Federal Court Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content

Date: 20011108

Docket: IMM-4709-01

Neutral Citation: 2001 FCT 1225

BETWEEN:

                                                               KADIATOU TRAORE

                                                                                                                                                       Applicant

                                                                                 and

                                                        MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP

                                                              AND IMMIGRATION

                                                                                                                                                   Respondent

                                               REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER

BLANCHARDJ.

[1]                 This is a motion to stay the execution of a removal order against the applicant that becomes effective on November 15, 2001. The motion is part of an application for leave and judicial review of the decision of Denise Couture, an immigration officer, dated June 20, 2001, in which the request for an exemption under subsection 114(2) of the Immigration Act (the "Act") was refused.

[2]                 In order to succeed, the applicant had to demonstrate that there was a serious issue to be tried, that she would suffer irreparable harm if she were deported to Mali, and that the balance of convenience was in her favour.

[3]                 Essentially, the immigration officer based her decision on the report of Maurice Groulx, the reviewing officer of refused refugee claims ("reviewing officer"), by adopting the decision of the reviewing officer with respect to the absence of any risks of return.

[4]                 With respect to the serious issue, the applicant argued that the assessment of the reviewing officer on the risks for the applicant in returning to Mali was not complete and was not based on relevant documents, still less on the specific present situation concerning the practice of excision within the family and in her native village. The applicant submits therefore that the immigration officer erred by finding that there were no risks in returning.

[5]                 A judge hearing an application for interlocutory relief cannot make a complete analysis of the record. In order to determine whether there is a "serious issue to be tried," the judge hearing the motion must make a preliminary assessment of the merits of the matter. The minimal requirements are not raised.

[6]                 On a preliminary review of the merits of the matter, I am satisfied that the applicant has raised a serious issue to be tried in this case and that this application is neither frivolous nor vexatious.

[7]                 With respect to the second test, that is, irreparable harm, I note the following passage in the reviewing officer's report:

[TRANSLATION]

Far be it from me to minimize the horror and sufferings that the majority of women in Mali must endure. Such practices are standard, despite the efforts of governments to eradicate the roots deeply entrenched in ancestral traditions, as in the Bambaras tribe, of which the claimant is a member, and in the Malinkas tribe, her cousin's tribe. If Ms. Traore were a young woman on the verge of getting married, as she claims, and she did not want this marriage and these mutilations, her application would probably have been considered favourably. However, she is 24 years of age, has already married and is divorced.

[8]                 The reviewing officer acknowledged that there would be a risk in returning if the applicant were a young woman on the verge of getting married, as she had claimed.

[9]                 If the reviewing officer erred in his weighing of the evidence and his finding that there was no merit in the applicant's claims that she would have to marry her cousin when she returned and might undergo excision, the risks in returning could therefore be genuine. This is an issue that should be examined in depth in judicial review of the decision of the immigration officer.

[10]            I am satisfied that the applicant could suffer irreparable harm if she were deported to Mali.


[11]            In conclusion, I have no hesitation in finding that in the circumstances the balance of convenience is in favour of the applicant.

[12]            For all these reasons, the motion to stay the execution of the removal order is allowed.

[13]            I order that this order remain in effect until the determination of the application for leave and for judicial review.

   

                  "Edmond P. Blanchard"                

                                  Judge                                  

Montréal, Quebec

November 8, 2001

Certified true translation

Sophie Debbané, LL.B.

  

                                                  

                    FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

                                  TRIAL DIVISION

  

Date: 20011108

   Docket: IMM-4709-01

Between:

KADIATOU TRAORE

                                                                                      Applicant

and

MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

                                                                                  Respondent

                                                                                                                              

                          REASONS FOR ORDER

                                      AND ORDER

  

                                                                                                                              


                                                                 FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

                                                                              TRIAL DIVISION

                                           NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET:                                                          IMM-4709-01

STYLE OF CAUSE:                                        KADIATOU TRAORE

                                                                                                                                                                                 Applicant

and

MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND

IMMIGRATION        

                                                                                                                                                                             Respondent

PLACE OF HEARING:                                  Montréal, Quebec

DATE OF HEARING:                                    November 5, 2001

REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER OF BLANCHARD J.

DATED:                                                             November 8, 2001

APPEARANCES:

Serge Dumas                                                                            FOR THE APPLICANT

Steve Bell                                                                                  FOR THE RESPONDENT


SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

Serge Dumas

Sainte-Foy, Quebec                                                                FOR THE APPLICANT

Morris Rosenberg

Deputy Attorney General of Canada

Montréal, Quebec                                                                  FOR THE RESPONDENT

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.