2012向CIC开战，开帖记录全过程。本论坛记录到此为止。实际行动中继续
- 主题发起人 jesuimajeur
- 发布时间 2012-03-19
回复: 省提名之后CIC下一步动向：雇主提名+劝退信，一刀切是最后的选项（更多细节在跟帖补上）
==================================
请问谁有渥太华cic的邮箱呢？
信是渥太华发出的，最后的决定权在CIC，我觉得给渥太华CIC写信更靠谱
==================================
请问谁有渥太华cic的邮箱呢？
回复: 2012向CIC开战，开帖记录全过程
别急别急，我现在还要EMAIL过去，得到让我感到信心十足的回答之后再来贴。他回复之后马上贴。
前面还有很艰辛的路要走。
另外，请大家稍安勿躁，现在离强撤或者新法追溯旧案还远得很，八字还没有一撇！
说说撒
别急别急，我现在还要EMAIL过去，得到让我感到信心十足的回答之后再来贴。他回复之后马上贴。
前面还有很艰辛的路要走。
另外，请大家稍安勿躁，现在离强撤或者新法追溯旧案还远得很，八字还没有一撇！
回复: 2012向CIC开战，开帖记录全过程
我给TIM的信：
Dear Tim:
I am encouraged by your last letter, but there are 2 issues which have confused me for a while.
First, in your own email:
Please keep in mind that, although many believe that I won the case in 2002 where I challenged CIC's intention to apply the now current selection criteria with a 72-point pass-mark retrospectively, I actually lost on the legal issue but, nevertheless, the Court ordered CIC to make selection decisions on our 102 litigants before the new rule went into effect five weeks later; see below. Thus, CIC may if it chooses apply these new criteria on pending files.
Does it mean CIC could apply the new FSW point grid, the very harsh standard to the exsiting files legally due to the fact that you lost on the legal issue back in 2002, because the situation is quite the same this time?
And the second, according to the news, CIC may legislate away the backlogs, this is what we worry the most, if there was a backlog-cancle law established somewhere in the near future, would it be that we have no rights whatsoever to sue them, let alone win the case?
We are considering all possible ways to fight especially seeking help from the law, and we appreciate your help very much.
Reards.
Yiming
他的回复：
Dear Yiming,
There is absolutely no point in asking yourself "what if", "what if" and "what if" incessantly. And, likewise, I don't have time conjuring answers to events which have not occurred -- or repeating my answer every other day.
1. As I said, ONE judge held that CIC may do what no other government depart has ever tried to do. I do not believe that he got it right but it did not matter. If you will pay attention to what I wrote, you will have the answer to your question: A date of action must first be set. If the Court orders action before that date, it does not matter what that subsequent action is.
2. I don't think that he will do so.
There are two options at this point: 1. Do nothing and see what happens or 2. join this litigation and hope that it works. You took the wiser of the options in my view. Now let it play out, okay?
Regards,
Tim
这是更早的EMAIL的部分内容：
I have included in our written a request that the Court bar the Minister from refusing anyone under new selection criteria. So, that is already on the table. It was two days after I filed before the Minister announced that he was considering refusing everyone in the backlog. So, I did not address that issue. However, if we get an order requiring processing the litigants files before he makes that announcement, he will have to process them.
And, yes, if he cancels all the files, we can sue him. What I do not know, however, is (a) whether he will really do so or (b) how the Court will react. My own guess is that he does not really intend to do so; rather, he will raise the pass-mark, impose a minimum standard of English and reduce the maximum score for age and impose those standards on the existing files, thereby refusing a very, very large hunk of them -- or prompting their withdrawal.
我给TIM的信：
Dear Tim:
I am encouraged by your last letter, but there are 2 issues which have confused me for a while.
First, in your own email:
Please keep in mind that, although many believe that I won the case in 2002 where I challenged CIC's intention to apply the now current selection criteria with a 72-point pass-mark retrospectively, I actually lost on the legal issue but, nevertheless, the Court ordered CIC to make selection decisions on our 102 litigants before the new rule went into effect five weeks later; see below. Thus, CIC may if it chooses apply these new criteria on pending files.
Does it mean CIC could apply the new FSW point grid, the very harsh standard to the exsiting files legally due to the fact that you lost on the legal issue back in 2002, because the situation is quite the same this time?
And the second, according to the news, CIC may legislate away the backlogs, this is what we worry the most, if there was a backlog-cancle law established somewhere in the near future, would it be that we have no rights whatsoever to sue them, let alone win the case?
We are considering all possible ways to fight especially seeking help from the law, and we appreciate your help very much.
Reards.
Yiming
他的回复：
Dear Yiming,
There is absolutely no point in asking yourself "what if", "what if" and "what if" incessantly. And, likewise, I don't have time conjuring answers to events which have not occurred -- or repeating my answer every other day.
1. As I said, ONE judge held that CIC may do what no other government depart has ever tried to do. I do not believe that he got it right but it did not matter. If you will pay attention to what I wrote, you will have the answer to your question: A date of action must first be set. If the Court orders action before that date, it does not matter what that subsequent action is.
2. I don't think that he will do so.
There are two options at this point: 1. Do nothing and see what happens or 2. join this litigation and hope that it works. You took the wiser of the options in my view. Now let it play out, okay?
Regards,
Tim
这是更早的EMAIL的部分内容：
I have included in our written a request that the Court bar the Minister from refusing anyone under new selection criteria. So, that is already on the table. It was two days after I filed before the Minister announced that he was considering refusing everyone in the backlog. So, I did not address that issue. However, if we get an order requiring processing the litigants files before he makes that announcement, he will have to process them.
And, yes, if he cancels all the files, we can sue him. What I do not know, however, is (a) whether he will really do so or (b) how the Court will react. My own guess is that he does not really intend to do so; rather, he will raise the pass-mark, impose a minimum standard of English and reduce the maximum score for age and impose those standards on the existing files, thereby refusing a very, very large hunk of them -- or prompting their withdrawal.
回复: 省提名之后CIC下一步动向：雇主提名+劝退信，一刀切是最后的选项（更多细节在跟帖补上）
律师TIM也认为CIC要耍心机来促进大规模撤案
CIC确认信的威力
Pre-C50（91和旧政）近年来的结案人数
2011年只有1-9月的数据
从上图可以看出08年到09年的确认信劝退了相当一部分人，2009年香港也迎来撤案的高峰，撤案人数达到2556人，这些撤案的人只有很少很少转投了227。
2008年227政策还没有开始执行（11月28号确定），所以当年的结案总数全部为旧政。
CIC现在就等着这一招来让更多人自动撤案。
626政策执行的时候，CIC官网的FAQ一栏有问，为什么不再采用简化程序，答曰有相当多申请人在进入S2要求补料时表示不愿意继续申请。所以今年CIC发劝退信后又将迎来一个撤案的小高峰。
还可以看到，2008年的配额是7万人，实际结案人数将近14万。CIC号称2012年的技术移民配额比去年高多少多少，也只有6.1万，和2008年比是不是少多了？和2006年的8.7万人更没得比，这也解释了为什么积案越来越多，效率如此低！而CIC把原因归咎于申请数量剧增纯粹是扯谈！CIC就是这样玩弄文字游戏，明明大幅度减少了配额却宣称增加了多少。CIC一步步处心积虑压缩技术移民的空间。
下回预告：为什么227，626，71是很失败但CIC却死不认错的政策，它即将出台的新法又会如何下狠手避免重蹈覆辙。
律师TIM也认为CIC要耍心机来促进大规模撤案
回复: 2012向CIC开战，开帖记录全过程
印度人对一刀切的讨论：
Originally posted by canadaisgreat
All options are on the table for eliminating the massive backlogs in Canada’s immigration system, including the possibility of legislating away the more than one-million applications waiting to be assessed. Citizenship and Immigration Minister Jason Kenney made the startling suggestion at a speech to the Economic Club of Canada in Ottawa Wednesday, saying that he hadn’t made any decisions yet but is considering following the example of New Zealand, which eliminated its backlog by legislation in 2003.
On Wednesday, he emphasized the need to clear Canada’s backlogs, which are huge. If no new applications were accepted, there are enough people waiting in the system to fill our skilled worker targets for the next five years. He also announced that provinces will be able to sift through the current pool of skilled worker applicants to cherry pick candidates for their provincial nominee programs.
Referring to the New Zealand example in his speech Wednesday, Mr. Kenney said eliminating the backlog at a stroke made that country’s immigration system nimbler and more able to respond rapidly to changes in the labour market.
