Date: 20050707
Docket: IMM-3959-05
Citation: 2005 FC 952
BETWEEN:
JAIL SINGH MOHAR
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
UPON motion on behalf of the applicant for a stay of execution of the Removal Order made in respect of the applicant;
UPON reading the material before the Court;
AND UPON hearing counsel for the parties by telephone conference;
REASONS FOR ORDER and ORDER
PINARD J.
[1] In Atwal v. Canada (M.C.I.), 2004 FC 76, [2004] F.C.J. No. 90 (QL), Mr. Justice Shore refused to recognize a serious issue on the grounds that the applicant had not filed the actual Pre-removal Risk Assessment ("PRRA"). In the case at bar, the applicant also failed to file, in support of his stay motion, the impugned PRRA decision. Furthermore, I agree with the respondent that the applicant, in bringing this stay motion and his application for leave and for judicial review of the latter decision, is ultimately attempting to have the evidence concerning the current conditions in India and his personal circumstances reweighed. However, I find there are very serious elements of proof which support the PRRA officer's decision. In the context of an applicant who has previously been found by the Immigration and Refugee Board to have "knowingly concealed, misrepresented and suppressed the information concerning his political affiliations and difficulties with the Indian authorities", I conclude that the former has failed to show there is a serious issue in this matter and that he will suffer irreparable harm if he is returned to India.
[2] In the circumstances, the balance of convenience is in favour of the respondent. Here, as stated above, the refugee status first granted to the applicant was vacated on the ground that the determination was obtained by fraudulent means or misrepresentation of material facts. Moreover, as the applicant failed to present himself to an interview with Citizenship and Immigration Canada officials, a warrant for arrest was issued against him on July 17, 2002 and executed almost six months later on January 14, 2003. Clearly, the applicant is not presenting himself with clean hands before the Court. Furthermore, it is in the public interest that the respondent execute the removal as soon as reasonably practicable (subsection 48(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27).
ORDER
Consequently, the motion is dismissed.
JUDGE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
July 7, 2005
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-3959-05
STYLE OF CAUSE: JAIL SINGH MOHAR v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
HEARING BY TELECONFERENCE: July 6, 2005
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: PINARD J.
DATED: July 7, 2005
APPEARANCES:
Mr. Stewart Istvanffy FOR THE APPLICANT
Ms. Lynne Lazaroff FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Stewart Istvanffy FOR THE APPLICANT
Montréal, Quebec
John H. Sims, Q.C. FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada