家庭旅馆 国内机票版 海运专栏 房版

87.4对诉讼的影响 87.3对所有移民积案的影响

回复: 87.4对诉讼的影响 87.3对所有移民积案的影响

那请问:这个顺序的635人是TIM的还是包含其他律师的? 有点菜啊。。

614之前的635人>329后ME被切的>614后参加的>其他律师的参加人
 
回复: 87.4对诉讼的影响 87.3对所有移民积案的影响

614之前的635人当然指的是TIM一个律师的。

除了TIM,还有谁有判决书?

其他律师只有告87.4违宪一条路,因为起步晚了。329后才组织的诉讼组不可能在C38通过之前完成开庭和判决。这个问题我几个月前就解释过了。

329前SD不被切的也只有TIM有判决书,TIM的判决成为判例,其他律师根据这个判例坐享其成,但是被一刀切的人不适用这个判例了。这就是为什么Bellissimo从歧视角度告87.4违宪,其他律师的角度不同,但都是告87.4违宪。TIM是从2011年开始的,他的诉讼是要求起诉人的案子在有限的时间内结案,完全不触及宪法层面。
 
回复: 87.4对诉讼的影响 87.3对所有移民积案的影响

保守党对付告违宪的这些人,有一个秘密的时间表,我在9月发帖详细说了。

我看着他们一步一步按照那个预定的计划走。。。

保守党会不会在计划的路上栽跟头,就要看那些律师和起诉人的努力了,当然还有天意。。。
 
最后编辑: 2012-12-03
回复: 87.4对诉讼的影响 87.3对所有移民积案的影响

我这个帖子还有很多内容待续,先做个预告:

------ CIC的律师如何从一开始就计划把TIM的官司(本来与87.4完全无关),拖到告87.4违宪的路上来

------ 614判决书里为什么有case by case review这个未完成的行动,为什么635人的case by case才是CIC最怕的

------ 在“150人放水”事件之前,TIM就提议用25.2来解决胜诉的人,这个25.2能起到什么作用

------ 集体诉讼(28万人的),是对CIC和保守党最大的打击,但对起诉人没什么好处
 
回复: 87.4对诉讼的影响 87.3对所有移民积案的影响

我这个帖子还有很多内容待续,先做个预告:

------ CIC的律师如何从一开始就计划把TIM的官司(本来与87.4完全无关),拖到告87.4违宪的路上来

------ 614判决书里为什么有case by case review这个未完成的行动,为什么635人的case by case才是CIC最怕的

------ 在“150人放水”事件之前,TIM就提议用25.2来解决胜诉的人,这个25.2能起到什么作用

------ 集体诉讼(28万人的),是对CIC和保守党最大的打击,但对起诉人没什么好处
目前有那几个律师在做违宪(非集体诉讼),哪几个做集体诉讼?
 
回复: 87.4对诉讼的影响 87.3对所有移民积案的影响

巴恩斯老先生的无为而治果然是不辱使命,阻止了28万人的集体诉讼,既让CIC满意,也让参加起诉的抱有一丝希望。
有两点感触颇深:法官的意向与CIC总是“不谋而合”,法院的环节似乎早已经在CIC的事前排练之中,只有CIC的乌龙才能给律师们送炮弹。
法官和CIC官员的“春秋文法”一脉相承,说话打埋伏,绕你没商量。这个巴恩斯号称自己对动议有裁决权,而且11月份给集体诉讼的律师有说法,敢情不动也是裁决,延期也是说法,和以康某人为首的某部门何其相似。大家都要学会逆向思维额。
 
回复: 87.4对诉讼的影响 87.3对所有移民积案的影响

目前有那几个律师在做违宪(非集体诉讼),哪几个做集体诉讼?


目前都在做非集体诉讼的违宪,因为法官不让做集体诉讼了

这个集体诉讼要等到1月开庭完了才重新提出来,所以到时候有几个人做现在说不准

现在告CIC的律师总共有10多位了
 
回复: 87.4对诉讼的影响 87.3对所有移民积案的影响

http://forum.iask.ca/showthread.php?t=586961

Would-be immigrants poised to hear about application backlog

Dong Wang has waited almost six years for his immigration dream to be fulfilled. This week, he and 900 other applicants will find out from a Canadian court if their long wait has been in vain.

The 33-year-old native of the Chinese city of Dalian applied to immigrate to Canada in 2006. He has been put through an emotional rollercoaster since he joined a lawsuit last November against Ottawa for warehousing backlogged immigration applications and failing to process them in a timely fashion.