Lorne Waldman, a lawyer and immigration expert, said Mr. Kenney would have to pass new legislation to eliminate applications waiting in the queue.
For those of you who are having a tough time to understand the simple facts:
1. "Eliminating backlog at a stroke" means closing all immigration files and not processing all immigration files. This is basic English.
Does "all immigration" files mean parental+FSW pre-feb and FSW post-feb? Still not clear! Although million would include all the above categories, the minister in particular is more allergic to pre-feb 2008 backlog.
2. The only thing Kenny needs to eliminate all files is pass a legislation. Once a legislation is passed in the parliament, even Tim will be unable to do anything in the courts. Have you heard of any country where the courts are above the legislature? ARs long as the government passes laws through parliament (rather than enacting laws on its own), the court has to follow those laws.
Sorry you are wrong here.
Your understanding of how the parliamentary systems works seems to be only elementary. Laws are enacted by the parliament, implemented by the executive and interpreted by the judiciary. All laws made by parliament are subject to judicial review/scrutiny on grounds of fairness, equity and principles of natural justice.
Regarding your query of having heard about any country were courts are above the legislature.
Well theortically, none, but yes the judiciary can declare any law null and void on grounds of fairness, equity and natural justice. This is called judical review.
For example in the UK thousands of non-EU doctors were disadvantaged by a law of parliament which required EU doctors to be hired before non-EU. The government lost the case and did not even appeal as the honorable court ruled that it is against the principles of natural justice to change rules mid-way. And the lawyer who successfully argued the HSMP case is now a Judge in the High Court.
Any such law to dismiss the backlog will be subject to litigation, a class action along with a damages claim which will run in hundreds of millions of dollars (the latter can not be legislated against unfortunately).
Will a particular lawyer (or any othere lawyer) be able to do something about it....... only time will tell.
Regarding your last line in the above paragraph, the government does not enact laws on its own, laws are always made by the legislature/parliament.
I hope that explains my point.
3. The Conservatives have majority in the parliament and passing this legislation will be a cakewalk for them.
Agreed.
4. For those of you who don't know this: Kenny is a fairly important/powerful member of the Conservatives and his voice carries enormous weight with the Conservative government.
Agreed.
5. The background of Conservatives has been anti-immigration and closing the backlog will only increase their vote bank and not decrease it.
Agreed.
6. Before totally eliminating the backlog, the governments wants to cherry pick the most suitable immigrants and hence the pilot program. Once the most suitable immigrants have been picked up from the lot, the remaining files will be closed permanently.
Possible.... on the balance of probabilities principle.
I am really shocked that these simple facts are not being understood by many members of this forum!
Before making contradictory and absurd statements, try to spend some time and read Canadian news/discussions. In this internet age where we have all resources at our fingertips, you will look like a fool if you make statements just because you like them and not because they are factual.
I almost fell laughing reading that relatives/friends in Canada will make noises
. My personal experience: most people who have already immigrated don't care for people waiting in queue. They don't want more competition. Yes my dear friend - most human beings are selfish. Even you will be, when you are on the other side of the fence!!
Call me negative or whatever you like but please bookmark this page and read my statement at the end of this year and you will realize what the truth is/was.
Possible. For the non-litigants it is almost end of the story and for those who stood-up against the injustice there is hope.
P.S. I'm sure Narang is reading this sitting in Toronto. He promised in a statement that he would be in Canada by the end of 2011
印度人对一刀切的讨论：
Originally posted by canadaisgreat
All options are on the table for eliminating the massive backlogs in Canada’s immigration system, including the possibility of legislating away the more than one-million applications waiting to be assessed. Citizenship and Immigration Minister Jason Kenney made the startling suggestion at a speech to the Economic Club of Canada in Ottawa Wednesday, saying that he hadn’t made any decisions yet but is considering following the example of New Zealand, which eliminated its backlog by legislation in 2003.
On Wednesday, he emphasized the need to clear Canada’s backlogs, which are huge. If no new applications were accepted, there are enough people waiting in the system to fill our skilled worker targets for the next five years. He also announced that provinces will be able to sift through the current pool of skilled worker applicants to cherry pick candidates for their provincial nominee programs.
