GEUMCHEOL JEONG SONGYONG IM CHEOLYEONG JEONG CHEOLJIN JEONG Applicants v. THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY, 2021 FC 362

Date: 20210423 Docket: IMM-2484-21 Citation: 2021 FC 362 Holyrood, Newfoundland and Labrador, April 23, 2021 PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Heneghan BETWEEN: GEUMCHEOL JEONG SONGYONG IM CHEOLYEONG JEONG CHEOLJIN JEONG Applicants and THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS Respondent ORDER AND REASONS [ 1 ] By a Notice of Motion filed on April 21, 2021, Geumcheol Jeong, Songyong Im, Cheolyeong Jeong and Cheoljin Jeong (collectively " “the Applicants” " ) seek reconsideration of the Court’s " “refusal” " to hear their Motion for a stay of their removal from Canada which is scheduled for Monday, April 26, 2021. [ 2 ] On April 14, 2021, the Applicants filed an Application for Leave and Judicial Review seeking review of the removal Order that had been issued against them.

In the same document, they seek Leave and Judicial Review of the negative determination of the Pre-Removal Risk Assessment ( " “PRRA” " ) application that they had submitted pursuant to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act , S.C. 2001, c. 27 (the " “ Act ” " ). [ 3 ] The Application for Leave and Judicial Review provides as follows: " 1. The removal order the CBSA enforcement officer has given to this applicant family sometime in March 2021 which specifies the removal dates as between April 19 to April 23, 2021.

The request for the deferral of the removal process was requested on March 23, 2021 through the family’s lawyer and such request was refused by the officer on March 24, 2021. " " 2. The PRRA results dated July 03, 2019 concerning this family. The decision was received by the family on July 22, 2019. The Notice of appeal was not given at the time and through this leave application the applicant seeks the leave of the Court for the judicial review of the PRRA results. " [ 4 ] The PRRA decision was made on June 28, 2019, and received by the Applicants on July 22, 2019.

The Applicants indicated in their Notice of Application that they require an extension of time to commence an Application for Judicial Review of the PRRA decision. [ 5 ] Following a hearing on April 16, 2021, an Order with Reasons was issued dismissing the application for an extension of time and the Applicant’s Motion for a stay of their removal was not heard. In the absence of an application for leave and judicial review, the Court is without jurisdiction to hear a motion for a stay; see the decision in Mutti v.

Canada (Minister of Citizenship & Immigration) , 2006 FC 97 . [ 6 ] The Applicants filed written submissions in support of their Motion for reconsideration of the Order issued on April 16, 2021. The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness (the " “Respondent” " ) submitted a letter opposing the Applicant’s Motion for reconsideration.

Counsel for the Applicants filed a reply to that letter, repeating her request that the Court hear the Motion for a stay. [ 7 ] Pursuant to an Oral Direction issued on April 22, 2021, the parties were advised that the present Motion would be decided upon the basis of the written representations filed and without an oral hearing. [ 8 ] The Applicants bring their Motion pursuant to Rue 397 of the Federal Courts Rules , SOR 98-106 (the " “ Rules ” " ) which provides as follows: Motion to reconsider " " Réexamen " "

(1) Within 10 days after themaking of an order, or within suchother time as the Court may allow, aparty may serve and file a notice ofmotion to request that the Court, asconstituted at the time the order wasmade, reconsider its terms on theground that" " 397

(1) Dans les 10 jours aprèsqu’une ordonnance a été rendueou dans tout autre délai accordépar la Cour, une

partie peutsignifier et déposer un avis derequête demandant à la Cour quia rendu l’ordonnance, tellequ’elle était constituée à cemoment, d’en examiner denouveau les termes, maisseulement pour l’une ou l’autredes raisons suivantes :" " (

a) the order does not accord withany reasons given for it; or

a) l’ordonnance ne concorde pasavec les motifs qui, le caséchéant, ont été donnés pour lajustifier;" " (

b) a matter that should have beendealt with has been overlooked oraccidentally omitted.

b) une question qui aurait dû êtretraitée a été oubliée ou omiseinvolontairement. [9] In the written submissions filed in support of the present Motion, the Applicants have failed to show that the Order of April 16, 2021does not accord with the Reasons for that Order. It follows that there is no basis for reconsideration pursuant to paragraph 397(1)(a). [10] As for paragraph 397(1)(b), that the Court overlooked a "“matter that should have been dealt with”", the Applicants argue that theCourt overlooked their claims about a breach of

section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms,

Part I of the ConstitutionAct, 1982, being

Schedule B to the Canada Act, 1982 (U.K.), c. 11 (the "“Charter”"), allegedly arising relative to their previousapplication for relief on humanitarian and compassionate grounds and their intention to file another such application. [11] I disagree with the arguments of the Applicants.

