Sahi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), (2000) 187 F.T.R. 144 (TD)

• Judge: Reed, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: April 06, 2000
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2000), 187 F.T.R. 144 (TD)

Sahi v. Can. (M.C.I.) (2000), 187 F.T.R. 144 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2000] F.T.R. TBEd. MY.070

Shoukat Mahmood Sahi a.k.a. Ajmal Kahn (applicant) v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (respondent)

(IMM-1711-00)

Indexed As: Sahi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

Reed, J.

April 12, 2000.

Summary:

Sahi sought a stay of an exclusion order that was issued against him pending resolution of his application for leave to commence a judicial proceedings regarding the decision to issue the exclusion order.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, refused to stay the exclusion order.

Aliens - Topic 1704

Exclusion and expulsion - Immigration - Exclusion - General - Stay of exclusion or removal order - Sahi produced a fraudulent passport when entering Canada - He was questioned by a customs and immigration officer and then an immigration officer - He was then interviewed by a senior immigration officer (tertiary examination stage), who concluded that Sahi's passport was fraudulent and signed an exclusion order - Sahi then advised of his true identity - Sahi sought a stay of an exclusion order pending resolution of his application for leave to commence judicial proceedings - Sahi asserted, inter alia, that there was a breach of natural justice because he was not given an opportunity to have counsel present at the tertiary stage interview - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, dismissed this ground, holding that there was no serious question to be heard regarding right to counsel - See paragraph 8.

Aliens - Topic 1704

Exclusion and expulsion - Immigration - Exclusion - General - Stay of exclusion or removal order - Sahi, when entering Canada, was questioned by an immigration officer (secondary examination stage) - He was then interviewed by a senior immigration officer (tertiary examination stage), who concluded that Sahi's passport was fraudulent and signed an exclusion order - Sahi then advised of his true identity - Sahi sought a stay of an exclusion order, asserting, inter alia, that the senior immigration officer was obligated to inform Sahi, ahead of the interview, that the consequences arising therefrom could be the issuance of an exclusion order - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, dismissed this argument, holding that there was no difference in the nature or character of questioning that occurred at the tertiary and secondary examination stage - See paragraphs 8 to 13.

Aliens - Topic 1704

Exclusion and expulsion - Immigration - Exclusion - General - Stay of exclusion or removal order - Sahi sought a stay of an exclusion order against him pending his judicial review proceedings, asserting, inter alia, that Pakistan was the only country required to accept him, resulting in him ending up in limbo or being returned to Pakistan, where he would be persecuted - Sahi asserted that the Court of Appeal decision, Suresh v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, indicated that irreparable harm would exist not only when Sahi was in physical danger after being removed from Canada, but also when Sahi's judicial review application would be rendered moot by removal - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, refused this ground because it was based on speculation - The court interpreted the Suresh decision more narrowly - See paragraphs 16 to 18.

Cases Noticed:

Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817; 243 N.R. 22, refd to. [para. 9].

Chen v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1998), 151 F.T.R. 8; 44 Imm. L.R.(2d) 129 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 10].

Raman v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1999), 246 N.R. 370 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

Dehghani v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 1053; 150 N.R. 24, refd to. [para. 12].

Suresh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1999), 249 N.R. 28 (F.C.A.), consd. [para. 17].

Counsel:

William Macintosh, for the applicant;

Pauline Anthoine, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

William Macintosh Associates, Surrey, British Columbia, for the applicant;

Morris Rosenberg, deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent.

This application was heard on April 6, 2000, at Vancouver, British Columbia, by Reed, J., of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, who delivered the following decision on April 12, 2000.