Nikolaiev v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)

canada, canadian, case law, court opinion, canlii, fct, 2026canlii92120, 2026 canlii 92120 (fc), 2026, canlii, 92120, (fc), imm-19939-26, 2026, citizenship and immigration, removal, pre, removal risk assessment (prra), stay of enforcement of removal, stay sought pending application for leave and for judicial review of a negative prra, removal to ukraine scheduled, pending prosecution and charges noted, motion for emergency relief dismissed, stay refused, procedure, injunctions and stays, tripartite test, toth v canada (minister of employment and immigration), whether applicant established serious issue, irreparable harm, and balance of convenience, “not watertight compartments” and “just and equitable” considerations, applicant not satisfying three, pronged test, motion dismissed, administrative law, judicial review, reasonableness, canada (minister of citizenship and immigration) v vavilov, whether serious issue raised on the merits of the underlying aljr, alleged failure to engage in “cumulative analysis”, officer engaged with the totality of the evidence, conclusions reasonable, serious issue not established, evidence, interlocutory relief, irreparable harm, clear, convincing and non, speculative evidence, whether applicant showed serious likelihood of jeopardy to life, security, or safety, evidence found highly speculative, prra findings cannot be reused to plead a stay, irreparable harm threshold not met, stay refused, procedure, injunctions and stays, balance of convenience, immigration and refugee protection act, s. 48(2), whether balance of convenience lies in applicant’s favour, public interest in carrying out enforceable removal orders “as soon as possible”, balance of convenience lies with the respondent, stay motion dismissed