13北京91等ME，1，100全球91看本周末下周初法庭决定。。
- 主题发起人 ruth0924
- 发布时间 2011-12-12
回复: 北京起诉的情况,有人想加入没
北京还真有人起诉了，关注的人也越来越多，支持一个。
律师那个schedule也不会是乱说，行政诉讼的必要流程，而且时间越短他实现收入越快，没必要拖个。也不用老烦他，不过都得盯紧了他。
此外，起诉的同时写写信给CIC也无何不可。
北京还真有人起诉了，关注的人也越来越多，支持一个。
律师那个schedule也不会是乱说，行政诉讼的必要流程，而且时间越短他实现收入越快，没必要拖个。也不用老烦他，不过都得盯紧了他。
此外，起诉的同时写写信给CIC也无何不可。
回复: 北京起诉的情况,有人想加入没
没加入的人如果对起诉还有信心想加入的话，抓紧时间在加拿大时间18日前和律师沟通吧。
1）好像法院比我们更有能力“逼”他高效高速地处理：2月中旬前所有的备案都应该准备好，比原先提前不止一个月。
2）明天又开会，决定是否同意用代表案件来分别起诉，比原计划也提早一个月。
有些感激法院，好人哪，目前看。
Good day,
On Friday afternoon, Justice Barnes, who is overseeing the FSW mandamus litigation, issued an order effectively cancelling his December 7th order much to the surprise of counsel for both parties. In effect, he ordered that written arguments for 559 files be served and filed no later than February 14th. In response to my letter, which opposing counsel supported today, we will be meeting with the judge to determine how many cases will be due in thirty days. Thirty minutes ago the Court advised that the meeting will occur on Thursday, January 19th, commencing at 4:45pm. I expect the following from the meeting:
1. we will proceed with "representative case(s)",
2. our written arguments will be due mid-February,
3. CIC's opposing written arguments will be due thirty days later and
4. a decision on whether the cases will be decided on their merits will be released a few months later.
The unresolved issue from counsels' perspective is how many representative cases we will have. DoJ appears to be favouring having only one case, whereas I want one per visa post and one per class. (The classes are pre-27 February 2008 and between 27 February 2008 and 26 June 2010.)
I will be filing six (6) new cases on Thursday, after which I do not expect to be filing any more cases because I will be too busy with the written arguments and affidavits to be filing new cases. Therefore, anyone wishing to participate in this litigation should join no later than Wednesday, January 18th. (I will, however, make exceptions for litigants from visa posts which are not yet represented or for which we have only one litigant.)
I expect to send out a summary of the meeting on Friday.
Regards,
Tim
没加入的人如果对起诉还有信心想加入的话，抓紧时间在加拿大时间18日前和律师沟通吧。
1）好像法院比我们更有能力“逼”他高效高速地处理：2月中旬前所有的备案都应该准备好，比原先提前不止一个月。
2）明天又开会，决定是否同意用代表案件来分别起诉，比原计划也提早一个月。
有些感激法院，好人哪，目前看。
Good day,
On Friday afternoon, Justice Barnes, who is overseeing the FSW mandamus litigation, issued an order effectively cancelling his December 7th order much to the surprise of counsel for both parties. In effect, he ordered that written arguments for 559 files be served and filed no later than February 14th. In response to my letter, which opposing counsel supported today, we will be meeting with the judge to determine how many cases will be due in thirty days. Thirty minutes ago the Court advised that the meeting will occur on Thursday, January 19th, commencing at 4:45pm. I expect the following from the meeting:
1. we will proceed with "representative case(s)",
2. our written arguments will be due mid-February,
3. CIC's opposing written arguments will be due thirty days later and
4. a decision on whether the cases will be decided on their merits will be released a few months later.
The unresolved issue from counsels' perspective is how many representative cases we will have. DoJ appears to be favouring having only one case, whereas I want one per visa post and one per class. (The classes are pre-27 February 2008 and between 27 February 2008 and 26 June 2010.)
I will be filing six (6) new cases on Thursday, after which I do not expect to be filing any more cases because I will be too busy with the written arguments and affidavits to be filing new cases. Therefore, anyone wishing to participate in this litigation should join no later than Wednesday, January 18th. (I will, however, make exceptions for litigants from visa posts which are not yet represented or for which we have only one litigant.)
