ADE SHAKIRU DOSUNMU Applicant v. THE MINISTER OF, 2013 FC 607

Date: 20130605 Docket: IMM-3748-13 Citation: 2013 FC 607 [UNREVISED ENGLISH CERTIFIED TRANSLATION] Ottawa, Ontario, June 5, 2013 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr.

Justice Shore BETWEEN: ADE SHAKIRU DOSUNMU Applicant and THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY ANDEMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS Respondent REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER [1] The applicant is seeking a stay of the removal order against him. [2] The removal of the applicant, Ade Shakiru Dosunmu, to Nigeria is scheduled for Tuesday, June 11, 2013, at 3:00 p.m. [3] According to the test in Toth v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1988), (FCA), 86 NR302 (FCA), the applicant must demonstrate that the three conjunctive requirements exist: a serious issue to be argued in an applicationfor leave and judicial review; a risk of irreparable harm; and a balance on convenience in his or her favour. [4] Upon his arrival in Canada the applicant was in possession of forged documents when Canadian customs officers found himhiding in an airport washroom.

He claimed that he was a citizen of the Netherlands and that he faced a risk in that country; he alsoindicated that he feared returning to Nigeria. [5] Since he arrived in Canada the applicant has committed criminal offences; and, following these offences, he has reoffended.Furthermore, he has shown a penchant for abuse of process by lying to Canadian immigration authorities. [6] The applicant failed to appear at the airport as agreed, claiming that his spouse was in hospital and that he had to take care of

his baby; however, after his detention, his spouse arrived to take her baby. [7] Before the Refugee Protection Division (RPD), the applicant was found to have shown a flagrant lack of credibility, havingchanged his version of the facts several times; thus, his claim was deemed to have no credible basis.

The RPD even noted that “[s]incethe claimant arrived in Canada, he kept changing his version of the facts of his claim, often as a result of the irrefutable proof of thefalseness of his statements” (at para 43). [8] The applicant raises no serious issue; the risks alleged in his motion before the Court were not, for the most part, submittedto the officer. [9] The removals officer, despite the applicant’s past, had already deferred his removal so he could be with his spouse when shegave birth. [10] Little is known by the immigration authorities about the applicant’s past, other than the criminal acts he has committed inCanada and to which he pleaded guilty: assault,

section 266 of the Criminal Code of Canada, rendering him inadmissible by reason ofcriminality under paragraph 36(2)(

a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 (IRPA).

The applicant also hid fromthe removals officer the fact that he had been charged with breach of conditions and arrested for fraud, having credit cards under severalnames on his person. [11] The applicant’s sponsorship application was refused following a decision by Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC)declaring him inadmissible. [12] Following a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, a hearing is scheduled at the Quebec Court of Appeal for September 20, 2013. [13] The applicant claims that his guilty plea was not a free and informed choice on his part, given that he was not warned of theimpact such a plea would have on his immigration file in Canada. [14] In addition, the applicant is facing two other charges at the Municipal Court of Montréal for breach of conditions andobstruction, the trial for which is scheduled for September 27, 2013.

These charges have not been withdrawn. [15] These preliminary factors, in and of themselves, could be determinative of the applicant’s stay application. The remedysought by the applicant is a remedy in equity. The Court has enough evidence to conclude that the applicant does not come before theCourt with “clean hands”.

The Court could have decided not to consider the application on that basis alone; nevertheless, the Court gaveextensive consideration to the stay application (see Federal Court of Appeal in Moore v Canada (Minister of Citizenship andImmigration), 2001 FCT 803 , 2001 FC 803). [16] The applicant is essentially basing his stay application on factors that allow him to remain in Canada while he awaits adecision on his application for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds, and not on any error on the part of aremovals officer. A.

Serious issue [17] The removals officer weighed all of the evidence that was available to him. [18] After having heard the parties by a teleconference call and having considered their oral and written submissions, and based onall of the evidence in the record, the Court finds that the applicant has not raised any serious issue. B. Irreparable harm

[ 19 ] The alleged risks raised by the applicant have been assessed and dismissed by both the Immigration and Refugee Board and by Citizenship and Immigration Canada, and now also by this Court. The applicant has been found to be completely lacking in credibility, and his claim to have no credible basis. The applicant’s allegations can therefore not serve as a basis on which to argue irreparable harm. [ 20 ] With respect to hardship to the family, the Court finds that the evidence entered in the record does not support the allegations of harm.

The evidence is deficient and cannot serve as an adequate basis on which to grant a stay in order to prevent irreparable harm being caused. C. Balance of convenience [ 21 ] All in all, the applicant’s record, given his criminal record and past dealings with immigration authorities, leads to a balance of convenience that instead favours the respondent. Subsection 48(2) of the IRPA provides that a removal order must be enforced as soon as is reasonably practicable. Conclusion [ 22 ] For all of these reasons, the application to stay the removal order is dismissed.

ORDER THE COURT ORDERS that the motion for a stay of removal be dismissed. “Michel M.J. Shore” Judge Certified true translation Sebastian Desbarats, Translator FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-3748-13 STYLE OF CAUSE: ADE SHAKIRU DOSUNMU v THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

MOTION CONSIDERED BY CONFERENCE CALL ON JUNE 5, 2013, BETWEEN OTTAWA, ONTARIO AND MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC. REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER : SHORE J. DATED : June 5, 2013 WRITTEN AND ORAL SUBMISSIONS BY : Dimitrinka Saykova FOR THE APPLICANT Sonia Bédard FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD Marin Guzun Counsel Montreal, Quebec FOR THE APPLICANT Mr. William F. Pentney Deputy Attorney General of Canada Montreal, Quebec FOR THE RESPONDENT