Ottawa, Ontario, February 28, 2006
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Barnes
BETWEEN:
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY
AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondents
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] The Applicant seeks a stay of a removal order pending the determination of his judicial review application from a negative pre-removal risk assessment (PRRA).
[2] I am required to apply the principles from Toth v. Canada (1998), 86 NR 302 in the exercise of my discretion to stay the removal order. I must, of course, be satisfied of three factors before ordering a stay:
1. That there is a serious issue to be tried;
2. That the Applicant will suffer irreparable harm; and
3. That the balance of convenience favours the Applicant.
[3] Here the Applicant takes issue with the treatment by the officer of two letters he submitted. One letter dated July 4, 2004 came from a lawyer who referred to the Applicant's political activity and the risk of possible arrest upon a return to Pakistan. The second undated letter was sent by the Applicant's father and reported that the family was being harassed by government agencies ostensibly because of the Applicant's prior political activity. The officer gave little weight to these letters and alluded to the likelihood that they were not genuine. The officer also rejected the letters because he found they were "self-serving and vague" and that the contents were not in harmony with the objective evidence he had reviewed regarding the current political situation in Pakistan. The Applicant argues that the officer's expressed doubt about the authenticity of the letters was perverse because there was no objective evidence to support that conclusion.
[4] The problem for the Applicant is that the removal officer attributed very little weight to the letters for a number of reasons. He did not limit his concern to the single issue of authenticity. At the heart of the officer's decision is a conclusion that the Applicant did not fit a political profile which would have placed him at risk in Pakistan. This was a reasonable conclusion to draw on the evidence before the officer.
[5] The PRRA officer's decision contains a very comprehensive review of the earlier Refugee Protection Division decision which also rejected the Applicant's claim to be at risk. The officer also canvassed a considerable volume of extrinsic evidence about the human rights situation in Pakistan. In the end, he found nothing of consequence to connect the Applicant to the general risk conditions in that country.
[6] In the result, I do not find that the Applicant has established a serious issue arising from the PRRA decision.
[7] There was also nothing contained in the record to establish that the Applicant would suffer irreparable harm if he was ultimately returned to Pakistan from the United States.
[8] The Applicant's claim to be at personal risk has now been rejected on two occasions and the balance of convenience now favours the Respondent.
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS that this application for a stay of deportation is dismissed.
" R. L. Barnes "
Judge
FEDERAL COURT
NAME OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-1016-06
STYLE OF CAUSE: MOHAMMAD USMAN
Applicant
-and-
MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND
EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS and
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondents
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
DATE OF HEARING: FEBRUARY 27, 2006
AND ORDER: THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE BARNES
APPEARANCES:
Jack C. Martin FOR THE APPLICANT
Deborah Drukarsh FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Jack C. Martin
Barrister and Solicitor
Toronto, ON FOR THE APPLICANTS
John H. Sims, Q.C.