Date: 19991004
Docket: IMM-777-99
OTTAWA, ONTARIO, OCTOBER 4, 1999
PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE LEMIEUX
BETWEEN:
LIXIN ZHAO
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
ORDER AND REASONS FOR ORDER
LEMIEUX J.:
[1] The applicant seeks reconsideration pursuant to Rule 397(1) of the Federal Court Rules, 1998 of my decision dated July 9, 1999 in which I dismissed the applicant's judicial review application.
[2] The applicant invokes three grounds:
| (a) the Court made a finding of fact and law contrary to the evidence on the record; |
| (b) the Court erroneously presumed that Mr. Zhao's counsel had misled it; |
| (c) the Court failed to consider the standard of review laid down by the Supreme Court of Canada in Baker v. M.C.I. (Docket No 25823, July 9, 1999). |
[3] A motion for reconsideration under Rule 379 offers limited scope for this Court's intervention, namely on the grounds that (1) the order does not accord with the reasons given for it; (2) a matter that should have been dealt with has been overlooked or accidentally omitted.
[4] In Metodieva v. M.E.I., 132 N.R. 38 (F.C.A.) Décary J.A. made it clear the Court's jurisdiction under Rule 379 is limited. The Court cannot re-decide the matter. In Kibale v. Transport Canada, 103 N.R. 387 (F.C.A.) Hugessen J.A. said this Rule is not a disguised method of appeal nor a means whereby the losing party may validate his plea. See also Boateng v. M.E.I. (1990), 112 N.R. 318 (F.C.A.) where Mahoney J.A. makes the point that the Rule contemplates oversight by the Court and not oversight by a party.
[5] Based on this case law, I am doubtful I have jurisdiction to entertain this motion to reconsider. The essence of the motion before me is a disguised appeal which is not available to the applicant under the Immigration Act without a certified question, i.e. a serious question of general importance.
[6] Even if I had jurisdiction, in my view, the application for reconsideration is devoid of merits. As I see it, the applicant's motion is anchored on the following statement in my reasons under the heading "THE FACTS":
| On December 2, 1997, the Canadian Embassy in Beijing refused to issue the applicant a CVV. This fact is disclosed in the applicant's visa application of February 16, 1999. |
[7] The applicant in his February 16, 1999 application answered the following to the question "[H]ave you been refused a visa to travel to Canada":
| On 2 December 1997, Beijing refused to issue a CVV but on (illegible)... |
[8] I do not propose to deal with the point further because the premise of the applicant's argument is that this finding of fact was crucial to the determination I made. A reading of my entire reasons for order (which speak for themselves) suggests otherwise.
[9] The applicant's second point is linked to the first issue discussed.
[10] As to the third issue, it simply does not arise in terms of the facts of this case.
[11] For all of these reasons, motion to reconsider is dismissed.
J U D G E
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
OCTOBER 4, 1999