Immigration and Refugee Board

UCI: 6182-2763

Application for a new hearing date.

Comes now the applicant Saad Noah (Noah) and requests the Honorable Immigration and
Refugee Board (IRB) to grant his application for a new date for the hearing because he NEVER
received the original Notice of November 2019, and did not know about the hearing until
December 30, 2019, when he received a phone call from the IRB. Noah includes herein all his
previous applications for a new hearing date as they are re-stated herein.
Furthermore and in support of his application for a new hearing, Noah states the following:

1. The Requirements of Due Process.— Although due process tolerates variances in

procedure in Noah's claim should be “appropriate to the nature of [Noah's refugee claim]
the case,” See the Supreme Court of the US in Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust
Co., 339 U.S. 306, 313 (1950). [Emphasis added]
2. It is nonetheless possible to identify its [Noah's immigration case's] core goals and
requirements. First, “[p]rocedural due process rules are meant to protect persons [Noah]
… from the mistaken or unjustified deprivation of [Noah’s] life, liberty, or property.” See
Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247, 259 (1978). “[P]rocedural due process rules are shaped by
the risk of error inherent in the truth-finding process as applied to the generality of
cases.” Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 344 (1976).

That the IRB should prevent any error in the procedure of Noah's claim of his entitlement to the
due notice.
Thus, the required elements of due process of Noah's claim before the IRB are those that
“minimize substantively unfair or mistaken deprivations” by enabling Noah to contest the basis
of deprivation of the due notice upon which the IRB proposes to deprive Noah of protected
interests in his Stateless refugee claim. See the Court in Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67, 81
(1972). At times, the Court, including IRB has also stressed the dignitary importance of Noah's
procedural rights, the worth of being able to defend his interests even if he cannot change the
result. See Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247, 266–67 (1978);
The core of these requirements, IRB should not deprive Noah of the due notice and a
meaningful hearing before the impartial Board. Due process before the IRB should also require
an opportunity for confrontation and cross-examination, and for discovery; that a decision be
made based on the record, and that a party be allowed to be represented by counsel and/or in
person.
(3) Notice of the hearing. “An elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any
proceeding which is to be accorded finality [of Noah's claim] is notice reasonably calculated,
under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties [as Noah] of the pendency of the
hearing [before the IRB] and afford [him] an opportunity to present objections [to the fraud of
Chief Engelstad of the Pembina US Port of Entry North Dakota, which damaged the integrity of
the record which should be reported to the Honorable Minister of Immigration pursuant to
Rule 27(1)].” Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950).

Notice to appear Avis de convocation

25 (1) The Division must notify the claimant or protected person and the Minister in writing of
the date, time and location of the proceeding.
The Legislature uses “must notify” using must demonstrates the importance of the notice.
Therefore, the notice should have been sent in a way, which guarantees the claimant of
receiving the notice, or anyone who has excess to the mail of the claimant would be legally
responsible for concealing the notice of the hearing.
It is a Federal Crimes to conceal the mail of the IRB to Noah by the landlord who has never gave
Noah a key to the mail box of his address 108 Cartmel Drive. If the landlord received the IRB’s
notice of the hearing sent to Noah, how can Noah file a criminal charge against the landlord
when there is no proof would stand in a court of law that the landlord received and concealed
Noah’s mail of the notice from the IRB. Therefore, the landlord who concealed Noah’s mail got
away with the Federal crime however, the IRB is depriving Noah of life, liberty and property for
being the victim of the landlord’s Federal crime. Therefore, the Due notice is essential the due
process of the law the procedure before, the IRB however, Noah did not get the Due notice of
the hearing.
Noah should have received the notice of the hearing from the IRB pursuant to Rule 39 in ways
to guarantee that Noah will be on due notice of the hearing pursuant to Rule 39 which
guarantees the delivery and the receiving of the Notice of the hearing by the Stateless refugee
claimant, Noah.
As part of the due process of the law, Noah is entitled to the Due Notice of the hearing
pursuant to the Refugee Protection Division Rules 39 such as in any of the following available
ways:
(a) by hand;
(b) … registered mail; or
(c) by courier;
Noah did not receive the notice of the hearing and there is no way to track it.
An elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in Noah claim, which is to going to
be accorded finality of his fate life, and liberty embedded in his claim is notice reasonably
calculated as Noah stated in his previous applications, under all his circumstances such as but
not limited to that Noah never had the key to the mail box and had to move from his previous
address of 108 Carmel Drive, to apprise Noah of the pendency of the hearing before the IRB
and afford him an opportunity to present his claim with all the required documents and
objections to the fraud of the Pembina Chief. Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 61 S.Ct. 339, 85
L.Ed. 278, 132 A.L.R. 1357; Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U.S. 385, 34 S.Ct. 779, 58 L.Ed. 1363; Priest v.
Board of Trustees of Town of Las Vegas, 232 U.S. 604, 34 S.Ct. 443, 58 L.Ed. 751; Roller v. Holly,
176 U.S. 398, 20 S.Ct. 410, 44 L.Ed. 520.
This may include an obligation of the IRB, upon learning that the attempt at notice has failed, to
take “reasonable follow up measures” that may be available by the IRB. Jones v. Flowers, 547
U.S. 220, 235 (2006) (state’s certified letter, intended to notify a property owner that his
property would be sold unless he satisfied a tax delinquency, was returned by the post office
marked “unclaimed”, [while Noah never received the Notice of the hearing, while the mail of
the hearing was not even sent pursuant to Rule 37 and 39 of the Rules and Procedure, which
includes the Notice; the IRB should have taken additional reasonable steps to notify Noah, as it
would have been practicable pursuant to Rules 37 and 39 for IRB] to have done so). [Emphasis
added]
In addition, notice must be sufficient to enable Noah to determine what is being required and
what he must do to prevent the deprivation of his interest, which includes his life and liberty.
Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 267–68 (1970).
Ordinarily, service of the notice must be reasonably structured as in Rule 39 to assure that
Noah receives it. Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 550 (1965); Robinson v. Hanrahan, 409 U.S.
38 (1974); Greene v. Lindsey, 456 U.S. 444 (1982).
(2) Hearing. “[S]ome form of hearing is required before an individual is finally deprived of a
property [and/or liberty] interest.” See Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 (1976). “Parties
whose rights are to be affected are entitled to be heard.” Baldwin v. Hale, 68 U.S. (1 Wall.) 223,
233 (1863).
Noah’s right to be heard is the basic aspect of the duty of the IRB.
Because Noah did not receive the original notice therefore, to file an application, which does
not afford Noah the privilege/mandated of the time limitation of the original notice is
meaningless, not applicable and cannot be supported by the due process of the law because
Noah did not receive the original notice to be bound by the rules of the application to change
the date of the hearing, while Noah cannot to meet such dates and limitation of the date of
January 3, and the January 10, 2020, because the intention of the Legislature was not
concerning to a claimant who did not receive the original notice to start with but the limitations
apply to a person who received the original notice but failed to promptly respond.
Therefore, Noah is entitled to be heard before the IRB.
WHEREFORE, Noah respectfully requests the IRB to set a new hearing date and to put Noah on
a due notice of the hearing as required by the due process of the law and the procedure before
the IRB.
Respectfully Submitted

Saad Noah
January 10, 2020
A Proven to be a Stateless Refugee claimant