Federal Court Decisions

Date: 20140703

Docket: IMM-4813-14

Citation: 2014 FC 652

Toronto, Ontario, July 3, 2014

PRESENT:    The Honourable Mr. Justice Shore

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.

ORDER

THIS COURT ORDERS that the Applicant’s motion for a stay of removal be denied with no question of general importance for certification.

"Michel M.J. Shore"

FEDERAL COURT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD

APPEARANCES:

SOLICITORS OF RECORD: