Federal Court Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content

Date: 20000928

Docket:    IMM-4853-00

MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC, THE 28th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2000

PRESENT:                    THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NADON

BETWEEN:                                            SULTANA, Sharmin

                                                                                                                                                       Applicant

                                                                              AND

                                  MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

                                                                                                                                                   Respondent

This is a motion by the applicant for a stay of execution of the removal order set for September 26, 2000.

ORDER AND REASONS FOR ORDER

The motion is dismissed because the applicant has not satisfied me that a serious issue exists. Furthermore, the applicant has not established that she would suffer irreparable harm if her motion were not granted. In Hussain v. M.C.I. (IMM-5423-99, decision dated May 31, 2000), I wrote the following at pages 4 and 5 of my reasons:


With respect to the additional documents adduced in support of the H & C application, they did not satisfy me that the Applicants would be tortured upon their return to Pakistan. As a result, I was not satisfied that irreparable harm would occur.

I should note that before Mr. St. Vincent on their H & C application, the Applicants proceeded on the basis that Mr. Hussain was a member of the MQM, notwithstanding the clear findings made by the Refugee Board and by the PDRCC Officer to the contrary. The Applicants seem to be of the view that if they continue to add documents to the record, the credibility findings of the Refugee Board are somehow going to be "reversed" or "forgotten". In my view, that is a mistaken view because the officer who hears an H & C application does not sit in appeal or review of either the Refugee Board or the PDRCC Officer's decision. Thus, on the H & C application, Mr. St. Vincent could not proceed on the basis that Mr. Hussain was an MQM member, given the Refugee Board's findings in that respect. In short, the purpose of the H & C application is not to re-argue the facts which were originally before the Refugee Board, or to do indirectly what cannot be done directly - i.e., contest the findings of the Refugee Board.

                MARC    NADON                 

Judge

Certified true translation

John Arrayet


                    FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

                                  TRIAL DIVISION

Date: 20000928

Docket: IMM-4853-00

BETWEEN:

                                 SULTANA, Sharmin

                                                                                      Applicant

AND

MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

                                                                                  Respondent

                                                  

ORDER AND REASONS FOR ORDER


                                                    FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

                                                                 TRIAL DIVISION

                              NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

COURT FILE NO.:                 IMM-4853-00

STYLE OF CAUSE:              SULTANA, Sharmin

PLACE OF HEARING:         Montréal, Quebec

DATE OF HEARING:           September 25, 2000

REASONS FOR ORDER OF the Honourable Mr. Justice NADON                                               

DATED:                                    September 28, 2000

APPEARANCES:

Paul Fréchette                                                                               FOR THE APPLICANT

Marie-Claude Demers                                                                  FOR THE RESPONDENT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:                       

Paul Fréchette                                                                               FOR THE APPLICANT

Morris Rosenberg                                                                           FOR THE RESPONDENT

Deputy Attorney General of Canada

 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.