In February, Wang got a letter from Immigration saying his application had been assessed and he and his wife should prepare the necessary documents, take the English language test and get a medical exam.

“We were all excited and full of hope after waiting for so long and so much effort we had made,” said Wang, an executive with an international hotel management group.
The bomb dropped in March when Immigration Minister Jason Kenney announced a new law to clear the immigration backlog of 280,000 applicants. Bill C-38 would come into effect June 29.

In April, the couple got a “stop-submit” letter from Immigration. “Please ignore our recent request to submit full application forms and supporting documentation,” it read. “This office will not put your application into process. We will contact you . . . regarding refund of the processing fees.”

Last month, just before Bill C-38 became law, the Federal Court ruled on the case of the 900-plus applicants, saying the government must expedite the processing of the backlogged applications.

But on June 29, Citizenship and Immigration Canada stated that all applications filed before February 2008, when new selection criteria were introduced by Kenney, would be terminated.

“We’re really disappointed and sad,” Wang told the Star from China.

Tim Leahy, lawyer for the 900 litigants, is taking one last shot, asking the court to direct Immigration to assess their cases under humanitarian and compassionate grounds. Justice Robert Barnes is expected to deliver his decision this week.

Litigant Justin Pang, 30, who filed his application from Beijing six years ago, hopes the court will make a fair and sensible decision to get them justice, given the backlog isn’t the making of the applicants but the Canadian government.

“I have done everything I could that they asked me to, but finally they only gave me one letter to deny all the efforts I’ve made,” said the Tsinghua University graduate, an IT manager for a Fortune 500 company in Beijing.
 
回复: 87.4对诉讼的影响 87.3对所有移民积案的影响

以上7月底多伦多星报对香港ME被切的同学的采访,有TIM的呼吁:Tim Leahy, lawyer for the 900 litigants, is taking one last shot, asking the court to direct Immigration to assess their cases under humanitarian and compassionate grounds. Justice Robert Barnes is expected to deliver his decision this week.

under humanitarian and compassionate grounds的依据就是最近CIC的公告和150人放水的依据,移民法25.2.

6月官司胜诉后,CIC拖延了半个月不行动,等到C38在6月29通过后再出来宣布参加起诉的635人虽胜诉,但被法律87.4切掉了,部长不能违反87.4处理这些人。Tim对此的解决办法之一就是要求部长用25.2的特权来放行,这一点也在TIM从6月到11月提交的几次动议中有强调。但CIC的律师完全否定了这个提议。这是CIC方面的回应:

29 The Applicant's argument that the Minister maintains discretionto process these terminated applications under Section 25 of the Acf must also fail. Section 25, as recently amended by Bill C-31, requires that requests
for humanitarian and compassionate consideration be accompanied by an application for permanent residence. Section 87.4 unequivocally terminates
the application by operation of law and thus no application exists to which s. 25 could apply


25.1 和25.2 法律条款:

25. (1) The Minister must, on request of a foreign
national in Canada who is inadmissible or
who does not meet the requirements of this
Act, and may, on request of a foreign national
outside Canada, examine the circumstances
concerning the foreign national and may
grant the foreign national permanent resident
status or an exemption from any applicable
criteria or obligations of this Act if the
Minister is of the opinion that it is justified
by humanitarian and compassionate
considerations relating to the foreign national,
taking into account the best interests of a
child directly affected. [emphasis supplied]

25.2 (1) The Minister may, in examining the circumstances
concerning a foreign national who is inadmissible or
who does not meet the requirements of this Act,
grant that person permanent resident status or an
exemption from any applicable criteria or
obligations of this Act if the foreign national
complies with any conditions imposed by the
Minister and the Minister is of the opinion that it
is justified by public policy considerations.


Tim的辩护:

17. To be sure, the respondent has quibbled over how these provisions may be accessed,
but the objections are easily parried. Section 25(1), they say, requires an application, but,
it does not: it only requires a “request”; e.g., this motion. But, even so, the Court may
direct the respondent to treat the closed application as having met that requirement, may
direct the respondent to approve the litigants pursuant to s. 25(1) upon receipt of a new
request that he do so or the Court may direct the respondent to exempt the litigants
from the requirement to submit a (new) application. After all, the stated purpose of the
provision to grant landing to someone who does not meet a requirement. Thus, even if
a formal application is required, they may still be landed despite not having made one.

