Eid v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) et al., 2010 FC 639

• Judge: Shore, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: June 07, 2010
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: 2010 FC 639;(2010), 369 F.T.R. 212 (FC)

Eid v. Can. (M.C.I.) (2010), 369 F.T.R. 212 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

.........................

Temp. Cite: [2010] F.T.R. TBEd. JN.009

Abdel-Karim Mus Eid (demanderesse) v. Le Ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l'Immigration et le Ministre de la Sécurité Publique et de la Protection Civile (défenderesses)

(IMM-2205-10; 2010 CF 639; 2010 FC 639)

Indexed As: Eid v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) et al.

Federal Court

Shore, J.

June 11, 2010.

Summary:

Eid, a citizen of Jordan, was admitted to Canada, under the terms of a visa, in order to explore business opportunities. The visa was renewed. A few days before his visa expired, Eid filed a refugee protection claim, which was rejected because of his lack of credibility. Eid's application for judicial review was dismissed. A removal order was issued. Eid then filed a pre-removal risk application (PRRA), which was also dismissed. Eid applied for judicial review and moved for a stay of enforcement of the removal order.

The Federal Court dismissed the motion.

Aliens - Topic 1704

Exclusion and expulsion - Immigration - Exclusion - General - Stay of exclusion or removal order - Eid, a citizen of Jordan, was admitted to Canada, under the terms of a visa, in order to explore business opportunities - The visa was renewed - A few days before his visa expired, Eid filed a refugee protection claim, which was rejected because of his lack of credibility - Eid's application for judicial review was dismissed - A removal order was issued - Eid then filed a pre-removal risk application (PRRA), which was also dismissed - Eid applied for judicial review and moved for a stay of enforcement of the removal order - Eid asserted that there was a serious issue to be tried where the PRRA officer failed to analyse the humanitarian and compassionate grounds in support of Eid's PRRA application - Eid also asserted that he had a legitimate expectation that the grounds he raised would be taken into consideration - The Federal Court dismissed the motion - Eid had not specified the conduct or assertion that gave rise to his legitimate expectation - Further, a PRRA officer need not consider humanitarian and compassionate grounds in a PRRA application - Eid did not file an application for permanent residence based on humanitarian and compassionate considerations, and he would have needed to do so in order for such considerations, and his establishment in Canada, to be examined - There was no serious issue to be tried - See paragraphs 63 to 66.

Aliens - Topic 1704

Exclusion and expulsion - Immigration - Exclusion - General - Stay of exclusion or removal order - Eid, a citizen of Jordan, was admitted to Canada, under the terms of a visa, in order to explore business opportunities - The visa was renewed - A few days before his visa expired, Eid filed a refugee protection claim, which was rejected because of his lack of credibility - Eid's application for judicial review was dismissed - A removal order was issued - Eid then filed a pre-removal risk application (PRRA), which was also dismissed - Eid applied for judicial review and moved for a stay of enforcement of the removal order - Eid asserted that there was a serious issue to be tried where the PRRA officer unjustifiably rejected the evidence because originals were not produced - The Federal Court dismissed the motion - It was clear, from the reasons for decision, that each of the documents was carefully examined and that no evidence was rejected solely because the original had not been submitted - The officer raised several other problems regarding the documents (incomplete translation, missing date, irrelevant document, fundamental information missing from the document, etc.) - Further, the assessment of the evidence came within the officer's expertise and it was the officer's responsibility to examine the evidence and determine the probative weight to be given to it - There was no serious issue to be tried - See paragraphs 67 to 70.

Aliens - Topic 1704

Exclusion and expulsion - Immigration - Exclusion - General - Stay of exclusion or removal order - Eid, a citizen of Jordan, was admitted to Canada, under the terms of a visa, in order to explore business opportunities - The visa was renewed - A few days before his visa expired, Eid filed a refugee protection claim, which was rejected because of his lack of credibility, including with respect to whether or not a fatwa had been issued against him - Eid's application for judicial review was dismissed - A removal order was issued - Eid then filed a pre-removal risk application (PRRA), which was also dismissed - Eid applied for judicial review and moved for a stay of enforcement of the removal order - Eid asserted that there was a serious issue to be tried where it was plausible that he did not have the means to prove that a fatwa had been issued against him - The Federal Court dismissed the motion - His allegations about the issuance of a fatwa and the impossibility of producing the document were examined by the Refugee Protection Division, which deemed them not credible (decision affirmed by the Federal Court) - No new evidence was brought before the officer in relation to the alleged fatwa - Eid had shown no error in the officer's analysis, but was speculating about the plausibility of being unable to file a copy of the fatwa - There was no serious issue to be tried - See paragraphs 72 to 75.

