Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 FC 471

 

 

Date: 20080414

Dockets: IMM-1256-08

IMM-1259-08

 

Citation: 2008 FC 471

BETWEEN:

GURJEET SINGH

Applicant

 

and

 

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP

AND IMMIGRATION and

THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC SECURITY

AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

Respondents

 

 

 

REASONS FOR ORDER and ORDER

 

 

Pinard J.

 

 

[1]               The applicant seeks a stay of the removal order that is to be executed on April 19, 2008, pending disposition of the applicant’s challenges, pursuant to section 72 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (the “Act”), to two decisions of the pre-removal risk assessment officer, François Laberge (the “Officer”).

 

[2]               In docket IMM-1256-08, the applicant challenges the Officer’s negative decision, dated January 15, 2008, in the applicant’s pre-removal risk assessment application.

 

[3]               In docket IMM-1259-08, the applicant challenges the Officer’s refusal, dated January 21, 2008, of the applicant’s request for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds, made pursuant to section 25 of the Act.

 

[4]               Upon hearing counsel for the parties and upon reviewing the relevant material filed, it is obvious that, fundamentally, in both cases, the applicant is merely in disagreement with the decision-maker’s appreciation of the facts.

 

[5]               With respect to the negative decision on the pre-removal risk assessment, I see nothing wrong or unreasonable in the Officer’s finding that, irrespective of what the documentary evidence indicates about a particular group, the applicant did not establish a personalized risk of return (see, e.g., Subramaniam v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 2005 FC 684, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration v. Fouodji, 2005 FC 1327, Taj v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 2004 FC 707 and Alexibich v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 2002 FCT 53).

 

[6]               With respect to the dismissal of the request for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds, I see nothing wrong or unreasonable in the Officer’s finding that the applicant would not suffer unusual and undeserved or disproportionate hardship in being required to obtain a permanent resident visa from outside Canada.

[7]               In both instances, all the relevant evidence was duly and properly examined and the applicant, therefore, has failed to demonstrate the existence of a serious issue, which is sufficient to deny the requested stay.

 

[8]               It is further worth noting that the applicant has had several negative administrative decisions, one of which has been upheld by this Court. It is nearly three years since he first arrived in Canada, prior to which he travelled outside India. I, therefore, agree with the respondents’ submission that the balance of convenience does not favour further delaying the discharge of the Minister’s duty to remove individuals without status as soon as reasonably practicable. As the Federal Court of Appeal wrote in Selliah v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 2004 FCA 261, [2004] F.C.J. No. 1200 (QL), at paragraph 22:

. . . This is not simply a question of administrative convenience, but implicates the integrity and fairness of, and public confidence in, Canada’s system of immigration control.

 

 

 

[9]               For all of the above reasons, the applicant’s motion for a stay, in both IMM-1256-08 and IMM-1259-08, will be dismissed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ORDER

 

The applicant’s motion for a stay of a removal order, in docket IMM-1256-08 and in docket IMM-1259-08, is hereby dismissed.

 

 

“Yvon Pinard”

 

Ottawa, Ontario

April 14, 2008

 

 

 

FEDERAL COURT

 

NAME OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

 

 

DOCKETS:                                        IMM-1256-08 and IMM-1259-08

 

STYLE OF CAUSE:                          GURJEET SINGH v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION and THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC SECURITY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

 

PLACE OF HEARING:                    Montréal, Quebec

 

DATE OF HEARING:                      April 10, 2008

 

REASONS FOR ORDER

and ORDER:                                     Pinard J.

 

DATED:                                             April 14, 2008

 

 

 

APPEARANCES:

 

Me Stewart Istvanffy                                        FOR THE APPLICANT

 

Me Sylviane Roy

Me Kinga Janik                                                FOR THE RESPONDENTS

 

 

 

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

 

Stewart Istvanffy                                               FOR THE APPLICANT

Montréal, Quebec

 

John H. Sims, Q.C.                                          FOR THE RESPONDENTS

Deputy Attorney General of Canada