Date: 19990506
Docket: IMM-2293-99
BETWEEN:
MARIA CRISTINA DURAN
KARLA MARIA GONZALEZ
AND BRYAN ALEXANDER GONZALEZ
Applicants
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
BLAIS J.
[1] This is a motion for an order to stay the execution of the removal order against the applicants, ending determination of their application for leave and judicial review in this case.
[2] There are three issues to be determined in an application for stay in a removal:
| a) Is there a serious issue to be determined by this Honourable Court? |
| b) Will irreparable harm be caused if removal is executed at this time? |
| c) Does the balance of convenience weight in favour of staying the execution of removal. |
a) SERIOUS ISSUE
[3] Counsel for the applicants suggests that it is not reasonably practicable to remove an individual if there is a humanitarian and compassionate application pending that has not been determined by the Immigration department.
[4] The removal order is valid and it has not been challenged. The applicants have not provided any basis for a claim that any decision made by the Minister is in any way flawed.
[5] In my opinion, the applicants have not established a serious or arguable case that would support a review of any decision.
b) IRREPARABLE HARM
[6] The applicant Maria Christina Duran suggests that, if she is removed to the United States, she will be arrested by the police authorities and placed in jail, separating her from her children, and that would cause irreparable harm to the family unit.
[7] As it was suggested by counsel for the respondent, there is no evidence whatsoever that, if she is removed to the United States, she will be arrested by the police authorities.
[8] Her two children are American citizens and the family lived in the United States for eight years before coming to Canada.
[9] Speculation about an eventual separation of the family or personal inconvenience does not constitute irreparable harm.
c) BALANCE OF INCONVENIENCE
[10] Given that the applicant has not met the two first elements of the test, I will not comment on the third.
[11] For those reasons, the motion to stay the execution of the removal order is denied.
Pierre Blais
Judge
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
May 6, 1999