Kahlon v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)

Kahlon v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)
Court (s) Database
Federal Court Decisions
Date
2014-07-03
Neutral citation
2014 FC 652
File numbers
IMM-4813-14
Decision Content
Date: 20140703
Docket: IMM-4813-14
Citation: 2014 FC 652
Toronto, Ontario, July 3, 2014
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Shore
BETWEEN:
GURVEER SINGH KAHLON
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION AND THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
Respondents
ORDER AND REASONS
[1] This decision is in regard to a motion for a stay of removal scheduled for July 6, 2014.
[2] The Applicant arrived in Canada in January 2010 with the intention to study for which he was granted a study permit which expired on December 31, 2012.
[3] The Applicant did not depart from Canada after the expiration of his student visa status; and, an exclusion order had been issued in his regard.
[4] The Applicant’s entire basis for his Pre-Removal Risk Assessment [PRRA] had been solely that which he submitted on the PRRA application, itself, without any corroborative evidence whatsoever.
[5] The PRRA determination was negative as it simply concluded that the Applicant had not submitted evidence to corroborate his allegations. That denial stemmed from, not a lack of credibility, but rather due to, “insufficient probative value” (Mosavat v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 647 at para 13; Ferguson v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and immigration), 2008 FC 1067, 74 Imm LR (3d) 306).
[6] On appeal, that becomes nugatory and, is not considered to constitute irreparable harm on the very basis that it is moot (El Ouardi v Canada (Solicitor General)), 2005 FCA 42, 48 Imm LR (3d) 157 at para 8; and, as specified again by the Federal Court of Appeal in Palka v Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 208 FCA 165, 167 ACWS (3d) 570 at para 18-20).
[7] More than mootness is needed to demonstrate a situation of gravity and such must be based on evidence linked to the case itself which is entirely lacking.
[8] Thus, on the basis of all of the above as to the tripartite conjunctive criteria of the Toth v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1988), 86 NR 302 (FCA), the Applicant has not met the criteria.
[9] Therefore, the motion for a stay of removal is denied.
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS that the Applicant’s motion for a stay of removal be denied with no question of general importance for certification.
"Michel M.J. Shore"
Judge
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET:
IMM-4813-14
STYLE OF CAUSE:
GURVEER SINGH KAHLON v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION AND THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
PLACE OF HEARING:
Toronto, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING:
July 3, 2014
ORDER AND reasons:
SHORE J.
DATED:
July 3, 2014
APPEARANCES:
Jagdeep Singh Dhaliwal
For The Applicant
Catherine Vasilavos
For The Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Jagdeep Singh Dhaliwal
Barrister and Solicitor
Toronto, Ontario
For The Applicant
William F. Pentney
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Toronto, Ontario
For The Respondent