Date: 19980407
Docket: IMM-1259-98
BETWEEN:
PAVITTER SINGH BANWAIT,
Applicant,
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION,
Respondent.
REASONS FOR ORDER
ROULEAU, J.
[1] This application is the stay of a removal order. The Applicant, a citizen of India, entered Canada via Toronto on October 14, 1993.
[2] Not being entitled to enter the country having not complied with subsection 9(1) of the Immigration Act, it was determined at the airport that he was not admissible but eligible to have his claim to refugee status determined; a Conditional Departure Order pursuant to subsection 28(1) of the Immigration Act was issued.
[3] Upon posting a bond the Applicant was released from detention on November 4, 1993.
[4] In January of 1994, at the request of the Applicant, his file was transferred from Toronto to Vancouver.
[5] After hearings in July and September of 1995, the Applicant's claim as a Convention Refugee was denied; the written decision was rendered in writing in February of 1996. No credible basis was the grounds advanced by the Refugee Division.
[6] In June of 1996 an application was filed to have his claim re-opened. In September of 1996 he was found not to be a member of the Post Determination Refugee Claimants ("PDRC") in Canada Class.
[7] By letter dated October 23, 1996 the Applicant was advised that he was under an effective removal order requiring him to leave Canada. If he did not leave by November 2, 1996 he was to attend an interview on November 6, 1996.
[8] The Applicant and his representative failed to attend removal interviews on two subsequent occasions and in January 1997 his file was referred to Investigations. A warrant for his arrest was issued in January of 1997.
[9] On March 18, 1998 the Applicant attended at the Langley office of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for voluntary fingerprinting since he had married in Canada in January of 1998 and realized that this would be required since he intended to proceed with a Marital Inland Spousal Application ("M.I.S.A."). His wife filed an application to have him remain in Canada on the basis of Humanitarian and Compassionate grounds. Medical evidence indicated that she is pregnant and expecting the birth of a child in November of 1998.
[10] Further evidence was to the effect that an unqualified notary public had completed the sponsorship application for the wife but had failed to submit it.
[11] The present counsel prepared a new M.I.S.A. and it is on file since March 24, 1998 but not yet reviewed by admissions officers.
[12] Upon attending at the RCMP's office, he was arrested and detained; because of the outstanding warrant, he was subsequently released after he posted a bond.
[13] This Applicant came to Canada, was denied Refugee Status; judicial review of the decision was denied. He was accorded a Post Determination Convention Refugee hearing which was also negative.
[14] Initially a Conditional Departure Order was issued and finally a letter was directed to him in October of 1996 advising him to respond to removal.
[15] None of the above procedures are under review. The only grounds argued before me to grant a stay lie with the fact that the validity of his marriage has yet to be determined and whether or not under Section 114 he may be allowed to remain in Canada on the basis of a M.I.S.A.
[16] I see no transgressions in the conduct of the Minister; no expectations granted the applicant; if he chose to marry while still not having his situation favourably determined by Canadian authorities, it is at his peril, not that of the Minister who has a duty to uphold the laws of Canada.
[17] When applicants seek Humanitarian and Compassionate reviews having full knowledge that deportation is imminent, I am not generally prepared to grant a stay.
[18] Counsel for the applicant suggests that his client was led astray by inefficiencies which he attributes to an unqualified notary public previously retained. I do not find this to be an argument sufficient to persuade this Court to exercise its discretion favourably.
[19] There is no reason for this Court to delay removal because the M.I.S.A. has not yet been determined. The application for humanitarian and compassionate consideration will eventually be thoroughly considered. If the decision is favourable, the applicant could then be assisted to return to Canada. The subject fear of his removal to India was previously canvassed and it was determined that there was no objective basis for his fear.
[20] The application is denied.
(Sgd.) "P. Rouleau"
Judge
Vancouver, British Columbia
April 7, 1998
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT NO.: IMM-1259-98
STYLE OF CAUSE: PAVITTER SINGH BANWAIT,
Applicant
- and -
| THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION, |
Respondent.
PLACE OF HEARING: Vancouver, BC
DATE OF HEARING: April 6, 1998
REASONS FOR ORDER OF THE COURT BY: ROULEAU, J.
DATED: April 7, 1998
APPEARANCES:
| Navinder Kang for Applicant |
| Wendy Petersmeyer for Respondent |
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Navinder Kang for Applicant
| Kang & Company |
| George Thomson for Respondent |
Deputy Attorney General of Canada