GURVEER SINGH KAHLON Applicant v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION AND THE MINISTER OF, 2014 FC 652

Date: 20140703 Docket: IMM-4813-14 Citation: 2014 FC 652 Toronto, Ontario, July 3, 2014 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr.

Justice Shore BETWEEN: GURVEER SINGH KAHLONApplicantand THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION AND THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY ANDEMERGENCY PREPAREDNESSRespondents ORDER AND REASONS [1] This decision is in regard to a motion for a stay of removal scheduled for July 6, 2014. [2] The Applicant arrived in Canada in January 2010 with the intention to study for which he was granted a study permit whichexpired on December 31, 2012. [3] The Applicant did not depart from Canada after the expiration of his student visa status; and, an exclusion order had beenissued in his regard. [4] The Applicant’s entire basis for his Pre-Removal Risk Assessment [PRRA] had been solely that which he submitted on thePRRA application, itself, without any corroborative evidence whatsoever. [5] The PRRA determination was negative as it simply concluded that the Applicant had not submitted evidence to corroboratehis allegations.

That denial stemmed from, not a lack of credibility, but rather due to, “insufficient probative value” (Mosavat v Canada(Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 647 at para 13; Ferguson v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and immigration), 2008FC 1067, 74 Imm LR (3d) 306). [6] On appeal, that becomes nugatory and, is not considered to constitute irreparable harm on the very basis that it is moot (ElOuardi v Canada (Solicitor General)), 2005 FCA 42, 48 Imm LR (3d) 157 at para 8; and, as specified again by the Federal Court ofAppeal in Palka v Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2008 FCA 165 , 208 FCA 165, 167 ACWS(3d) 570 at para 18-20). [7] More than mootness is needed to demonstrate a situation of gravity and such must be based on evidence linked to the caseitself which is entirely lacking. [8] Thus, on the basis of all of the above as to the tripartite conjunctive criteria of the Toth v Canada (Minister of Employmentand Immigration) (1988), (FCA), 86 NR 302 (FCA), the Applicant has not met the criteria. [9] Therefore, the motion for a stay of removal is denied.

ORDER THIS COURT ORDERS that the Applicant’s motion for a stay of removal be denied with no question of general importance forcertification. "Michel M.J. Shore" Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-4813-14

STYLE OF CAUSE: GURVEER SINGH KAHLON v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION AND THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario DATE OF HEARING: July 3, 2014 ORDER AND reasons: SHORE J. DATED: July 3, 2014 APPEARANCES : Jagdeep Singh Dhaliwal For The Applicant Catherine Vasilavos For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : Jagdeep Singh Dhaliwal Barrister and Solicitor Toronto, Ontario For The Applicant William F. Pentney Deputy Attorney General of Canada Toronto, Ontario For The Respondent