Date: 20050707
Docket: IMM-3537-05
Citation: 2005 FC 941
BETWEEN:
SUY SREY PAO
Applicant
-and-
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
PINARD J.
[1] The applicant's motion to stay the execution of a removal order issued against her is dismissed for the following reasons:
1. Assuming that there is a serious question in regard to the underlying application for leave and for judicial review, the applicant failed to establish that she would suffer irreparable harm if she were to be removed to Cambodia. In fact, the applicant alleges that she would suffer harm based on the fact that she would have to [translation] "leave all of her new life that she has been building for three years, therefore her job, her studies and finally, her entire social network, which would be tragic for her".
Yet, such inconveniences, while serious, do not satisfy the notion of irreparable harm, as defined in the case law of this Court. In the recent decision in Pancharatnam v. Solicitor General, 2004 FC 867, my colleague Harrington J. properly reiterated what amounts to irreparable harm:
. . . as said by Pelletier J., as he then was, in Melo v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2000), 188 F.T.R. 39, at paragraph 21:
. . . if the phrase irreparable harm is to retain any meaning at all, it must refer to some prejudice beyond that which is inherent to the notion of deportation itself. To be deported is to lose your job, to be separated from familiar faces and places. It is accompanied by enforced separation and heartbreak. . . .
The following cases are also of note: Akyol v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 2003 FC 931, Lewis v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 2003 FC 1271, Soriano v. Canada (M.C.I.), [2000] F.C.J. No. 414 (QL), Uddin v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 2002 FCT 937 and Saibu v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 2002 FCT 103.
With respect to the applicant's allegations in her motion record, they are largely the same as those raised during her refugee protection claim before the Refugee Protection Division (the RPD) and in her pre-removal risk assessment (PRRA) application and her application on humanitarian and compassionate grounds (HC). These allegations relating to the alleged risk to the applicant if she were to return to Cambodia were entirely assessed and dismissed by the RPD and by the PRRA and HC officer because they lacked credibility. Similar allegations cannot be used therefore to support an allegation of irreparable harm (see Akyol, supra).
2. Under the circumstances, the balance of convenience favours the respondent, who is obliged to proceed with the applicant's removal "as soon as reasonably practicable" in accordance with subsection 48(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C 2001, c. 27.
ORDER
Accordingly, the motion is dismissed.
"Yvon Pinard"
Judge
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
July 7, 2005
Certified true translation
Kelley A. Harvey, BCL, LLB
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-3537-05
STYLE OF CAUSE: SUY SREY PAO v. MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: June 27, 2005
REASONS FOR ORDER: Pinard J.
DATE OF REASONS: July 7, 2005
APPEARANCES:
Kathleen Gaudreau FOR THE APPLICANT
Lynne Lazaroff FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Kathleen Gaudreau FOR THE APPLICANT
Montréal, Quebec
John H. Sims, Q.C. FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada