Dimouamoua v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness)
Court headnote
Dimouamoua v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2005-07-05 Neutral citation 2005 FC 940 File numbers IMM-3754-05 Decision Content Date: 20050705 Docket: IMM-3754-05 Citation: 2005 FC 940 BETWEEN: Christian Narcisse DIMOUAMOUA Applicant -and- MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS -and- MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondents REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER PINARD J. [1] The applicant is challenging only the assessment of the facts by the pre-removal risk assessment officer (the PRRA officer) regarding his application for a visa exemption based on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. On that point, the applicant failed to establish the existence of a serious question. In fact, I do not see anything in the PRRA officer=s analysis that would suggest that a determinative error was made. [2] Considering that assessment of the facts by the PRRA officer, the applicant still did not succeed in establishing that he would suffer irreparable harm if he were to be removed to Cameroon. Moreover, his allegations on that point are substantially the same as the ones raised when his claim was before the Immigration and Refugee Board. His allegations B then assessed and dismissed because they were not credible B cannot be the basis of an allegation of irreparable harm (see, for example, Akyol v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 2003 FC 931). [3] In the circumstances, the balance of …
Read full judgment
Dimouamoua v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2005-07-05 Neutral citation 2005 FC 940 File numbers IMM-3754-05 Decision Content Date: 20050705 Docket: IMM-3754-05 Citation: 2005 FC 940 BETWEEN: Christian Narcisse DIMOUAMOUA Applicant -and- MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS -and- MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondents REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER PINARD J. [1] The applicant is challenging only the assessment of the facts by the pre-removal risk assessment officer (the PRRA officer) regarding his application for a visa exemption based on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. On that point, the applicant failed to establish the existence of a serious question. In fact, I do not see anything in the PRRA officer=s analysis that would suggest that a determinative error was made. [2] Considering that assessment of the facts by the PRRA officer, the applicant still did not succeed in establishing that he would suffer irreparable harm if he were to be removed to Cameroon. Moreover, his allegations on that point are substantially the same as the ones raised when his claim was before the Immigration and Refugee Board. His allegations B then assessed and dismissed because they were not credible B cannot be the basis of an allegation of irreparable harm (see, for example, Akyol v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 2003 FC 931). [3] In the circumstances, the balance of convenience favours the respondents who, under subsection 48(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, are obliged to proceed with the applicant=s removal Aas soon as is reasonably practicable@. ORDER Accordingly, the motion for stay is dismissed. AYvon Pinard@ Judge OTTAWA, ONTARIO July 5, 2005 Certified true translation Kelley Harvey, BCL, LLB FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-3754-05 STYLE OF CAUSE: Christian Narcisse DIMOUAMOUA v. MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS and MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION HEARING BY TELECONFERENCE: July 4, 2005 REASONS FOR ORDER: Pinard J. DATE OF REASONS: July 5, 2005 APPEARANCES: Sébastien Dubois FOR THE APPLICANT Marie-Claude Demers FOR THE RESPONDENTS SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Saint-Pierre Grenier FOR THE APPLICANT Montréal, Quebec John H. Sims, Q.C. FOR THE RESPONDENTS Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Source: decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca