HALAWI, YOUSSEF Applicant v. MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY, 2012 FC 156

Date: 20120206 Dockets: IMM-951-12 IMM-821-12 Citation: 2012 FC 156 [UNREVISED CERTIFIED ENGLISH TRANSLATION] Montréal, Quebec, February 6, 2012 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Shore IMM-951-12 BETWEEN: HALAWI, YOUSSEF Applicant and MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS Respondent IMM-821-12 BETWEEN: HALAWI, YOUSSEF Applicant and MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT (Delivered from the bench at Montréal, Quebec, February 6, 2012) [ 1 ] On February 1, 2012, the applicant served and filed motions for a stay of enforcement of the removal order (scheduled for February 13, 2012); one motion relates to an application for leave and judicial review of a decision on a pre-removal risk assessment (PRRA), and the other is related to the enforcement officer’s refusal to defer his removal. [ 2 ] The applicant filed a claim for refugee status on August 17, 2008. [ 3 ] The applicant voluntarily withdrew that claim for refugee status on May 4, 2010, and the applicant even explained in an affidavit why he withdrew his claim for refugee status. [ 4 ] After the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) refused this application for reinstatement on October 8, 2010, the applicant did not challenge the RPD’s decision. [ 5 ] An enforcement officer should not defer a removal because of an application for leave and judicial review of a PRRA decision, as the Federal Court of Appeal stated recently in Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) v Shpati , 2011 FCA 286 at paragraph 48 . [ 6 ] Also, knowing that the burden is higher for challenging an enforcement officer’s decision refusing to defer a removal and the fact that the applicant did not submit a valid argument against the decision refusing to defer the removal ( Baron v Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) , 2009 FCA 81 , [2010] 2 FCR 311 , at paragraph 67 , the Court finds that the applicant has not satisfied all three criteria of the Toth decision for the two decisions he is challenging. [ 7 ] In fact, the applicant has not satisfied any of the three branches of the Toth test.

The applicant’s motion does not raise a serious issue, there is no irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience favours the respondents. [ 8 ] Based on the Court’s analysis, the Court orders that the motion for a stay of enforcement of the applicant’s removal order is dismissed. There is no question of general importance to certify. JUDGMENT THE COURT RULES that the motions for a stay of enforcement of the removal order are dismissed. There is no question of general importance to certify. “Michel M.J. Shore” Judge Certified true translation Mary Jo Egan, LLB

FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKETS: IMM-951-12 and IMM-821-12 STYLE OF CAUSE: HALAWI, YOUSSEF and MPSEP ET AL. PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec DATE OF HEARING: February 6, 2012 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT: SHORE J. DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH: February 6, 2012 APPEARANCES : Anthony Karkar FOR THE APPLICANT Patricia Nobl FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Anthony Karkar Montréal, Quebec FOR THE APPLICANT Myles J. Kirvan Deputy Attorney General of Canada Montréal, Quebec FOR THE RESPONDENT