I expect to send out a summary of the meeting on Friday.
Regards,
Tim
最后编辑: 2012-01-18
回复: 北京起诉的情况,有人想加入没
新的律师信大意：
1）现在案子人数不能再增加了；
2）律师要确立个时限来准备案件所需材料和反查cic官员的宣誓材料；
3）未来两周将决定是代表案例（法院不同意，律师坚持）还是法庭希望的就一个案子（律师肯定不会选印度伊朗，应该是北京）；
4）共识：宣判的结果对参与起诉的其他人有同效；
5）法院已有大致日期望尽早开庭，然后转到联邦法院（不知理解对否），年底之前应该都有结果；
Good day,
Thursday evening both parties' counsel met for an hour with the judge to decide how to proceed. Last Friday, the judge had issued an order which disturbed both parties because, rather than proceed with representative cases, he had ordered that affidavits and written arguments be prepared served and filed on all the cases. Clearly his understanding of what had been agreed on December 6th differed from what both parties had understood. The net result is that he has suspended the Friday the 13th order and given us until February 7th to set out a joint proposal on how to proceed or, if we do not agree entirely, he will impose the structure. After he has reviewed our joint submission, we will have another meeting.
The big news to come out of the meeting was that the judge told us that the decision to grant leave has been made, which is to say, the Court will definitely hear our cases. In fact, he said that he has already requested that a date for the hearing be found. The Court clearly wants this issue to be decided as soon as possible. He also averred that the as-yet-to-be-revealed judge who will hear the case will agree to allow the matter to be appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA). While the appeal will mean that the cases will continue longer than otherwise, the fact that he is trying to arrange an early date for the hearing means that the delay will not be that great. In fact, both decisions could be rendered before the end of the year.
The judge expressed the Court's annoyance at more litigants joining the litigation. (The Court simply is not in a position to deal with large numbers of cases.) He said that, in addition to our then 550 cases, 100 (Persian) cases had been filed in Montréal and "a handful in Vancouver". So, I agree not to add additional applicants to the litigation. Thus, as matters currently stand, those who have not yet joined the litigation will not be able to do so. (I filed 66 new cases just before the meeting occurred.)
The procedural disagreement with CIC is that it wants only one case to be put forward per class. According to DoJ (Dep't of Justice), roughly two-thirds of the litigants applied before 27 February 2008 and one third between 27 February 2008 and 25 June 2010. DoJ has agreed to the judge's request to be advised how many are in each class.
Over the next two weeks, DoJ and I will try to work out a time-line for submitting written arguments and to cross-examine the CIC official who submits CIC's affidavit. I envision both parties submitting two affidavits, one addressing the facts specific to the individual litigant's case and the other addressing the general issues which apply to everyone. (Ordinarily we adduce one affidavit, and CIC often does not adduce any.) Also, usually no one is examined, but this time they know that their official will definitely be examined. We will be discussing whether those submitting our affidavits will be examined, too.
(Examinations occur around a table in a room and consist of each counsel questioning the deponent on the contents of his/her affidavit. It usually lasts 45 minutes to an hour. The questions are recorded and a written transcript is prepared for the Court.)
Within two weeks we will know if DoJ and I are on the same page with respect to the number of litigants per class. The only identified disagreement at this juncture is how many representative cases. They want only one; I would prefer candidates from each visa-post involved. Within two weeks, we will know whether we can agree on the number or whether the Court will have to decide. (If we have only one case, I have decided which one it will be, but it is not from Delhi or Damascus, where 90% of the files are to be found.) The Court did state that I will make that selection; not DoJ.
The next update should be in about one month. All written arguments and examinations should be concluded by June, which could mean that the Federal Court hearing may occur this summer.
