KHDOR IBRAHIM Applicant v. MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP, 2011 FC 525

Federal Court Cour fédérale Date: 20110505 Docket: IMM-2618-11 Citation: 2011 FC 525 Vancouver, British Columbia, May 5, 2011 Present: The Honourable Mr. Justice Pinard BETWEEN: KHDOR IBRAHIM Applicant and MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION and MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS Respondents REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER [1] This is a motion on behalf of the applicant for a stay of execution of a valid deportation order against him pendingdisposition of his application for leave and for judicial review of his third Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (“PRRA”), dated March 29,2011.

The deportation is scheduled for May 5, 2011, in the evening. [2] The arguments of the applicant with respect to whether there is a serious issue in this matter deal basically with thereasonableness of the impugned decision. At this stage, I have serious doubts as to the existence of any valid reason to substitute my ownappreciation of the facts to that made by the PRRA officer.

In any event, without deciding whether there is a serious question to bedetermined by the Court, the requested stay is denied on the grounds that the applicant has failed to establish that he will sufferirreparable harm if he is removed to Lebanon, and to show that the balance of convenience is in his favour (see Toth v Minister ofEmployment and Immigration (1988), (FCA), 86 NR 302 (FCA) and RJR MacDonald Inc v Canada (AG), (SCC), [1994] 1 SCR 311). [3] With respect to the question of irreparable harm, the applicant’s submission that his outstanding second Humanitarian andCompassionate (“H&C”) application, filed just two weeks ago and based primarily on his establishment in Canada, will be renderedmoot should he be removed from Canada, is without merit.

It is trite law that neither an H&C application nor a judicial reviewapplication is rendered moot by the mere fact that a person has been deported (see Palka v Minister of Public Safety and EmergencyPreparedness, 2008 FCA 165 at paras 15, 17 and 19). [4] In fact, the applicant has had a previous H&C application which examined his establishment in Canada and which wasrefused. He has also had the benefit of a spousal sponsorship application with his then spouse which also was refused, in that case forlack of bona fides.

[5] Concerning the allegation of harm to the applicant’s companion and her children, as well as the contractors paid by theapplicant, the Supreme Court of Canada in RJR MacDonald Inc, supra, at para 58, has held that harm to a third party, as opposed to theapplicant, does not meet the “irreparable” threshold for the purposes of a stay motion (see also Sittampalam v Minister of Citizenship andImmigration, 2010 FC 562). [6] Furthermore, irreparable harm must be something more than the inherent consequences of deportation.

In Melo v Canada(Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2000), (FC), 188 FTR 39 at para 21, Mr. Justice Denis Pelletier stated: . . . if the phrase “irreparable harm” is to retain any meaning at all, it must refer to some prejudice beyond that which is inherent in thenotion of deportation itself. To be deported is to lose your job, to be separated from familiar faces and places. It is accompanied byenforced separation and heartbreak. . . . [7] The applicant’s argument that the loss of his business will cause irreparable harm is also without merit.

As held by this Courtin Kasi v Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (March 2, 2009), IMM-396-09, disruption of industry and success in Canada does notequate to irreparable harm. [8] Finally, there is no new evidence before me to demonstrate that the applicant, who has benefitted from an assessment of hisrefugee claim, three risk assessments and reviews by this Court, faces a risk to his life if he is removed. In the circumstances, the balanceof convenience lies with the respondent, as

section 48 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27, provides that anenforceable removal order must be enforced as soon as is reasonably practicable. ORDER For the above mentioned reasons, the applicant’s motion for an order staying the execution of the deportation order against him isdismissed. “Yvon Pinard” Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: T-2618-11

STYLE OF CAUSE: KHDOR IBRAHIM v. MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: Vancouver , BC DATE OF HEARING: May 2, 2011 REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER: PINARD J. DATED: May 5, 2011 APPEARANCES : Sawsan A. Habbal FOR THE APPLICANT Banafsheh Sokhansanj FOR THE RESPONDENTS SOLICITORS OF RECORD : Sawsan A. Habbal FOR THE APPLICANT Barrister & Solicitor Vancouver , BC Myles J. Kirvan FOR THE RESPONDENTS Deputy Attorney General of Canada Vancouver , BC