Celis v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 FCT 1231

                                                           Date: 20021127

                                                    Docket: IMM-5910-02

                                       Neutral Citation: 2002 FCT 1231

Between:

                              DIONISIO CELIS

                                                                Applicant,

                                 - and -

                      THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP

                             AND IMMIGRATION

                                                               Respondent,

                                REASONS FOR ORDER

PINARD J.:

[1]    Assuming without deciding that there is a serious issue to be tried in this matter, the requested temporary stay of the removal of the applicant from Canada is denied on the ground that no irreparable harm has been established.

[2]    First, there is no evidence of any likelihood of jeopardy to the applicant's life or safety (see, i.e., Kerrutt v. M.E.I. (1992), 53 F.T.R. 93; Atakora v. M.E.I. (August 17, 1993), IMM-4430-93; Kaberuka v. M.E.I. (March 18, 1994), IMM-1236-94; Calderon v. Canada (M.C.I.) (1995), 92 F.T.R. 107, and Duve v. M.C.I. (March 26, 1996), IMM-3416-95).

[3]    Second, family separation per se is not irreparable harm because it is within the normal consequences of deportation (see, i.e., Asomadu-Acheampong v. M.E.I. (March 22, 1993), IMM-1008-93; Boda v. M.E.I. (1992), 56 F.T.R. 106; Mobley v. M.C.I. (June 12, 1995), IMM-107-95; Jones v. M.C.I. (June 12, 1995), IMM-454-95; Ram v. Canada (M.C.I.), [1996] F.C.J. No. 883 (QL); Mario Ernesto Huezo et al. v. M.C.I. (April 21, 1997), IMM-1491-97; William Geovany Castro v. M.C.I. (October 14, 1997), IMM-2729-97; Melo v. Canada (M.C.I.) (2000), 188 F.T.R. 39, and Kaur v. Canada (M.C.I.), [2002] F.C.J. No. 766 (QL)). There is nothing about the applicant's case which takes it beyond the usual result of deportation. Since at least August 27, 2002, when the applicant was interviewed for the purpose of obtaining the information necessary to effect his removal, the applicant has known that steps were being taken toward this end. Despite this knowledge, the applicant did not, at any time, request that his removal be deferred. Nor did the applicant submit an application for special consideration on the basis of humanitarian and compassionate considerations. There is no serious evidence that the best interests of the applicant's child will be unduly affected by the absence of his father pending disposition of the within underlying proceedings.

[4]    Under such circumstances, public interest requires that the removal order be executed as soon as reasonably practicable.

[5]    Consequently, the motion is dismissed.

       JUDGE

OTTAWA (Ontario)

November 27, 2002

                                                       FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

                                                                    TRIAL DIVISION

                                NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET:                                                            IMM-5910-02

STYLE OF CAUSE:                                            DIONISIO CELIS v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

PLACE OF HEARING:                                      Ottawa, Ontario

DATE OF HEARING:                           November 27, 2002

REASONS FOR ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PINARD

DATED:                                                                November 27, 2002

APPEARANCES:

Mr. David Matas                                                  FOR THE APPLICANT

Ms. Sharlene Telles-Langdon                               FOR THE RESPONDENT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

Mr. David Matas                                                  FOR THE APPLICANT

Barrister & Solicitor

Winnipeg, Manitoba

Mr. Morris Rosenberg                           FOR THE RESPONDENT

Deputy Attorney General of Canada

Ottawa, Ontario