18. With respect to s. 25.1, the respondent asserts without citing any authority – and
for good reason – that the Court may not direct the Minister to access s. 25.1. With all
due respect, the FCA does not impose that limitation. Thus, the Court has the power to
direct the respondent to treat the honouring of ¶14 of the Protocol as being justified on
humanitarian and compassionate grounds because the litigants have been dutifully
waiting in the immigration queue for four to eight years.
 
最后编辑: 2012-12-04
回复: 87.4对诉讼的影响 87.3对所有移民积案的影响

关于OB479B,Tim的评论:

Although it does not apply to any of the litigants, it proves that I have been right all along: the Minister has the means to override the effect of s. 87.4, contrary to what DoJ has been arguing in Court. The Minister's having done so effectively means that DoJ has been lying to the Court with respect to enforcement of the Agreement. If anyone over there has any smarts, they'll immediately offer to settle our cases.

虽然这个公告不适用于任何起诉人,但是它证明了部长有办法绕开87.4解决问题,而DOJ的律师却在法庭说没有办法做与87.4相抵触的举措。

现在部长动用25.2的行为证明了DOJ的律师用弄虚作假对法庭撒谎的方式逃脱执行协议。如果CIC的人还有点头脑的话,就应该马上主动执行614判决。
 
回复: 87.4对诉讼的影响 87.3对所有移民积案的影响

25.1和25.2是绕开一刀切法律87.4执行87.4通过之前胜诉的判决的方式,只对TIM的起诉人有效,对其他律师无效。

其他律师在1月开庭的诉求是推翻87.4,如果胜诉了,87.4一刀切就宣判不合法了,所以就没必要去钻25.1和25.2的空子了。

如果其他律师想马上改变策略不去告87.4违宪,也像TIM一样在不推翻87.4的前提下解决问题,这个有可能吗?唯一的可能就是要求TIM的614判决成为他们的判例,要求他们的起诉人和TIM的同等待遇,但是TIM的635人还没有完全获胜,那些律师哪来判例?

DOJ的律师三番五次弄虚作假戏弄法庭,这个行为本身对我们有利。至于25.1和25.2的作用,对我们没什么重大的意义,只要Justice Rennie在一月判决CIC审理635人,CIC再怎么叫苦没办法绕开87.4也跑不了。
 
回复: 87.4对诉讼的影响 87.3对所有移民积案的影响

上次法庭作假证供,康尼跑出来圆场,这次说谎作假欺骗法庭,康尼会玩什么么花招呢?
 
回复: 87.4对诉讼的影响 87.3对所有移民积案的影响

这次也可以圆谎的,我都做得到

但这已经不重要了。我还是坚持我的看法:不指望CIC妥协,我的信心在Justice Rennie,他的614判决书早埋下了伏笔
 
回复: 87.4对诉讼的影响 87.3对所有移民积案的影响

巴恩斯老先生的无为而治果然是不辱使命,阻止了28万人的集体诉讼,既让CIC满意,也让参加起诉的抱有一丝希望。
有两点感触颇深:法官的意向与CIC总是“不谋而合”,法院的环节似乎早已经在CIC的事前排练之中,只有CIC的乌龙才能给律师们送炮弹。
法官和CIC官员的“春秋文法”一脉相承,说话打埋伏,绕你没商量。这个巴恩斯号称自己对动议有裁决权,而且11月份给集体诉讼的律师有说法,敢情不动也是裁决,延期也是说法,和以康某人为首的某部门何其相似。大家都要学会逆向思维额。
很同意东门半年前的分析,CIC堵死了C38后申请人所有司法救济的途径,包括上诉、索赔,就是为了将官司引到集体诉讼的路上去,靠集体诉讼可以预见的持续长时间来给自己建立所谓的即时系统以缓冲阶段。
可以预见,在所有的积案搞定(最主要的是28万人拿回退款丧失起诉资格)前,CIC不会妥协,败诉后也会果断上诉,能拖多久拖多久。当然也有可能较快,这要看积案处理的速度和起诉人的数量。
 
回复: 87.4对诉讼的影响 87.3对所有移民积案的影响

上次法庭作假证供,康尼跑出来圆场,这次说谎作假欺骗法庭,康尼会玩什么么花招呢?
这两次是不一样的,上次是康尼被动出来圆场,就是怕227的跳出来打官司。而这次康尼是主动把25.1和25.2搬出来的,康尼不会傻到送人炮弹、授人以柄的地步吧?这150人要打官司就不是挑战87.4了,直接索赔没商量,和我们打的官司是两个性质。
 
回复: 87.4对诉讼的影响 87.3对所有移民积案的影响

87.4 (1) An application by a foreign national for a permanent resident visa as a member of the prescribed class of federal skilled workers that was made before February 27, 2008 is terminated if, before March 29, 2012, it has not been established by an officer, in accordance with the regulations, whether the applicant meets the selection criteria and other requirements applicable to that class.

