Sign in Subscribe
Emigration and immigration

Federal Court of Canada Grants Temporary Stay of Removal in High-Risk Case

Strategic Insights

— 2 min read

The Honourable Madam Justice Blackhawk of the Federal Court of Canada has issued a decision, dated June 20, 2025, regarding a motion for a stay of removal in the case of Mehmet Kayaloglu. The Applicant, Mehmet Kayaloglu, sought a stay of his removal to Turkey, scheduled to take place on June 22, 2025. The Court considered the Applicant's motion, reviewing the material filed by both parties, including the underlying application for leave and judicial review of the negative decision of a Senior Immigration Officer.

Key Takeaways:

  • The Applicant must satisfy each element of the three-part test set out in RJR-MacDonald Inc v Canada (Attorney General), 1994 SCC 1, and Toth v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), 1988 CanLII 1420 (FCA), to obtain a stay of removal.
  • The "serious issue" requirement is only met if the applicant has put forward "quite a strong case" or shown a "likelihood of success on the underlying application," recognizing that the standard of review is reasonableness (Baron v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2009 FCA 81).
  • Irreparable harm must be more than the harm or prejudice that is inherent in the removal process, and the applicant must demonstrate through clear and non-speculative evidence that there is a likelihood of harm that is more than a series of possibilities (United States Steel Corporation v Canada (Attorney General), 2010 FCA 200).
  • The Applicant argued that the "serious issue" element of the Toth test is satisfied because the Officer unreasonably required evidence of corroboration, and the Officer does not adequately explain how the instances of discrimination do not rise to the level of persecution.
  • The Applicant argued that the irreparable harm element of the Toth test is satisfied in this case because removal of the Applicant prior to the determination of the underlying application for leave and judicial review of the negative PRRA Decision would render that application moot.
  • The balance of convenience element of the Toth test was satisfied because the requested stay is temporary and will only ensure that the Applicant is able to pursue a judicial review of the negative PRRA Decision that was flawed.

Statistics:

  • The Applicant's Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) Decision was dated April 3, 2025.
  • The motion for a stay of removal was scheduled to be heard on June 22, 2025.
  • The Court granted a temporary stay of the removal order, pending a determination on the Applicant's perfected application for leave and judicial review of the negative PRRA Decision.

Sources:

  • RJR-MacDonald Inc v Canada (Attorney General), 1994 SCC 1
  • Toth v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), 1988 CanLII 1420 (FCA)
  • Baron v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2009 FCA 81
  • United States Steel Corporation v Canada (Attorney General), 2010 FCA 200
  • Mélo v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2000 CanLII 15140 (FC)
  • SKGO v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 83
  • Roman v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 CanLII 7915 (FC)

Read more