Armota v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)

canada, canadian, case law, court opinion, canlii, fct, 2026canlii96670, 2026 canlii 96670 (fc), 2026, canlii, 96670, (fc), imm-14407-26, 2026, citizenship and immigration, removal, stay of removal, whether the applicant would suffer irreparable harm if not stayed, risk assessment legality raised on prra judicial review, prra limited to immigration and refugee protection act, s. 97 risk factors, serious risk of persecution treated as sufficiently grave and relevant, stay granted, citizenship and immigration, enforcement of removal orders, balance of convenience, whether the balance of convenience rests with the applicant, respondent’s duty to enforce removal orders weighed, article 1f(a) exclusion concerns acknowledged, deficiencies in record and need to consider leave and judicial review before removal, stay granted, procedure, interlocutory relief, stay pending judicial review, did the applicant raise a serious issue on the prra judicial review, rjr, macdonald inc v canada (attorney general) three, part test applied, prra officer miscast new evidence requirement where risk never assessed, issue neither frivolous nor vexatious, stay granted, procedure, discretionary relief, just and equitable test, whether granting a stay was just and equitable in all of the circumstances, google inc v equustek solutions inc cited, submissions assessed on motion to stay removal, competing interests weighed under rjr, macdonald framework, relief found warranted, stay granted