Date: 20060828
Docket: IMM-4466-06
Citation: 2006 FC1034
Toronto, Ontario, August 28, 2006
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Shore
BETWEEN:
Hafiz muhhammed aFzal
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY
AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
INTRODUCTION
[1]
The Applicant
is a citizen of Pakistan. He claims to fear the
banned Sunni Muslim extremist group (SSP) due to his conversion to the Shia
faith. He seeks a stay of his deportation to the United States (scheduled for September 1, 2006) pending the outcome of
the judicial review of his negative Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA).
BACKGROUND
[2]
The
Applicant left Pakistan in November 2001 and went to the United States. He did not make a
refugee claim there. He arrived in Canada in February 2002, and made a claim for
protection at the border. His refugee claim was declared abandoned, and leave
to appeal this decision was denied by this Court.
[3]
The
Applicant’s PRRA submissions stated that he sought the protection of the Pakistani
state on one occasion in June 2001. He indicated that the police worked with
the SSP and therefore refused
to register his complaint.
[4]
The
PRRA Officer considered all of the material that the Applicant submitted. The
determinative issue in the PRRA was state protection. The analysis of the
documentary evidence and found that the Applicant would have access to
effective state protection if he returned to Pakistan.
[5]
The
Applicant has failed to demonstrate a serious issue in regard to the PRRA decision.
A reading of the decision confirms that the PRRA Officer weighed all of the
evidence, and determined that the Applicant is not at risk upon return to Pakistan. The Applicant’s
arguments are merely a disagreement with the decision rendered against him.
[6]
In
coming to these conclusions, the PRRA Officer examined all of the Applicant’s
material, including his submissions, additional submissions and his Personal
Information Form. The PRRA Officer also looked at eleven other publicly
available sources, including US Department of State Reports, Immigration and
Refugee Board reports, the UK Home Office Reports, the World Fact Book and a
news report from the BBC. A reading of the PRRA Officer’s findings confirms
that the determination on state protection was open to the PRRA Officer.
[7]
The
Applicant has failed to demonstrate that there is a serious issue.
[8]
The Applicant is being removed to the United States, and has made
no allegations of irreparable harm in relation to these removal arrangements.
He has therefore failed to establish that he will be irreparably harmed due to
his removal.
Ayub v. Canada (Solicitor General),2006 FC 147, [2007] F.C.J. No. 191 (QL)
Raza v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration),
IMM-6554-05/
MM-6555-05, rendered November 7, 2005
Younus et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration),
IMM-3109-06,
rendered
June 29, 2006
[9]
On the facts of this case, the balance of convenience favours the
Minister and timely compliance with section 48(2) of IRPA. This subsection
states that if a removal order is enforceable, the foreign national affected
must leave Canada immediately, and the order must be enforced as soon as is
reasonably practicable.
Buchting
v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration), 2003 FC 953,
[2003] F.C.J. No. 1216 (QL), at paras. 10-11
Celis
v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration),
2002 FCT 1231,
[2002] F.C.J. No. 1679 (QL), at para. 4.
[10]
This Court has held that the balance of convenience is a distinct
portion of the tripartite test that must be met.
Nalliah
v. Canada (Solicitor General), 2004
FC 1649, [2004] F.C.J. No. 2005 (QL),
at
para. 38
[11]
Furthermore, the enforcement of this order is not merely a
question of administrative convenience, as the Applicant contends. As Evans
J.A. held in Selliah, supra, the balance of convenience does not favour
delaying further the discharge of either the Applicant’s duty, as a person
subject to an enforceable removal order, to leave Canada immediately, or the
Minister's duty to remove him as soon as reasonably practicable. “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.”
Selliah v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2004 FCA 261,
[2004] F.C.J. No. 1200 (QL), at paras. 21-22
See also: Dasilao v. Canada (Solicitor General), 2004 FC 1168,
[2004] F.C.J. No. 1410 (QL).
[12]
The
applicant has not satisfied the third branch of the tripartite test.
CONCLUSION
[13]
The
motion for a stay of removal is denied.
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS that the
motion for a stay of removal be denied.
“Michael
M. J. Shore”
Email this Content