Date: 19991222
Docket: IMM-5911-99
MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC, THE 22ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 1999
PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE LEMIEUX
BETWEEN:
Antal VARGA
Applicant
AND:
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
Motion by the applicant for a stay of the removal order issued against the applicant by the officer J. Desrosiers on November 29, 1999, until final judgment on the application for leave and for judicial review.
O R D E R
For the reasons filed this day, the application for a stay is dismissed.
| François Lemieux |
| J. |
Certified true translation
Bernard Olivier
Docket: IMM-5911-99
BETWEEN:
Antal VARGA
Applicant
AND:
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
LEMIEUX J.
A. INTRODUCTION
[1] This is an application for stay of execution of a removal order filed by Antal Varga, a Romanian citizen of Hungarian nationality (the applicant).
[2] The removal order was made by the post-claim determination officer Josée DesRosiers (the officer) on November 29, 1999; she decided that the applicant cannot be admitted as a member of the post-determination refugee claimants in Canada class (PBRCC) on the grounds that he lacked one or more objectively identifiable risk(s) under section 2(1)(c) of the Immigration Regulations:
| (c) who if removed to a country to which the immigrant could be removed would be subjected to an objectively identifiable risk, which risk would apply in every part of that country and would not be faced generally by other individuals in or from that country, |
| (i) to the immigrant's life, other than a risk to the immigrant's life that is caused by the inability of that country to provide adequate health or medical care, |
| (ii) of extreme sanctions against the immigrant, or |
| (iii) of inhumane treatment of the immigrant; (demandeur non reconnu du statut de réfugié au Canada) |
B. CONTEXT
[3] On February 11, 1999, the Refugee Division (the Division) ruled that the applicant was not a Convention refugee. The Division assigned no credibility to the applicant"s story of alleged persecution, relying on the documentary evidence. The Division concluded that although the documentary evidence indicated some discrimination against ethnic minorities, the situation of those of Hungarian nationality in Romania had altered substantially since the new government came to power in November 1996. The Division stated, inter alia , that the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe decided in the spring of 1997 to discontinue its monitoring of the human rights situation in that country.
[4] On March 23, 1999, the applicant filed his PBRCC application but presented no representations in support of it, despite the following statements clearly emphasized in the application form:
| [Translation] |
| IMPORTANT |
| If you wish to make representations in support of this application, you have 30 days in which to do so from the date of this application. Note that after 30 days, a decision may be taken in regard to your application on the basis of the public documents and (or) items of evidence then available. |
| Please consult the attached "Notice", which contains some important information that might be useful in explaining your situation. |
| To assess the situation in the country of return, the officer may refer to the most recent information available in the documentation centres of the Immigration and Refugee Board, and to any information of public origin to which he has access. This documentation includes the Contextual and Human Rights Packages, the Indexed Media Review and the Weekly Press Review relating to the country or countries to which you might be removed. The officer may also refer to other documents published each year, such as Country Reports on Human Rights Practices of the U.S. State Department, the publication Critique of the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, the reports of Amnesty International, the Rapport de Reporters sans frontières, World Europa and Human Rights Watch World Report. |
| What documents should I attach to my representations? |
| You should produce the following documents: |
| - any information or evidence at your disposal concerning the consequences of your removal from Canada; |
| - any other useful information such as transcripts of legal proceedings, police records, letters, medical and legal documents. |
| Send your application and your representations to the appropriate immigration office in the province in which you are residing. |
[5] In his affidavit in support of his application for a stay, the applicant appends the transcript of a telephone conversation on November 8, 1995 between Bishop Laszlo Tokes and the Immigration and Refugee Board"s Information and Research Centre.
[6] The assessment of removal risks made by the officer is in the applicant"s file. This analysis refers to a number of documents including Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 1998 ; The Europa World Year Book 1999 and La minorité hongroise en Roumanie.
C. CONCLUSION
[7] I apply the tests in stay matters set out in Toth v. M.E.I., 86 N.R. 302 (F.C.A.): the existence of a serious issue to be determined, the existence of irreparable harm to the applicant and the balance of convenience. It is important to note, however, the purpose of the PBRCC provisions in the Regulations. The Regulations are addressed to the prohibition of removal to a country in the specific circumstances set out in the text.
[8] Having reviewed the Regulations, their purpose and the evidence as filed, I am unable to conclude that there is a serious issue to be determined.
[9] The applicant"s contention that he had no opportunity to submit representations in support of his PBRCC application is without merit. The applicant had been notified that he could make some representations; he chose not to do so.
[10] On the merits, although I was able to examine the applicant"s affidavit in support of his application for a stay, I am of the opinion that this evidence does not establish in any way that the applicant, if he returns to Romania, would be exposed to the risks contemplated by the Regulations. It seems to me that the documentary evidence examined by the officer in the context of the Refugee Division"s decision instead demonstrates the opposite.
[11] For these reasons, the application for a stay is dismissed.
| François Lemieux |
| J. |
MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC
THIS 22ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 1999
Certified true translation
Bernard Olivier
Federal Court of Canada
Trial Division
Date: 19991222
Docket: IMM-5911-99
BETWEEN:
Antal VARGA
Applicant
AND:
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
| FILE NO: IMM-5911-99 |
| STYLE: ANTAL VARGA |
Applicant
AND
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
| PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec |
| DATE OF HEARING: December 20, 1999 |
REASONS FOR ORDER OF LEMIEUX J.
DATED: December 22, 1999
APPEARANCES:
Serban Tismanariu for the Applicant
Marie-Claude Demers for the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
SERBAN MIHAI TISMANARIU
Montréal, Quebec for the Applicant
MORRIS ROSENBERG
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF CANADA
Ottawa, Ontario for the Respondent