Aliens - Topic 1704

Exclusion and expulsion - Immigration - Exclusion - General - Stay of exclusion or removal order - Eid, a citizen of Jordan, was admitted to Canada, under the terms of a visa, in order to explore business opportunities - The visa was renewed - A few days before his visa expired, Eid filed a refugee protection claim, which was rejected because of his lack of credibility - Eid's application for judicial review was dismissed - A removal order was issued - Eid then filed a pre-removal risk application (PRRA), which was also dismissed - Eid applied for judicial review and moved for a stay of enforcement of the removal order - Eid asserted that he would be irreparably harmed if returned to Jordan because his removal would contravene the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and other international conventions of which Canada was signatory - The Federal Court dismissed the motion - The courts had frequently held that the removal of a person to his or her country of origin following a complete assessment of the risks (which was done in this case) did not contravene the Charter or Canada's international obligations - See paragraphs 81 and 82.

Aliens - Topic 1704

Exclusion and expulsion - Immigration - Exclusion - General - Stay of exclusion or removal order - Eid, a citizen of Jordan, was admitted to Canada, under the terms of a visa, in order to explore business opportunities - The visa was renewed - A few days before his visa expired, Eid filed a refugee protection claim, which was rejected because of his lack of credibility, including with respect to whether or not a fatwa had been issued against him - Eid's application for judicial review was dismissed - A removal order was issued - Eid then filed a pre-removal risk application (PRRA), which was also dismissed - Eid applied for judicial review and moved for a stay of enforcement of the removal order - Eid asserted that he would be irreparably harmed if returned to Jordan because his life and safety would be in danger where there was a fatwa against him, as well as a judgment for a religious crime - The Federal Court dismissed the motion - The risk allegations had already been assessed and rejected by the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) (decision affirmed by the Federal Court) and by the officer - The RPD found that Eid's narrative was not credible, and that he had not met his burden of proof - The officer found that the documents tendered in evidence by Eid did not substantiate his allegations - He did not tender any other evidence to substantiate his allegations - Risk allegations that had already been assessed and determined to be unfounded could not constitute irreparable harm for the purposes of a stay motion - The same narrative proposed to the court, with no supporting evidence whatsoever, could not show irreparable harm - See paragraphs 83 to 85.

Aliens - Topic 1704

Exclusion and expulsion - Immigration - Exclusion - General - Stay of exclusion or removal order - Eid, a citizen of Jordan, was admitted to Canada, under the terms of a visa, in order to explore business opportunities - The visa was renewed - A few days before his visa expired, Eid filed a refugee protection claim, which was rejected because of his lack of credibility, including with respect to whether or not a fatwa had been issued against him - Eid's application for judicial review was dismissed - A removal order was issued - Eid then filed a pre-removal risk application (PRRA), which was also dismissed - Eid applied for judicial review and moved for a stay of enforcement of the removal order - Eid asserted that he would be irreparably harmed if returned to Jordan because he risked being detained arbitrarily upon his arrival in Jordan, due to the fatwa issued against him and the judgment convicting him of a religious crime - Eid relied on general evidence regarding the situation in Jordan, but did not tie it to his personal situation - The Federal Court dismissed the motion - The evidence did not show that Eid would suffer irreparable harm upon being returned to his country, nor was it a basis for believing that he would be arrested upon his arrival at the airport - This was conjecture - The documents submitted by Eid did not show that there was a high degree of probability that the harm alleged would occur - There was no clear and convincing evidence before the court - See paragraphs 86 to 91.

Aliens - Topic 1704

Exclusion and expulsion - Immigration - Exclusion - General - Stay of exclusion or removal order - Eid, a citizen of Jordan, was admitted to Canada, under the terms of a visa, in order to explore business opportunities - The visa was renewed - A few days before his visa expired, Eid filed a refugee protection claim, which was rejected because of his lack of credibility, including with respect to whether or not a fatwa had been issued against him - Eid's application for judicial review was dismissed - A removal order was issued - Eid then filed a pre-removal risk application (PRRA), which was also dismissed - Eid applied for judicial review and moved for a stay of enforcement of the removal order - Eid asserted that he would be irreparably harmed if returned to Jordan because the application for judicial review from the PRRA had not been decided - The Federal Court dismissed the motion - The assertion was without merit - Removal prior to a decision on the judicial review application underlying the stay motion did not, in and of itself, constitute irreparable harm - Moreover, neither the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act nor the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations provided for a stay pending a decision on an application for judicial review in respect of a PRRA - See paragraphs 92 to 94.

