Toronto, Ontario, April 4, 2007
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Hughes
BETWEEN:
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] This is a motion brought by the Applicant, who is now self-represented, to set aside the Order of this Court dated February 27, 2007 wherein an earlier motion to set aside the Order dismissing the Application, and for an extension of time to bring that motion, was dismissed. Reasons were given 2007 FC 228.
[2] This second motion seeking, in effect to re-instate the Applicant’s application for judicial review of a decision of the Immigration and Refugee Board, fails in two respects. First, to set aside the Order of February 27, 2007, it is required under Rule 399(2) of this Court to show that there was a matter that arose or was discovered subsequent to the making of that Order that would have a material effect such that the Order should be set aside. Second, to receive an extension of time to make the present motion the jurisprudence clearly indicates that the Applicant must show that there is some merit to the matter, that there has been a continuing intention to pursue the matter, that there is some reasonable explanation for the delay, and that the other party is not seriously prejudiced (see e.g. Canada v. Hennelly, [1999] F.C.J. No. 846 (CA)).
[3] As to setting aside the Order of February 27, 2007, nothing in the evidence shows that there was a matter that arose subsequently or was discovered subsequently that would have a material effect on that Order. The essential part of the Applicant’s affidavit states:
10. I believe that Mr. Agbarakwe (his solicitor) did not diligently pursue this matter in a timely manner on my behalf and failed to follow up on my Application as he Agreed. Because of this the matter became very complex and I consulted more than 20 attorneys none of who wanted to take my case.
11. I filed a complaint and reported Mr. Agbarakwe to the LAW SOCIETY OF ALBERTA on March 16, 2007.
12. I have been informed by many lawyers and I believe same to be true, that the grounds for the my refugee claim were membership in a particular social class (sexual orientation) and political opinions with respect to Mexico and Syria.
13. Many lawyers have informed me and I believe same to be true, that the Immigration and Refugee Board failed to consider the Applicant’s ground of sexual orientation in its decision.
[4] Thus, even if an extension of time were granted to make this motion, it would fail.
[5] As to an extension of time, the fundamental matter at issue has no merit and the Applicant has failed to show why he did not apply promptly with the motion to set the Order aside. On either ground, and certainly both, the motion to extend time is dismissed.
ORDER
For the above Reasons given;
THIS COURT ORDERS that:
1. The motion is dismissed;
2. No Order as to costs.
“Roger T. Hughes”
FEDERAL COURT
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-6206-06
STYLE OF CAUSE: OMAR OSNI AUBID v. THE MINISTER OF
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
CONSIDERED AT TORONTO, ONTARIO
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER: HUGHES J.
DATED: April 04, 2007
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY:
Omar Osni Aubid FOR THE APPLICANT (Self-Represented)
Camille N. Audain FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Omar Osni Aubid
Edmonton, Alberta FOR THE APPLICANT (Self-Represented)
John H. Sims, Q.C.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Edmonton, Alberta FOR THE RESPONDENT