Referring to the New Zealand example in his speech Wednesday, Mr. Kenney said eliminating the backlog at a stroke made that country’s immigration system nimbler and more able to respond rapidly to changes in the labour market.
Lorne Waldman, a lawyer and immigration expert, said Mr. Kenney would have to pass new legislation to eliminate applications waiting in the queue.
For those of you who are having a tough time to understand the simple facts:
1. "Eliminating backlog at a stroke" means closing all immigration files and not processing all immigration files. This is basic English.
Does "all immigration" files mean parental+FSW pre-feb and FSW post-feb? Still not clear! Although million would include all the above categories, the minister in particular is more allergic to pre-feb 2008 backlog.
2. The only thing Kenny needs to eliminate all files is pass a legislation. Once a legislation is passed in the parliament, even Tim will be unable to do anything in the courts. Have you heard of any country where the courts are above the legislature? ARs long as the government passes laws through parliament (rather than enacting laws on its own), the court has to follow those laws.
Sorry you are wrong here.
Your understanding of how the parliamentary systems works seems to be only elementary. Laws are enacted by the parliament, implemented by the executive and interpreted by the judiciary. All laws made by parliament are subject to judicial review/scrutiny on grounds of fairness, equity and principles of natural justice.
Regarding your query of having heard about any country were courts are above the legislature.
Well theortically, none, but yes the judiciary can declare any law null and void on grounds of fairness, equity and natural justice. This is called judical review.
For example in the UK thousands of non-EU doctors were disadvantaged by a law of parliament which required EU doctors to be hired before non-EU. The government lost the case and did not even appeal as the honorable court ruled that it is against the principles of natural justice to change rules mid-way. And the lawyer who successfully argued the HSMP case is now a Judge in the High Court.
Any such law to dismiss the backlog will be subject to litigation, a class action along with a damages claim which will run in hundreds of millions of dollars (the latter can not be legislated against unfortunately).
Will a particular lawyer (or any othere lawyer) be able to do something about it....... only time will tell.
Regarding your last line in the above paragraph, the government does not enact laws on its own, laws are always made by the legislature/parliament.
I hope that explains my point.
3. The Conservatives have majority in the parliament and passing this legislation will be a cakewalk for them.
Agreed.
4. For those of you who don't know this: Kenny is a fairly important/powerful member of the Conservatives and his voice carries enormous weight with the Conservative government.
Agreed.
5. The background of Conservatives has been anti-immigration and closing the backlog will only increase their vote bank and not decrease it.
Agreed.
6. Before totally eliminating the backlog, the governments wants to cherry pick the most suitable immigrants and hence the pilot program. Once the most suitable immigrants have been picked up from the lot, the remaining files will be closed permanently.
Possible.... on the balance of probabilities principle.
I am really shocked that these simple facts are not being understood by many members of this forum!
Before making contradictory and absurd statements, try to spend some time and read Canadian news/discussions. In this internet age where we have all resources at our fingertips, you will look like a fool if you make statements just because you like them and not because they are factual.
I almost fell laughing reading that relatives/friends in Canada will make noises
Call me negative or whatever you like but please bookmark this page and read my statement at the end of this year and you will realize what the truth is/was.
Possible. For the non-litigants it is almost end of the story and for those who stood-up against the injustice there is hope.
