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. Its 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, Itis 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 Cart mel 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. AAs 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 Ld. 278, 132 A.LR. 1357; Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U.S. 385, 34 S.Ct. 779, 58 LEd. 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 LEd. 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 US. 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. $45, 550 (1965); Robinson v. Hanrahan, 409 U.S. 38 (1974); Greene v. Lindsey, 456 US. 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 Sad VOAN ‘Saad Noah January 10, 2020 ‘AProven to be a Stateless Refugee claimant