Docket: IMM-56-12
Citation: 2012 FC 24
Ottawa, Ontario, January 6, 2012
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Shore
BETWEEN:
|
|
JENNIFER LYNN HILL
|
|
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
|
THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY
AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
|
|
|
|
Respondent
|
|
|
|
|
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND
JUDGMENT
I. Introduction
[1]
The
Applicant is required to leave Canada on Monday, January 9, 2012, through the
Detroit-Windsor border between Canada and the United States. Through counsel,
she requested a deferral of removal on December 8, 2011.
II. Background
[2]
The Applicant, Ms. Jennifer Lynn Hill, is a citizen of the United
States. She attempted to enter Canada a number of times between August 1997 and
April 1998; however, she was refused entry to Canada after being reported as
inadmissible.
[3]
The Applicant had been charged in New York for intent to commit
fraud and a warrant had been issued for her arrest in that district after she
failed to appear for a proceeding relating to that matter.
[4]
On April 2, 2002, the Applicant was reported as inadmissible for
entering Canada for the purposes of immigration and failing to hold an
immigrant visa as well as engaging in continuing employment and failing to
obtain a valid employment authorization. The Applicant had provided a false
name to officers of the Toronto Police Service as well as the Canada Border
Services Agency [CBSA] officers when arrested.
[5]
In December 2002, the Applicant was given an Allowed to Leave
pursuant to paragraph 4(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations,
SOR/2002-227, but was given a Temporary Resident Permit [TRP] until
January 2003 to attend Court in Toronto.
[6]
In May 2003, the Applicant was reported as inadmissible pursuant
to paragraph 36(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA], as she had been
convicted in March 2003 of theft under $5000.
[7]
The Applicant filed a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment [PRRA] in June
2003. A negative PRRA decision was rendered in September of that year and she
was notified of the decision three weeks later.
[8]
In October 2003, the Applicant submitted a Humanitarian and
Compassionate [H&C] application to the Case Processing Centre [CPC] in
Vegreville, Alberta.
[9]
Between October 2003 and July 2004, the Applicant’s removal from
Canada was deferred a number of times in order that she could attend Criminal
Court and receive a decision on her H&C application.
[10]
In August 2005, the Applicant’s H&C application was refused
due to criminality.
[11]
After receiving a negative H&C application, the Applicant’s
counsel requested a Temporary Resident Permit [TRP] until she became eligible
to apply for a pardon. The Applicant was issued three TRPs between 2006 and
2010.
[12]
The Applicant attended an interview at the Greater Toronto
Enforcement Centre [GTEC] on December 1, 2011 and was advised that she was out
of status and that her removal would be scheduled.
[13]
On December 15, 2011, the Applicant attended another removal
interview at GTEC during which her removal was scheduled for January 9, 2012.
III. Analysis
[14]
The
Court is in agreement with the position of the Respondent as it recognizes,
that in this matter, a review of the enforcement officer’s Notes to File
indicates that he considered all of the relevant facts that were before him.
The officer addressed the issues raised by the Applicant with respect to her
daughter and, after noting that the Applicant’s daughter was not under a
removal order, he discussed the availability of special education programs in
Michigan and the assessment process for ensuring that adequate services are
provided to each student who needs them. The enforcement officer also
considered and commented in detail about the availability of aid provided by
Children’s Protective Services in Michigan.
[15]
The enforcement officer then conducted an analysis of the
Applicant’s drug addiction and noted that there are drug rehabilitation
programs available throughout the state of Michigan.
[16]
The Notes to File prepared by the enforcement officer are
thorough, clear and he has provided reasonable and detailed explanations for
the conclusions he has made. The Applicant is simply disagreeing with the
enforcement officer’s decision which does not constitute a serious issue in
this case.
[17]
The
Applicant has not fulfilled any of the criteria of the tripartite conjunctive Toth v Canada (Minister
of Employment and Immigration) (1988), 86 NR 302 (FCA) test.
[18]
The Applicant has been in Canada since 2002. Contrary to the
Applicant’s assertion, the documents before this Court reveal that she was
aware of her eligibility for pardon and the consequences of failing to apply
for an extension of her Temporary Resident Permit [TRP]. Since receiving a
negative decision on her PRRA application in October 2003, the Applicant has
also been aware that she could be removed from Canada; however, she has failed
to make arrangements for this possibility. The public interest in maintaining a
process clearly specified by statute outweighs the inconveniences and the
difficulties to the Applicant as a result of her removal from Canada.
IV. Conclusion
[19]
For
all of the above reasons, the Applicant’s motion for a stay of the removal
order is denied.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT ORDERS that the Applicant’s motion
for a stay of the removal order be denied.
“Michel
M.J. Shore”
Email this Content