Federal Court Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content

     Date: 19990204

     Docket: IMM-317-99

Ottawa, Ontario, the 4th day of February, 1999

Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice Pinard

Between:


PIERRE-LOUIS DESORGUES

(alias) Maamar Bekara


Applicant


- and -


THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP

AND IMMIGRATION


Respondent


ORDER

     The applicant"s motion for a stay of the removal order issued against him on December 11, 1998 is dismissed.

     Yvon Pinard

     J.

Certified true translation

Bernard Olivier

     Date: 19990204

     Docket: IMM-317-99

Between:


PIERRE-LOUIS DESORGUES

(alias) Maamar Bekara


Applicant


- and -


THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP

AND IMMIGRATION


Respondent


REASONS FOR ORDER

PINARD J.:

[1]      This is a motion for a stay of execution of a removal order issued on December 11, 1998. The applicant relies on the ambiguity that may result from his lies as to his true identity in order to avoid being returned to France, from which he says he fears being deported to Algeria.

[2]      In my opinion, irrespective of whether the applicant is returned to France or Algeria, he has not discharged the onus of establishing that his removal will cause him irreparable harm. Indeed, the only evidence that might be connected with the consequences of the applicant"s removal to either of these countries is contained in paragraph 17 of his affidavit, which states:

                 Furthermore, I wish to declare as follows:                 
                 - fear for my life and safety (real risk of deportation from France to Algeria) although I fled Algeria and I am being sought for insubordination, having refused as a conscientious objector to do my national service;                 
                 - fear of never being heard on my claim, the immigration authorities knowing that I have a hearing on 20 January 99 and that if I do not appear personally with my file in order, the Refugee Division would conclude that I have abandoned my claim without my being able to get a full hearing or even being present;                 

[3]      Now, as to the alleged fear of never being heard on his claim if he could not be present at the hearing scheduled for January 20, 1999, the applicant did not file the present motion for a stay until January 28, 1999. Furthermore, he did not even appear at the hearing on January 20, 1999, which led the Refugee Division to conclude that his claim for refugee status had been abandoned. As to the simple allegation of a fear of persecution resulting from his refusal to do his military service in Algeria as a conscientious objector, without further explanation or evidence it is completely insufficient (see, for example, Barisic v. M.C.I. (January 26, 1995), IMM-7275-93 (F.C.T.D.)). The lack of credibility of the applicant, who on two occasions lied to the Canadian authorities concerning his true nationality, only reinforces this conclusion.

[4]      The applicant"s failure, therefore, to establish at least one of the essential ingredients to justify the requested stay is sufficient to result in the dismissal of his motion.

[5]      An order will issue accordingly.

     Yvon Pinard

     J.

OTTAWA, Ontario

February 4, 1999

Certified true translation

Bernard Olivier


FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

TRIAL DIVISION


NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

                        FILE NO:IMM-317-99

                        STYLE:PIERRE-LOUIS DESORGUES (alias) Maamar Bekara v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

                        PLACE OF HEARING:Montréal, Quebec

                        DATE OF HEARING:February 2, 1999

REASONS FOR ORDER OF PINARD J.

                        DATED:February 4, 1999

APPEARANCES:

Kheira Zendjabil                      FOR THE APPLICANT

Édith Savard                          FOR THE RESPONDENT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

Montréal, Quebec [sic]                  FOR THE APPLICANT

Morris Rosenberg                      FOR THE RESPONDENT

Deputy Attorney General of Canada

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.