Perez v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)

Perez v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)
Court (s) Database
Federal Court Decisions
Date
2012-09-21
Neutral citation
2012 FC 1104
File numbers
IMM-7561-12
Decision Content
Date: 20120921
Docket: IMM-7561-12
Citation: 2012 FC 1104
[UNREVISED ENGLISH CERTIFIED TRANSLATION]
Ottawa, Ontario, September 21, 2012
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Shore
BETWEEN:
NONA CEPEDA PEREZ
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
AND
THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY
AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
Respondents
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] The Court has before it a motion for a stay of removal to the Dominican Republic issued against the applicant. The removal is scheduled for Friday, September 21, 2012 (the day after the hearing of the application). The applicant has been aware of this removal order for two months, since July 19, 2012; therefore, this is a last-minute application.
[2] After allegedly being the victim of conjugal violence, the applicant left her country in 2005 for the United States, where she lived and worked illegally until 2008.
[3] The motion before the Court is incidental to an application for leave and judicial review of a negative Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA).
[4] Previously, the Refugee Protection Division had determined that claim for refugee protection was not credible, given the omissions, contradictions and lack of corroborating evidence, combined with conduct that was inconsistent with a subjective fear.
[5] The Court is certainly aware of the fact that new evidence was submitted to it by the applicant to corroborate her story, which the RPD had previously found not to be credible. Nonetheless, with the passage of time, seven years, since the violent incidents that had been described to the RPD, the trajectory of the claimant’s life places the applicant before a new reality.
[6] Her three boys, raised in her country by her brother, are now 14 (two twins) and 15 years old respectively. The Court further notes the fact that the abusive ex-husband is in a relationship with another woman and is in another home with other children he has had with this second spouse; and, all of this having occurred within the last seven years, it alters the applicant’s circumstances. Therefore, even if this new evidence were to be taken into consideration, the applicant would still fail to satisfy any of the three conjunctive criteria of the test in Toth v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1988), 86 NR 302 (FCA) for a stay to be granted.
[7] For all these reasons, the Court dismisses the applicant’s application for a stay.
ORDER
THE COURT ORDERS the dismissal of the applicant’s application for a stay.
« Michel M.J. Shore »
Judge
Certified true translation
Sebastian Desbarats, Translator
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-7561-12
STYLE OF CAUSE: NONA CEPEDA PEREZ v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION AND THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
MOTION HEARD BY CONFERENCE CALL ON SEPTEMBER 20, 2012, BETWEEN OTTAWA, ONTARIO, AND MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC:
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER: SHORE J.
DATED: September 21, 2012
WRITTEN AND ORAL SUBMISSIONS BY:
Claude Brodeur
FOR THE APPLICANT
Suzanne Trudel
FOR THE RESPONDENTS
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Claude Brodeur
Counsel
Montréal, Quebec
FOR THE APPLICANT
Myles J. Kirvan
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Montréal, Quebec
FOR THE RESPONDENTS