1）现在案子人数不能再增加了；
2）律师要确立个时限来准备案件所需材料和反查cic官员的宣誓材料；
3）未来两周将决定是代表案例（法院不同意，律师坚持）还是法庭希望的就一个案子（律师肯定不会选印度伊朗，应该是北京）；
4）共识：宣判的结果对参与起诉的其他人有同效；
5）法院已有大致日期望尽早开庭，然后转到联邦法院（不知理解对否），年底之前应该都有结果；
Good day,
Thursday evening both parties' counsel met for an hour with the judge to decide how to proceed. Last Friday, the judge had issued an order which disturbed both parties because, rather than proceed with representative cases, he had ordered that affidavits and written arguments be prepared served and filed on all the cases. Clearly his understanding of what had been agreed on December 6th differed from what both parties had understood. The net result is that he has suspended the Friday the 13th order and given us until February 7th to set out a joint proposal on how to proceed or, if we do not agree entirely, he will impose the structure. After he has reviewed our joint submission, we will have another meeting.
The big news to come out of the meeting was that the judge told us that the decision to grant leave has been made, which is to say, the Court will definitely hear our cases. In fact, he said that he has already requested that a date for the hearing be found. The Court clearly wants this issue to be decided as soon as possible. He also averred that the as-yet-to-be-revealed judge who will hear the case will agree to allow the matter to be appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA). While the appeal will mean that the cases will continue longer than otherwise, the fact that he is trying to arrange an early date for the hearing means that the delay will not be that great. In fact, both decisions could be rendered before the end of the year.
The judge expressed the Court's annoyance at more litigants joining the litigation. (The Court simply is not in a position to deal with large numbers of cases.) He said that, in addition to our then 550 cases, 100 (Persian) cases had been filed in Montréal and "a handful in Vancouver". So, I agree not to add additional applicants to the litigation. Thus, as matters currently stand, those who have not yet joined the litigation will not be able to do so. (I filed 66 new cases just before the meeting occurred.)
The procedural disagreement with CIC is that it wants only one case to be put forward per class. According to DoJ (Dep't of Justice), roughly two-thirds of the litigants applied before 27 February 2008 and one third between 27 February 2008 and 25 June 2010. DoJ has agreed to the judge's request to be advised how many are in each class.
Over the next two weeks, DoJ and I will try to work out a time-line for submitting written arguments and to cross-examine the CIC official who submits CIC's affidavit. I envision both parties submitting two affidavits, one addressing the facts specific to the individual litigant's case and the other addressing the general issues which apply to everyone. (Ordinarily we adduce one affidavit, and CIC often does not adduce any.) Also, usually no one is examined, but this time they know that their official will definitely be examined. We will be discussing whether those submitting our affidavits will be examined, too.
(Examinations occur around a table in a room and consist of each counsel questioning the deponent on the contents of his/her affidavit. It usually lasts 45 minutes to an hour. The questions are recorded and a written transcript is prepared for the Court.)
Within two weeks we will know if DoJ and I are on the same page with respect to the number of litigants per class. The only identified disagreement at this juncture is how many representative cases. They want only one; I would prefer candidates from each visa-post involved. Within two weeks, we will know whether we can agree on the number or whether the Court will have to decide. (If we have only one case, I have decided which one it will be, but it is not from Delhi or Damascus, where 90% of the files are to be found.) The Court did state that I will make that selection; not DoJ.
The next update should be in about one month. All written arguments and examinations should be concluded by June, which could mean that the Federal Court hearing may occur this summer.
回复: 北京起诉的情况,有人想加入没
我挺这个律师，不断的有update，而且法院也ms挺积极的。
希望有好的结果，而且说了如果就1个案子代表是不会用阿三和叙利亚的
我挺这个律师，不断的有update，而且法院也ms挺积极的。
希望有好的结果，而且说了如果就1个案子代表是不会用阿三和叙利亚的
回复: 北京起诉的情况,有人想加入没
2.2日律师来信:
Good day,
At 5:30pm yesterday, DoJ reverted with its version of the Protocol. They want only one case per class and have agreed that, if our representative cases win, the other applicants will as well. I am not happy with DoJ's wording and have proposed a more transparent promise in that respect. (Class I are those who applied before 27 February 2008 and Class II are those who applied between 27 February 2008 and 25 June 2010.)