P.S. I'm sure Narang is reading this sitting in Toronto. He promised in a statement that he would be in Canada by the end of 2011
最后编辑: 2012-03-22
回复: 2012向CIC开战，开帖记录全过程
看了律师的观点还有印度人的观点，如果还认为一刀切近在眼前，可以鉴定为自暴自弃。
但是不可否认，前面还有很艰辛的路要走。
看了律师的观点还有印度人的观点，如果还认为一刀切近在眼前，可以鉴定为自暴自弃。
但是不可否认，前面还有很艰辛的路要走。
回复: 2012向CIC开战，开帖记录全过程
即使动了刀子，法庭还有机会驳回
”坑你“同学最终动不动刀子还是不好说，
一旦动大闸刀就是正面冲突了。
不过目前的软刀子割肉也是很伤人
BTW，律师到底是律师，三句话就开始鼓动诉讼了，也不得不承认诉讼才是最有力的武器。
即使动了刀子，法庭还有机会驳回
”坑你“同学最终动不动刀子还是不好说，
一旦动大闸刀就是正面冲突了。
不过目前的软刀子割肉也是很伤人
BTW，律师到底是律师，三句话就开始鼓动诉讼了，也不得不承认诉讼才是最有力的武器。
回复: 2012向CIC开战，开帖记录全过程
所以雅思不够的快点去争取，这次和CIC一战即使赢了，也保证不了雅思分数低的能过关，再说正常处理的申请，也有很高的拒签率，626的通过率不到30%，拒掉的大部分人，都无言以对！
所以雅思不够的快点去争取，这次和CIC一战即使赢了，也保证不了雅思分数低的能过关，再说正常处理的申请，也有很高的拒签率，626的通过率不到30%，拒掉的大部分人，都无言以对！
回复: 2012向CIC开战，开帖记录全过程
Tim的意思是他不认为CIC会出台一部作废91的法律，但是CIC会用2012年的移民打分系统来追溯91，只要追溯实现了，大批大批的人会被拒掉。CIC也可能先不追溯，但是用追溯作为宣传点来促进91自动撤案，因为撤案了还有申请费退还，不撤案被拒签了就一分钱也不退了。
91海量的积压在于门槛过低，许多当时分不够的也进来占个位子，当然也少不了中介的广告的大力宣传。所以那些分不够不愿继续申请的，还是自动撤案最好。
Tim的意思是他不认为CIC会出台一部作废91的法律，但是CIC会用2012年的移民打分系统来追溯91，只要追溯实现了，大批大批的人会被拒掉。CIC也可能先不追溯，但是用追溯作为宣传点来促进91自动撤案，因为撤案了还有申请费退还，不撤案被拒签了就一分钱也不退了。
91海量的积压在于门槛过低，许多当时分不够的也进来占个位子，当然也少不了中介的广告的大力宣传。所以那些分不够不愿继续申请的，还是自动撤案最好。
回复: 2012向CIC开战，开帖记录全过程
是这样的，所以当时好多还在读书的，完全没有工作经验的，也被中介劝进了91的队伍，91迟迟不审理，原来不够分的，一年一年慢慢都够了。但是不排除现在还有很多不够分的。
说来说去，还是91先天不足，后天也差劲，这也导致了部长指令机制的引进，这个有趣的话题将要探讨。
是这样的，所以当时好多还在读书的，完全没有工作经验的，也被中介劝进了91的队伍，91迟迟不审理，原来不够分的，一年一年慢慢都够了。但是不排除现在还有很多不够分的。
说来说去，还是91先天不足，后天也差劲，这也导致了部长指令机制的引进，这个有趣的话题将要探讨。
回复: 2012向CIC开战，开帖记录全过程
1.如果CIC用2012年的移民打分系统来追溯91，那和一刀切没什么区别，因为符合条件的91凤毛麟角。2.威胁91的自动撤案？想都别想！已经被他们耍了5.6年了，死也要溅CIC一身鲜血。技术移民虽然不一定富有，但没人会在乎那几个申请费。静观其变，做好战斗准备！
回复: 2012向CIC开战，开帖记录全过程
回复: 2012向CIC开战，开帖记录全过程
我一直以为你是身在加拿大的老移民，如果你也这么想，我感到很温暖啊。[/QU
我怎么成了“身在加拿大的老移民”？：：俺和老傅，水过鸭背，熊猫他们一样，是地道的91！
回复: 2012向CIC开战，开帖记录全过程
关键在于简表是CIC的正式政策，但它的缺陷是递简表时没有足够的材料证明（如雅思成绩、学位等关键加分因素）申请人在其时已达到分数标准，让许多当时分数还不够的同学挤上了这班车。实际上这个缺陷是可以弥补的，即规定期限内补足材料，分数不够者拒审，很简单。
