Date: 19981016
Docket: IMM-4811-98
BETWEEN:
BISHNEW LALL
Applicant
- and -
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
DUBÉ J:
[1] This application is for a stay of a removal order. The applicant was scheduled to be removed from Canada to Guyana on September 21, 1998. Stay proceedings were adjourned by my colleague Muldoon J. on September 18, 1998, to allow the applicant's counsel to receive from the respondent all necessary immigration documents requested by him.
[2] The applicant arrived in Canada in December 1982, when he applied for Convention Refugee Status which was refused at several stages but was not diligently pursued by him. On September 8, 1992, he was approved on humanitarian and compassionate grounds for processing for landing and permanent residence and received a working permit for one year, which permit he did not have renewed.
[3] On June 3, 1998, he pleaded guilty to the offence of trafficking in cocaine contrary to section 5(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and was sentenced to imprisonment for a period of four months. Pursuant to a report under section 27 of the Immigration Act ("the Act") dated August 13, 1998, and a direction under subsection 23 of the Act for an inquiry of that same date, the adjudicator of the Adjudication Division Immigration and Refugee Board held an inquiry on August 19, 1998. There followed the removal order pursuant to section 32(6) of the Act which is mandatory. The applicant was present at the inquiry hearing and agreed to proceed in the absence of his counsel at the time who failed to appear.
[4] The applicant's present solicitor has filed an application for leave and judicial review of the adjudicator's decision and a motion for reinstatement of the applicant's refugee claim set aside by the Refugee Board on August 24, 1994. These motions may be pursued by him in the absence of his client.
[5] The removal order is valid. The applicant has not established to the satisfaction of the Court that he will suffer irreparable harm is he is returned to his country of origin. The balance of convenience favours the prosecution of lawful proceedings under the Act.
[6] Consequently, the application for stay cannot be granted.
OTTAWA, Ontario
October 16, 1998
Judge