Storr v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)

Storr v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)

The motion for a stay of removal was dismissed because the ALJR failed to plead a serious issue to be tried (bald boilerplate grounds), the evidence of irreparable harm was conclusory, speculative or hearsay and did not demonstrate a real probability of unavoidable harm, and the balance of convenience favoured enforcement of the removal order; the tripartite test was not satisfied conjunctively.

Citation
2025 FC 828
Parties
Applicant/moving Party: CHIGHINE FERARRI HALSON ALBERTSTANO STORR; Respondent/responding Party: THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 May 2025
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review of Negative PRRA Decision; Immigration Removal / Interlocutory Motion for Stay of Removal Pending ALJR (motion Dismissed)
Outcome
Motion dismissed; stay of removal denied; no costs awarded
Legal Topics
Stay of Removal, Pre Removal Risk Assessment (prra), Judicial Review, Irreparable Harm, Balance of Convenience, Pleading Requirements (rule 301(e)), Inadmissibility Serious Criminality
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Administrative Law Refugee Law Procedural Law Stay of Removal Pre Removal Risk Assessment (prra) Judicial Review Irreparable Harm +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 31 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CHIGHINE FERARRI HALSON ALBERTSTANO STORR

Applicant/moving Party

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

Respondent/responding Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review of Negative PRRA Decision; Immigration Removal / Interlocutory Motion for Stay of Removal Pending ALJR (motion Dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Applicant raised a serious issue to be tried in the ALJR
  2. 2 Whether the Applicant established irreparable harm if removal proceeds
  3. 3 Whether the balance of convenience favors granting a stay of removal

Ratio Decidendi

The motion for a stay of removal was dismissed because the ALJR failed to plead a serious issue to be tried (bald boilerplate grounds), the evidence of irreparable harm was conclusory, speculative or hearsay and did not demonstrate a real probability of unavoidable harm, and the balance of convenience favoured enforcement of the removal order; the tripartite test was not satisfied conjunctively.

Court Disposition

Motion dismissed; stay of removal denied; no costs awarded

Orders

  • The Applicant and Moving Party’s motion for a stay of removal is dismissed.
  • No costs are awarded on this motion.