence pertaining thereto, Mr. Justice Pelletier
circumscribed the boundaries of an enforcement officer's discretion to defer.
In Reasons which I find myself unable to improve, he made the following points:
- There are a range of
factors that can validly influence the timing of removal on even the narrowest
reading of section 48, such as those factors related to making effective
travel arrangements and other factors affected by those arrangements, such as
children's school years and pending births or deaths.
- The Minister is bound by law to
execute a valid removal order and, consequently, any deferral policy should
reflect this imperative of the Act. In considering the duty to comply with
section 48, the availability of an alternate remedy, such as a right to return,
should be given great consideration because it is a remedy other than failing
to comply with a positive statutory obligation. In instances where applicants
are successful in their H&C applications, they can be made whole by
readmission.
- In
order to respect the policy of the Act which imposes a positive
obligation
on the Minister, while allowing for some discretion with respect to the
timing of a removal, deferral should be reserved for those applications where
failure to defer will expose the applicant to the risk of death, extreme
sanction or inhumane treatment. With respect to H&C applications,
absent special considerations, such applications will not justify deferral
unless based upon a threat to personal safety. (My emphasis.)
- Cases where the only harm suffered
by the applicant will be family
hardship can be remedied by readmitting
the person to the country following the successful conclusion of the pending
application.
[35]
In summary, the
limited discretion the enforcement officer has under section 48 of IRPA relates
to when removal is to take place, not whether it will take place.
The jurisprudence has identified relevant factors which may affect the timing
of the removal such as impediments to traveling and other factors affected by
those travel arrangements. The factors affecting the timing of a removal will
vary according to the circumstances; new factors not yet recognized by the
jurisprudence may be relevant in a particular situation (see Ramada v. Canada (Solicitor General), [2005] F.C.J. No. 1384), where my
colleague Justice O’Reilly described good reasons to defer under the umbrella
of the phrase “compelling personal circumstances”.
Application
to this case
[36]
For the reasons
expressed below, I am of the view the Applicant’s removal to Somalia should be stayed until a decision has been made whether
leave is to be granted in respect of the enforcement officer’s decision
not to defer removal, and if leave is granted, until the judicial review in
respect of that decision is decided.
(a)
Serious issue
[37]
I see, at least, the
following serious issues as being fairly arguable arising from the Enforcement
Officer’s decision.
1.
Whether, the new
travel arrangements decided by the Ministers have made Officer Beck’s decision
to defer moot or redundant. This serious question arises because Officer Beck
relied upon the Delegate’s risk analysis. That risk analysis was largely
premised on Mr. Ali being able to obtain protection in Somaliland. See the
Delegate’s decision (Applicant’s motion record, pages 56 to 58).
2.
Are the travel and
removal arrangements put into place for Mr. Ali’s removal compatible with the
principles of fundamental justice guaranteed by section 7 of the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which incorporates the principles of
fundamental justice. See Suresh v. Canada
(Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 3. In that case, Mr. Suresh was like Mr.
Ali a convention refugee in respect of whom a danger opinion had been obtained
so that he could be returned to the country which had persecuted him. This
serious question arises because I have no evidence as to the kinds of
arrangements have been made once he has landed in Bossaso. The Minister’s
Delegate recognized Mr. Ali has no family in Somalia
and will face difficulties in establishing himself in the north of that country.
What kind of assistance will actually be available to Mr. Ali upon his return?
Have the Canadian authorities contacted the UNHCR and other humanitarian
organizations to ensure he will be safely received in Bossaso? Do the Ministers
have an obligation to ensure his safe return to Somalia?
Have they discharged that duty?
3.
Did the Enforcement
Officer misunderstand the nature and scope of his discretion to defer in
appropriate circumstances or fetter his discretion? This serious question
arises because the decision-maker held the view the Danger opinion “superseded
any risk Mr. [Ali] faces upon his return to Somalia” and ruled he could not
grant a deferral until the determination of a risk assessment, or until country
conditions change because in his words “he was not presented with an
alternative date of removal” and if he granted the stay, “the deferral would be
for a indefinite period of time”.
4.
Did the Enforcement
Officer misconstrue the evidence before him?
(b)
Irreparable harm
[38]
The Applicant has
established irreparable harm through the affidavit evidence recited above. He
has established a personalized risk linked to his father’s political activities
and his mixed lineage (Isaac and Daroud ancestry). That evidence shows his
life, liberty and safety, on a balance of probabilities, are at risk (see Aden, at paragraph 5).
(c)
Balance of convenience
[39]
In the circumstances,
the balance of convenience favours Mr. Ali. The irreparable harm he faces if
returned to Somalia (or some parts of it) outweighs his
being removed notwithstanding he has been found to be a danger to the public.
He is currently incarcerated and has been for close to 20 months. I appreciate
Mr. Ali is entitled to statutory detention reviews and has sought release on
condition albeit unsuccessfully.
[40]
For these reasons,
the requested stay is granted.
[41]
I direct that a copy
of these reasons be placed on each file referred to as Dockets on page one of
these reasons for order and order. To be clear I limit my grant of stay to
IMM-4721-09 only.
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS that the Applicant’s removal
to Somalia and in particular to Bossaso in Puntland, a region of Somalia, is
stayed until a decision has been made by this Court, whether leave will be
granted in IMM-4721-09 and, if granted, until the judicial review is decided.
“François
Lemieux”
________________________________
Judge
Email this Content