has a question of law or fact in common with the main action. Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(b). In considering a motion for permissive intervention, a court must determine whether the proposed intervention “will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original parties.” Id. Timeliness is a threshold question for both permissive intervention and intervention as of right. NAACP v. New York, 413 U.S. 345, 365, 93 S.Ct. 2591, 37 L.Ed.2d 648 (1973). “Whether intervention be claimed of right or as permissive, it is at once apparent, from the initial words of both Rule 24(a) and Rule 24(b), that the application must be ‘timely.’ If it is untimely, intervention must be denied.” Id.; see also United States v. British Am. Tobacco Austl. Servs., Ltd., 437 F.3d 1235, 1238 (D.C.Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>); Acree v. Republic of Iraq, 370 F.3d 41, 49
holding that postjudgment application for intervention was timely holding that attorneys failure to timely file application for suspension of deportation despite contrary representations to client constituted ineffective assistance holding that reasonable reliance upon the old rule is an important factor supporting prospective application of the new rule holding that extraordinary circumstances did not include the mere neglect of the professional who was in a position to file a timely application holding that as a threshold matter  rule 24 requires prospective intervenors to file a timely application 