Aliens - Topic 1704

Exclusion and expulsion - Immigration - Exclusion - General - Stay of exclusion or removal order - Eid, a citizen of Jordan, was admitted to Canada, under the terms of a visa, in order to explore business opportunities - The visa was renewed - A few days before his visa expired, Eid filed a refugee protection claim, which was rejected because of his lack of credibility, including with respect to whether or not a fatwa had been issued against him - Eid's application for judicial review was dismissed - A removal order was issued - Eid then filed a pre-removal risk application (PRRA), which was also dismissed - Eid applied for judicial review and moved for a stay of enforcement of the removal order - The Federal Court dismissed the application - In the absence of a serious issue and irreparable harm, the balance of convenience favoured the public interest in ensuring that the immigration process provided for in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act followed its course - Eid had pursued the remedies available to him in Canada and all his claims and applications had been dismissed - The balance of convenience favoured the Minister, who had an interest in having the procedure take its normal course - See paragraphs 96 to 101.

Aliens - Topic 1800

Exclusion and expulsion - Deportation and exclusion of persons in Canada - Deportation or removal order - Stay of (incl. termination of stay) - [See all Aliens - Topic 1704 ].

Cases Noticed:

Varga et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2007] 4 F.C. 3; 357 N.R. 333; 2006 FCA 394, refd to. [para. 3].

Roberto et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2009] F.T.R. Uned. 106; 2009 FC 180, refd to. [para. 4].

Toth v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (1988), 86 N.R. 302 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 34].

Baca Mejia v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2009] F.T.R. Uned. 395; 2009 FC 658, refd to. [para. 35].

Morr v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2010), 373 F.T.R. 17; 2010 FC 3, refd to. [para. 38].

Cen v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2008] F.T.R. Uned. 220; 167 A.C.W.S.(3d) 138; 2008 FC 337, refd to. [para. 38].

Lupsa v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2007] F.T.R. Uned. 203; 159 A.C.W.S.(3d) 419; 2007 FC 311, refd to. [para. 39].

Diallo v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) et al. (2007), 317 F.T.R. 172; 2007 FC 1063, refd to. [para. 40].

Abdollahzadeh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2007), 325 F.T.R. 226; 2007 FC 1310, refd to. [para. 60].

Sani v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) et al., [2008] F.T.R. Uned. 662; 2008 FC 913, refd to. [para. 61].

Canadian Union of Public Employees et al. v. Ontario (Minister of Labour), [2003] 1 S.C.R. 539; 304 N.R. 76; 173 O.A.C. 38; 2003 SCC 29, refd to. [para. 64].

Mandida v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2010] F.T.R. Uned. 322; 2010 FC 491, refd to. [para. 65].

Obeng v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2009] F.T.R. Uned. 20; 2009 FC 61, refd to. [para. 69].

Faiz v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), [2009] F.T.R. Uned. 462; 2009 FC 833, refd to. [para. 70].

Esangbedo Obidigbo et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2008), 329 F.T.R. 205; 2008 FC 705, refd to. [para. 71].

Cardoza Quinteros v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2008] F.T.R. Uned. 456; 2008 FC 643, refd to. [para. 76].

Kerrutt v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (1992), 53 F.T.R. 93 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 77].

Calderon v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1995), 92 F.T.R. 107 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 78].

Adams v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) et al., [2008] F.T.R. Uned. 217; 2008 FC 256, refd to. [para. 79].

Salazar v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), [2009] F.T.R. Uned. 905; 2009 FC 56, refd to. [para. 82].

Rey Rodriguez v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), [2009] F.T.R. Uned. 254; 2009 FC 423, refd to. [para. 85].

Washiko Simuyu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) et al., [2009] F.T.R. Uned. 23; 2009 FC 41, refd to. [para. 90].

El Ouardi v. Canada (Solicitor General) (2005), 332 N.R. 76; 137 A.C.W.S.(3d) 161; 2005 FCA 42, refd to. [para. 93].

Palka v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) (2008), 379 N.R. 239; 167 A.C.W.S.(3d) 570; 2008 FCA 165, refd to. [para. 93].

Paul v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2007), 310 F.T.R. 307; 2007 FC 398, refd to. [para. 94].

Alba et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2007] F.T.R. Uned. 745; 2007 FC 1116, refd to. [para. 95].

Jorge Fabian v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2009), 345 F.T.R. 250; 2009 FC 424, refd to. [para. 95].

Patterson v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2008] F.T.R. Uned. 310; 166 A.C.W.S.(3d) 300; 2008 FC 406, refd to. [para. 96].

Counsel:

Judith Renée J. Léon, for the applicant;

Mireille-Anne Rainville, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Monterosso Giroux s.e.n.c., Montreal, Quebec, for the applicant;

Myles J. Kirvan, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent.

This motion was heard on June 7, 2010, at Montreal, Quebec, by Shore, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following judgment at Ottawa, Ontario, on June 11, 2010.