Ramirez v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 FCT 49

Date: 20020117

Docket: IMM-4247-01

Neutral citation: 2002 FCT 49

OTTAWA, Ontario, this 17^th day of January, 2002.

PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice MacKay

BETWEEN:

                                                                 IJINIO RAMIREZ

                                               SONIA EUFEMIA UMANA RAMIREZ

                                                                                                                                                      Applicants

                                                                              - and -

                                                        MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP

                                                              AND IMMIGRATION

                                                                                                                                                   Respondent

                                               REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER

MacKAY J.

[1]                 Pursuant to Rule 369 of the Federal Court Rules, 1998 the applicants, by motion in writing, seek reconsideration of this Court's Order dated November 9, 2001, and an Order for an extension of time, pursuant to s-s. 82.1(5) of the Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-2 as amended, to file an application record in this matter.

[2]                 The Order dated November 9, 2001, in relation to the Application for Leave and for Judicial Review filed by the applicants on September 6, 2001, provided that:

The application for an extension of time is dismissed, and this application for leave is dismissed due to the failure of the applicant to file an Application Record.

[3]                 After filing their application for leave on September 6, 2001, no further documents or other communication was received by the Court from the applicants, despite rule 10(1) of the Federal Court Immigration Rules, 1993, which requires the filing of an application within 30 days. That application for leave also sought an extension of time for it to be considered since the applicants had exceeded the time limited by s-s. 82.1(3) of the Immigration Act, 15 days following receipt of notice of the decision in question. In this case the decision was by the Convention Refugee Determination Division dated August 2, 2001 and received by the applicants on August 8, 2001. Both the applications, for leave and for an extension of time, were dismissed by my Order dated November 9, 2001.

[4]                 The application for reconsideration, and for an extension of time to file an application record in support of the application for leave, I now dismiss.

[5]                 The evidence in support of the application for reconsideration is in the affidavit of Daniel Earl McLeod, sworn at Toronto on November 30, 2001. Apparently associated with St. Jude Chapel, he avers that he and the Chapel are assisting the applicants in preparation of the original Application for Leave and for Judicial Review and in the application for reconsideration and the application record in support of that. The only explanation offered for the applicants' delay in filing their application record for the original application, is that the applicants sought legal aid or assistance to prepare that record but were unsuccessful. While their situation has not changed the applicants are now said to have the assistance of St. Jude Chapel and of Mr. McLeod to prepare the record, and they state that a record "has now been prepared and is on the computer available to be printed and filed".

[6]                 With respect for the applicants, that is not an explanation the Court can accept for delay. Failure to obtain legal aid does not preclude an applicant completing an application record himself, with assistance of others, just as the applicants now appear ready to do.

[7]                 Moreover, no basis for reconsideration is suggested in terms of rule 397, that the Court's decision is inconsistent with reasons given, or that some clerical error appears in the judgment. Absent errors of those types, a judge has no authority to reconsider a decision. In my opinion, there is no basis for reconsideration of the Order rendered November 9, 2001.

                                                                            ORDER

The application for reconsideration of the Order dated November 9, 2001, is dismissed.

                                                                                                                              (signed) W. Andrew MacKay

                                                                                                       ______________________________

                                                                                                                                                           JUDGE