当CIC发现这个政策缺陷造成大量搭车，积案尾大不掉时，并不是抓紧时间弥补，对进来人负责，而是恍然大悟后另起炉灶。所谓38类、29类之说只是托词，实际上若以完整材料递表，搭车现象会少很多，积案便不易形成。
现在91这块处于搁置状态，CIC打心眼儿里不大想管，只是对这部分人如何打分是个争议。如果来个提高分数再回溯，肯定可以拒掉不少人，他们也乐意。但CIC推出该政策时执行的是67分，这几年很多原来不够分的也都够了，对大量搁置人群采用提分回溯明显不合理（合不合法是律师们的阵地了）。
比较靠谱的办法是采用及格线时间点的原则：即达到及格线最后一项关键材料的诞生时间（如几月几号的雅思成绩，几月几号领结婚证等），现行67分标准未动，在新标准推出前，够67分的审理，不够67分的可以努力看齐新标准。
所谓高需职业符合加国需求就是屁话，91里就有很多，他们为什么不审，关键是CIC想急切的找一个一劳永逸的办法甩掉91大包袱，然后再按照自己预想的方式引进新移民。
现在看来提分回溯的办法有可能不会出台，最起码不会近期出台，因为它会面临法理的考验。值得注意的是CIC可能以91申请人递表时分数未够而拒案，有熟悉91新政原则的同学可以想一想对策。
所谓“pool”的提法实际是继续搁置的潜台词，起码不会像拒案、回溯、一刀切等来的刺眼。关键点是即使有pool的提出但始终没有时间的承诺，如像227那样号称一年结案。
搁置的东西弹性很大，我想无论起诉还是请愿，有两点一定要坚持：一、91新政至今执行67分的标准；二、时限的要求。
关键在于简表是CIC的正式政策，但它的缺陷是递简表时没有足够的材料证明（如雅思成绩、学位等关键加分因素）申请人在其时已达到分数标准，让许多当时分数还不够的同学挤上了这班车。实际上这个缺陷是可以弥补的，即规定期限内补足材料，分数不够者拒审，很简单。
当CIC发现这个政策缺陷造成大量搭车，积案尾大不掉时，并不是抓紧时间弥补，对进来人负责，而是恍然大悟后另起炉灶。所谓38类、29类之说只是托词，实际上若以完整材料递表，搭车现象会少很多，积案便不易形成。
现在91这块处于搁置状态，CIC打心眼儿里不大想管，只是对这部分人如何打分是个争议。如果来个提高分数再回溯，肯定可以拒掉不少人，他们也乐意。但CIC推出该政策时执行的是67分，这几年很多原来不够分的也都够了，对大量搁置人群采用提分回溯明显不合理（合不合法是律师们的阵地了）。
比较靠谱的办法是采用及格线时间点的原则：即达到及格线最后一项关键材料的诞生时间（如几月几号的雅思成绩，几月几号领结婚证等），现行67分标准未动，在新标准推出前，够67分的审理，不够67分的可以努力看齐新标准。
所谓高需职业符合加国需求就是屁话，91里就有很多，他们为什么不审，关键是CIC想急切的找一个一劳永逸的办法甩掉91大包袱，然后再按照自己预想的方式引进新移民。
现在看来提分回溯的办法有可能不会出台，最起码不会近期出台，因为它会面临法理的考验。值得注意的是CIC可能以91申请人递表时分数未够而拒案，有熟悉91新政原则的同学可以想一想对策。
所谓“pool”的提法实际是继续搁置的潜台词，起码不会像拒案、回溯、一刀切等来的刺眼。关键点是即使有pool的提出但始终没有时间的承诺，如像227那样号称一年结案。
搁置的东西弹性很大，我想无论起诉还是请愿，有两点一定要坚持：一、91新政至今执行67分的标准；二、时限的要求。
回复: 2012向CIC开战，开帖记录全过程
之所以 626前几月被拒率较高是 太多人想赶227,以及不知道政策变化, 2011以后 626 以及71 通过率 95%, 自求多福,拼命烤鸭,没别的办法, 这么多年,渠道这么多,只能怪你们自己
之所以 626前几月被拒率较高是 太多人想赶227,以及不知道政策变化, 2011以后 626 以及71 通过率 95%, 自求多福,拼命烤鸭,没别的办法, 这么多年,渠道这么多,只能怪你们自己
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
- 超赞 赏
- 喜欢圆珠笔 ,#230
- 2022-01-28
- 工作・求职・创业・求学・英语
大多伦多
Anthem Condos Guelph全新奢华公寓现已火热开卖 现仅需10% 首付 圭尔夫大学学区房 免城市开发税 2025年入住 价格和户型图Prices, Plans, Availability
- 超赞 赏
- David Zhu ,#263
- 2022-09-04
- 房屋买卖/房源