(4) Any fees paid to the Minister in respect of the application referred to in subsection (1) ― including for the acquisition of permanent resident status ― must be returned, without interest, to the person who paid them. The amounts payable may be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
).


87.4不近情理的地方必须用25.2来弥补

根据上面引用的,329后selection decision获得VISA的,也必须被强制退费

87.4决定申请人是否一刀切的唯一标准是329前有没有selection decision,329后SD获得VISA的,按87.4字面理解也必须收回VISA一刀切

这再次证明了329这个日期无比荒唐
 
回复: 87.4对诉讼的影响 87.3对所有移民积案的影响

Tim的起诉是2011年底开始的,一刀切是2012年3月29宣布的,2011年底所有起诉人:旧政,91有S2和没S2都是开放的状态,同属于Pre-C50的类别,也就是C50生效之前的移民积案,所以当时的起诉人只分为两类,Pre-C50和227,法庭只允许有两个代表案例分别代表这两类人,CIC也同意。一刀切87.4是在2012年3月29宣布的,所以2011年的官司不可能把起诉人分为打分和没打分的。在329宣布之前,这个诉讼已经进入了正式的程序,6月5开庭这个日期也在2012年初宣布了。

起诉在前,一刀切在后,这是谁也否认不了的事实。

可是CIC自从宣布一刀切后就打算把这个之前的起诉拖向告87.4违宪的路上来。

5月底TIM向法庭申请禁制令要求起诉人的案子不受新法的影响,保持不被关闭的状态,这个动议被否决了,5月23Canadian Press的报道:

http://news.yahoo.com/immigrants-attempt-save-applications-quashed-court-223719182.html

A spokeswoman for Immigration Minister Jason Kenney says they were pleased and not surprised by the ruling.
Ana Curic says the government believes the bill will withstand any legal challenges and she called the backlog a roadblock to Canada's ability to respond to labour market needs.

康尼的发言人说禁制令被否决感到不惊讶,而且很pleased,然后顺水推舟说一刀切法案无漏洞经得起法律挑战

这个发言人就是撒谎能人,5月23的时候C38通过了吗?那个禁制令被驳回是C38的作用吗?她这样说的目的就是为了迷惑大家这个起诉是挑战一刀切的,也表明了CIC要把这个诉讼引向告一刀切违宪的路上来。

6月官司胜诉后,CIC拖到7月份C38木已成舟才出来执行判决,只给329前有selection decision和227的总共100多人审理时间表,大部分329前没SD他们给的答复是:欢迎他们重新打87.4违宪的诉讼。

DOJ的律师后来和法庭的交流中也一直强调这些人的案子被C38关闭了,我在前面的帖子有详细提到。其实在6月5开庭期间(当时C38还没有通过),CIC就把C38拿出来抗衡,这就是为什么614判决书有一个部分专门分析C38对起诉的影响:
http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/2012/2012fc758/2012fc758.html

第[20] 到 [22]段

前面两段描述C38通过后哪些人要被切掉以及329后法庭判决无效,最后一段Justice Rennie给出他的结论:

While both the applicants and the respondent sought to rely on the existence of this amendment currently before the House of Commons, it has not, and cannot, play any part in the disposition of these applications.

C38草案对这些起诉人的案件无效。

6月14号的时候C38是个草案没有任何效力,所以CIC等到6月29号它生效之后再出来宣布635人被一刀切了,CIC单方面的决定至今没有得到法庭的回应,因为Justice Barnes不对动议作任何判决。

CIC一直都是搞心理战的能手。2011年诉讼开始的时候,CIC发言人对媒体说,联邦法庭根本不会为这种诉讼开庭。等到开庭了他们马上就忘了说过这样的话。

635人的案子在6月29号以后真的被切了吗?事实是,这个判决是6月14出来的,当时C38没生效,它已经定格在C38之前了,CIC所做的,依然是用一部法律草案来处理案件。Justice Rennie花那么多笔墨解释法律草案是什么东西能不能发挥作用和他在庭下说的协议能起作用是相呼应的。

一月中旬开庭,参加TIM的尤其是614之前的人能不能获得终审胜诉判决,让CIC不能上诉只能执行判决,完全取决于Justice Rennie是否和他在614的判决保持一致,取决于他是否认定C38不适用于他自己6月14的判决。
 

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

顶部