Docket: IMM-4813-14
Citation:
2014 FC 652
Toronto, Ontario, July 3, 2014
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Shore
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
GURVEER SINGH KAHLON
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION AND THE MINISTER OF
PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
|
|
Respondents
|
ORDER AND REASONS
[1]
This decision is in regard to a motion for a
stay of removal scheduled for July 6, 2014.
[2]
The Applicant arrived in Canada in January 2010 with the intention to study for which he was granted a study permit
which expired on December 31, 2012.
[3]
The Applicant did not depart from Canada after the expiration of his student visa status; and, an exclusion order had been
issued in his regard.
[4]
The Applicant’s entire basis for his Pre-Removal
Risk Assessment [PRRA] had been solely that which he submitted on the PRRA
application, itself, without any corroborative evidence whatsoever.
[5]
The PRRA determination was negative as it simply
concluded that the Applicant had not submitted evidence to corroborate his
allegations. That denial stemmed from, not a lack of credibility, but rather
due to, “insufficient probative value” (Mosavat
v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 647 at para 13;
Ferguson v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and immigration),
2008 FC 1067, 74 Imm LR (3d) 306).
[6]
On appeal, that becomes nugatory and, is not
considered to constitute irreparable harm on the very basis that it is moot (El
Ouardi v Canada (Solicitor General)), 2005 FCA 42, 48 Imm LR (3d) 157 at
para 8; and, as specified again by the Federal Court of Appeal in Palka v
Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 208 FCA 165,
167 ACWS (3d) 570 at para 18-20).
[7]
More than mootness is needed to demonstrate a
situation of gravity and such must be based on evidence linked to the case
itself which is entirely lacking.
[8]
Thus, on the basis of all of the above as to the
tripartite conjunctive criteria of the Toth v Canada (Minister of Employment
and Immigration) (1988), 86 NR 302 (FCA), the Applicant has not met the
criteria.
[9]
Therefore, the motion for a stay of removal is
denied.
Email this Content