Date: 19990915
Docket: IMM-4368-99
BETWEEN:
PAKKIYARASA PUSHPARAJAH
Applicant
- and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
BLAIS J.
[1] This is a motion to stay the removal of the applicant to Sri Lanka scheduled for September 16, 1999.
[2] This motion was heard by telephone conference from Ottawa, Ontario, on September 15, 1999 at 10:00 a.m.
[3] This motion to stay will succeed only if this Court responds positively to those three questions:
| a) Is there a serious issue to be tried? |
| b) Will the applicant suffer irreparable harm if he is sent back to Sri Lanka? |
| c) Does the balance of convenience lie with the applicant in this case? |
[4] The applicant suggests that there is a serious issue to be tried given that the Minister failed to give positive consideration when he was dealing with the first two applications on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.
[5] On the second issue, counsel for the applicant suggests that the situation has evolved in Sri Lanka since the last risk assessment, and the applicant is at risk not only in Colombo but anywhere in Sri Lanka and the internal flight alternative that was contemplated by the tribunal, at the time, does not exist anymore.
[6] Finally, the applicant suggests that the balance of convenience lies in favour of the applicant.
ANALYSIS
Serious Issue
[7] I have reviewed carefully the file and I understand that the applicant made three different applications on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. The first two applications were rejected and the applicant chose not to contest these decisions within the prescribed time limit.
[8] The third application on humanitarian and compassionate grounds is still pending.
[9] It cannot constitute, in my opinion, a serious issue to be tried at this moment.
Irreparable Harm
[10] The respondent suggests that the PDRCC risk assessment was carried out by the PCDO in this case and there was, at the time, no identifiable risk for the applicant to return to his country and the applicant"s alleged risk was assessed twice by the respondent and found there to be no humanitarian or compassionate grounds to warrant an exemption from the visa requirement of the Immigration Act .
[11] Counsel for the applicant suggests that the actual situation in Sri Lanka demonstrates that the situation has changed and now the applicant is at risk if he is returned to Sri Lanka.
[12] In my opinion, the risk assessments, in this case, were made recently and I see nothing in the documentary evidence filed by the applicant that demonstrates that the situation has changed dramatically in Sri Lanka and I am not convinced that the applicant will suffer irreparable harm if he is returned to Sri Lanka.
Balance of Convenience
[13] In my view, the balance of convenience favours the Minister in the present case as suggested by the respondent, in light of the Minister"s duty to execute valid removal orders as soon as reasonably practicable. In this case, the applicant"s deportation order became effective on July 11, 1997.
[14] For these reasons, the motion for a stay is dismissed.
Pierre Blais
Judge
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
September 15, 1999