Date: 20060227

Dockets: IMM-289-06

IMM-290-06

Citation: 2006 FC 259

Montréal, Quebec, the 27th day of February 2006

PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Blais

BETWEEN:

DIENE KABA

and

FATOUMATA KABA

Applicant

and

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP

AND IMMIGRATION

and

THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY

AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

Respondent

REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER

[1]                This is an application for stay of the enforcement of a removal order against the applicant, pending a decision on two applications for judicial review (IMM-289-06 and IMM-290-06) of two decisions, one relating to a PRRA application, the other relating to an application on humanitarian grounds.

Irreparable harm

[2]                Evidence supporting the application essentially relies on the same facts submitted in the claim for protection made to the Immigration and Refugee Board, which failed for lack of credibility. The applicant also submitted as evidence other elements that were the subject of analysis by the officer who made the two decisions (PRRA and HC).

[3]                The Federal Court has already dismissed an application for leave and judicial review of the Board's decision.

[4]                The only new contemporaneous evidence is a letter from the applicant's sister, which makes no reference to the risk of forced circumcision of the child or to spousal abuse, but refers to other family-related problems.

[5]                This Court has already held in a number of other cases that neither a PRRA application nor an application for stay constitute a legitimate means of appealing a decision that has already been determined: see the decision of Mr. Justice Yves de Montigny in this regard in Joao v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 880:

As held by this Court in a number of cases, when the applicant's account has been found not to be credible both by the Refugee Division and a PRRA officer, this same account cannot serve as a basis for an argument supporting irreparable harm in a stay application, Akyol v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2003] F.C.J. No. 1182; Saibu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2002] F.C.J. No. 151; Hussain v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2000] F.C.J. No. 751; Ahmed v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2001] 1 F.C. 483 (T.D.).

[6]                The applicant has not demonstrated that she would suffer irreparable harm if she were returned to her country of origin.

[7]                The balance of convenience favours the respondent, who has the duty to execute the removal order as soon as is reasonably practicable.

[8]                In the circumstances, it is not necessary to consider if there is a serious question to be tried.

[9]                Accordingly, the application for stay will not be allowed.

ORDER

THE COURT ORDERS that

            The application for stay for dockets IMM-289-06 and IMM-290-06 be dismissed.

"Pierre Blais"

Certified true translation

Gwen May                                                                                                                        

FEDERAL COURT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKETS:                            IMM-289-06 and IMM-290-06

STYLE OF CAUSE:               DIENE KABA and FATOUMATA KABA

Applicant

and

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

and

THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY

AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

Respondent

PLACE OF HEARING:                     Montréal, Quebec

DATE OF HEARING:                       February 27, 2006

REASONS FOR ORDER BY:          The Honourable Mr. Justice Blais

DATED:                                              February 27, 2006

APPEARENCES:

Johanne Doyon	FOR THE APPLICANT
Isabelle Brochu	FOR THE RESPONDENT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

Doyon & Associés Montréal, Quebec	FOR THE APPLICANT
John H. Sims, Q.C. Deputy Attorney General of Canada Montréal, Québec	FOR THE RESPONDENT