DoJ has also confirmed that it agrees to inclusion of additional litigants. The mechanics for doing so, however, remain unresolved. Because the judge requested that I refrain from filing more cases, I will not do so until (a) we have clarified the way it will be done and (b) the judge has lifted his suspension of new litigants.
Because we are required to present the judge by February 7th with the Protocol -- either one in which we are in full agreement or one stating where we differ -- I expect that the processing procedure will be resolved by February 15th, after which I will be able to launch the new applications.
Our written arguments will be due thirty days after the Protocol is finalized and theirs, thirty days after I have served our written arguments. At the last meeting, the judge stated that he was trying to arrange a hearing date and that the losing party would be permitted to appeal the decision to the Federal Court of Appeal. So, we may also know within about two weeks the date of the hearing. The earliest it could be is August.
I am actually quite pleased that CIC is insisting on only one representative case per class because the case I have selected for Class I (pre-27 February 2008) was assessed positively in March 2010 with full marks for English and 81 points in total. In addition, the program manager of this litigant's visa post is on record as having admitted that processing has been "suspended", there is no time-line for processing the files and he must wait for the Minister to change the policy before the files to be processed. The facts are very good for us.
I have not yet selected the representative case for those who applied between 27 February 2008 and 25 June 2010. The key factors are:
1. The occupation of the applicant (and spouse). I want the occupation to be one where employment is reasonably certain. For example, chefs, IT folk and accountants are always in demand, as are nurses, whereas doctors (and nurses) must first be licensed and, in order to be licensed, must have very high IELTS scores. Likewise a university professor would have to have very strong English. If the spouse has experience in a high-demand occupation, the case would be even stronger.
2. IELTS results. The higher the results, the easier it will be to secure employment in Canada.
3. The quota and inventory. In this respect, Damascus has the best optics because it has a quota of under 1,000 and nearly 15,000 applications. Thus, at matters currently stand, it will take fifteen years to finalize these cases which the Minister promised would be processed within one year.
4. Updated Application. CIC operational instructions require an assessment within four months of a file having been updated at the visa-post's command. Thus, a Class II applicant who has done so without result is a stronger case than one who has not.
Any suggestions for a Class II representative case would be welcomed.
Regards,
Tim
2.2日律师来信:
Good day,
At 5:30pm yesterday, DoJ reverted with its version of the Protocol. They want only one case per class and have agreed that, if our representative cases win, the other applicants will as well. I am not happy with DoJ's wording and have proposed a more transparent promise in that respect. (Class I are those who applied before 27 February 2008 and Class II are those who applied between 27 February 2008 and 25 June 2010.)
DoJ has also confirmed that it agrees to inclusion of additional litigants. The mechanics for doing so, however, remain unresolved. Because the judge requested that I refrain from filing more cases, I will not do so until (a) we have clarified the way it will be done and (b) the judge has lifted his suspension of new litigants.
Because we are required to present the judge by February 7th with the Protocol -- either one in which we are in full agreement or one stating where we differ -- I expect that the processing procedure will be resolved by February 15th, after which I will be able to launch the new applications.
Our written arguments will be due thirty days after the Protocol is finalized and theirs, thirty days after I have served our written arguments. At the last meeting, the judge stated that he was trying to arrange a hearing date and that the losing party would be permitted to appeal the decision to the Federal Court of Appeal. So, we may also know within about two weeks the date of the hearing. The earliest it could be is August.
I am actually quite pleased that CIC is insisting on only one representative case per class because the case I have selected for Class I (pre-27 February 2008) was assessed positively in March 2010 with full marks for English and 81 points in total. In addition, the program manager of this litigant's visa post is on record as having admitted that processing has been "suspended", there is no time-line for processing the files and he must wait for the Minister to change the policy before the files to be processed. The facts are very good for us.
I have not yet selected the representative case for those who applied between 27 February 2008 and 25 June 2010. The key factors are:
1. The occupation of the applicant (and spouse). I want the occupation to be one where employment is reasonably certain. For example, chefs, IT folk and accountants are always in demand, as are nurses, whereas doctors (and nurses) must first be licensed and, in order to be licensed, must have very high IELTS scores. Likewise a university professor would have to have very strong English. If the spouse has experience in a high-demand occupation, the case would be even stronger.