Charter breaches are not decided in a vacuum, see the decision in Danson v.Ontario (Attorney General) (1990), (SCC), 73 D.L.R. (4th) 686 (S.C.C.) at page 695. [12] I note that although the Notice of Application for Leave and Judicial Review seeks to review the removal Order that was issued tothe Applicants, this subject is not addressed in the written submissions filed in support of the within Motion.

Neither did the Applicantsaddress this issue in their original submissions that were filed prior to the hearing on April 16, 2021. [13] I also note that I did not address that matter in the Order and Reasons that issued on April 16, 2021. However, my oversight in thatregard does not change the ultimate disposition of the present motion. [14] Generally, only one decision can be the subject of an application for judicial review.

I refer to Rule 302 of the Rules which providesas follows: Limited to single order" " Limites" " 302 Unless the Court ordersotherwise, an application for judicialreview shall be limited to a singleorder in respect of which relief issought." " 302 Sauf ordonnance contrairede la Cour, la demande decontrôle judiciaire ne peut porterque sur une seule ordonnancepour laquelle une réparation estdemandée." " [15] The Applicants cannot, without leave, seek to have two "“decisions” "reviewed in a single Application for Leave and JudicialReview. [16] While the Application for Leave and Judicial Review relative to the removal Order may be timely, the Applicants made nosubmissions in either their original written argument for a stay or in their materials filed upon the Motion for reconsideration about this"“decision”". [17] Although the Applicants’ Motion for a stay was not heard on April 16, 2021, both the Applicants and the Respondent addressed therelevant issues for a stay in the arguments they filed upon the Motion for reconsideration, that is a serious issue for trial arsing from theunderlying application for judicial review; that the applicants would suffer irreparable herm if the relief sought were denied; and that thebalance of convenience lies in favour of the applicants.

The respective arguments of the parties were considered. [18] However, the Applicants directed their arguments in this regard either to the negative PRRA decision or to a decision that was notmade upon their application for relief on humanitarian and compassionate grounds, pursuant to

section 25 of the Act. No submissionswere made relative to the removal Order which presumptively, is a valid Order. [19] The Order of April 16, 2021 dismissed a request for an extension of time within which to commence an application for leave andjudicial review relative to the negative decision upon the Applicants’ PRRA application. There is no basis for reconsideration of theOrder of April 16, 2021.

[ 20 ] There is no application for leave and judicial review before the Court that would grant jurisdiction to adjudicate the Applicants’ motion for a stay, relative to the PRRA decision. [ 21 ] The Order of April 16, 2021 did not address the Applicants’ Application for Leave and Judicial Review of the removal Order that was issued against them. However, no submissions were advanced at any time by the Applicants for reconsideration of the Order of April 16, 2021 in connection with the removal Order.

Neither did the Applicants make any submissions for a stay of their removal in connection with the removal Order. [ 22 ] In the result, the Motion for reconsideration of the Order of April 16, 2021, pursuant to Rule 397, is dismissed. ORDER in IMM-2484-21 THIS COURT’S ORDER is that the Motion for reconsideration is dismissed. “E.

Heneghan” Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-2484-21 STYLE OF CAUSE: GEUMCHEOL JEONG, SONGYONG IM, CHEOLYEONG JEONG, CHEOLJIN JEONG v THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS MOTION DEALT WITH IN WRITING WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF PARTIES ORDER AND REASONS: HENEGHAN J. DATED: APRIL 23, 2021 WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY : Myung-Kyu (Linda) Choi For The applicantS Prathima Prashad For The respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : Myung-Kyu (Linda) Choi Barrister & Solicitor Toronto, Ontario For The applicantS Attorney General of Canada Toronto, Ontario For The respondent