Yapa Mudiyansele v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)

Yapa Mudiyansele v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)
Court (s) Database
Federal Court Decisions
Date
2012-02-06
Neutral citation
2012 FC 155
File numbers
IMM-952-12
Decision Content
Date: 20120206
Docket: IMM-952-12
Citation: 2012 FC 155
[ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
Montréal, Quebec, February 6, 2012
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Shore
BETWEEN:
YAPA MUDIYANSELE, JAYATHILAKA BANDA
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY
AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT (Delivered from the Bench at Montréal, Quebec, February 6, 2012)
[1] Following a notice of application by the applicant to stay the enforcement of the removal order that is scheduled for February 8, 2012, this Court has determined that the application is dismissed for the following reasons.
[2] The Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the RPD) refused the applicant's refugee claim, after finding that none of the reasons for fear argued by the applicant had merit.
[3] Following the applicant's challenged of the RPD's decision, the Honourable Mr. Justice Yves de Montigny dismissed the application for leave.
[4] A pre-removal risk assessment (PRRA) submitted by the applicant was refused on August 25, 2011 and was not challenged by the applicant.
[5] An application for permanent residence for humanitarian and compassionate reasons was refused on October 12, 2011. That decision is challenged and is therefore pending.
[6] Case law has clearly stipulated that the existence of an application for humanitarian and compassionate reasons does not constitute grounds to stay the removal (Baron v Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2009 FCA 81, [2010] 2 FCR 311, at paragraph 50).
a. Knowing that the removal officer’s discretion is limited, the application for leave and judicial review in this case does not raise a serious question.
b. In light of the alleged risks already considered before the RPD and the RPD’s decision, which was confirmed by this Court, the applicant has not established that he would suffer irreparable harm if he was removed from Canada before his application for leave was decided.
c. Given the circumstances, the balance of convenience tilts in favour of the respondent, who must proceed with the removal.
[7] For all these reasons, the Court orders the dismissal of the applicant’s stay application. No questions of general important are to be certified.
JUDGMENT
THE COURT ORDERS that the application to stay the removal order is dismissed. No questions of general important are to be certified.
“Michel M.J. Shore”
Judge
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKETS: IMM-952-12
STYLE OF CAUSE: YAPA MUDIYANSELE, JAYATHILAKA BANDA
and MPSEP ET AL.
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: February 6, 2012
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
AND JUDGMENT: SHORE J.
DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH: February 6, 2012
APPEARANCES:
Anthony Karkar
FOR THE APPLICANT
Sébastien Dasylva
FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Anthony Karkar
Montréal, Quebec
FOR THE APPLICANT
Myles J. Kirvan
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Montréal, Quebec
FOR THE RESPONDENT