2. IELTS results. The higher the results, the easier it will be to secure employment in Canada.
3. The quota and inventory. In this respect, Damascus has the best optics because it has a quota of under 1,000 and nearly 15,000 applications. Thus, at matters currently stand, it will take fifteen years to finalize these cases which the Minister promised would be processed within one year.
4. Updated Application. CIC operational instructions require an assessment within four months of a file having been updated at the visa-post's command. Thus, a Class II applicant who has done so without result is a stronger case than one who has not.
Any suggestions for a Class II representative case would be welcomed.
Regards,
Tim
回复: 北京起诉的情况,有人想加入没
大概意思是:2-15号交完草案,一个月后交书面论证.然后有一个听证会,听证会最早在8月.现在律师着急要一个227的案子做为代表.91的代表律师已经找到了,是个雅思满分,总分81分的强人,估计是北京的,因为香港的还没开始S2呢.
大概意思是:2-15号交完草案,一个月后交书面论证.然后有一个听证会,听证会最早在8月.现在律师着急要一个227的案子做为代表.91的代表律师已经找到了,是个雅思满分,总分81分的强人,估计是北京的,因为香港的还没开始S2呢.
回复: 北京起诉的情况,有人想加入没
今天,又收到律师的来信,请各位看看邮箱吧.大概意思是听证会从八月提前到6月初了.91的案子选的是北京的,227的案子选的是新德里的一位护士,雅思打的分数也非常高.3月7日律师准备书面论证,4月7号CIC准备完书面论证.先审91的,91赢了,照此审理227的.91的案子占总人数的75%,总人数是655人.
今天,又收到律师的来信,请各位看看邮箱吧.大概意思是听证会从八月提前到6月初了.91的案子选的是北京的,227的案子选的是新德里的一位护士,雅思打的分数也非常高.3月7日律师准备书面论证,4月7号CIC准备完书面论证.先审91的,91赢了,照此审理227的.91的案子占总人数的75%,总人数是655人.
回复: 北京起诉的情况,有人想加入没
北京如果能单独一类就好了，我们胜算太大了，现在和哪些印伊的放一起就要有折扣了。。。
人数现在已经655了，律师很显然还在期待更多的加入，再加入对我们就是累赘了。。。
北京如果能单独一类就好了，我们胜算太大了，现在和哪些印伊的放一起就要有折扣了。。。
人数现在已经655了，律师很显然还在期待更多的加入，再加入对我们就是累赘了。。。
回复: 北京起诉的情况,有人想加入没
6月5日听证，9月出结果。
6月5日听证，9月出结果。
回复: 北京起诉的情况,有人想加入没
谢谢更新！
谢谢更新！
回复: 北京起诉的情况,有人想加入没
顶一下这个帖子。
今天TIM的Email说4月他来北京。有人能和他见面聊聊吗？
顶一下这个帖子。
今天TIM的Email说4月他来北京。有人能和他见面聊聊吗？
回复: 北京起诉的情况,有人想加入没
最近真太忙了，到时计划下。主要是参加游行的人如果借律师之手把加媒体引来最好，实在不行，把影像给他让他想办法捅给媒体。。。
最近真太忙了，到时计划下。主要是参加游行的人如果借律师之手把加媒体引来最好，实在不行，把影像给他让他想办法捅给媒体。。。
回复: 律师的联系方式再顶下，方便想赶上第一批起诉的同学
顶起来，看结局。。。
顶起来，看结局。。。
注册或登录来发表评论
您必须是注册会员才可以发表评论
注册帐号
注册帐号. 太容易了!
登录
已有帐号? 在这里登录.
Similar threads
2024-04-21有新赞
全楼:0.00
flashlight
- 0.00 超赞 赏
- gzhou8888 ,#322
- 2024-06-18
- 生活・购物・亲子・教育・美食・旅游
2024-07-02有新赞
全楼:0.00
gzhou8888
- 0.04 超赞 赏
- 小小喇叭 ,#74
- 2022-09-17
- 聊天・灌水・娱乐・新闻・时事
2023-01-16有新回复
全楼:0.04
小小喇叭