希望与媒体等分享香港已经ME的申请人的请愿。
This is a petition on behalf of a group of ME’d HK FSW applicants (including both applicants who have taken medical examinations per your office’s request and those who have received instruction to take medical examination prior to June 29, 2012) who are now, based on your interpretation of Operational Bulletin 442, affected by Bill C-38 and OB 442 (a list of which is attached hereto).
As you have probably noted, this group of ME’d applicants have initiated a litigation proceeding against the Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration at the Federal Court of Canada. As you may appreciate (since you have been living and working in this part of the world), Chinese are inherently seeking “harmony”, and litigation is nothing fun for anyone, particularly for people who have been quietly waiting in the queue for the past 6 years, most of whom are experiencing the very first lawsuit in their lifetime, ironically, in Canada, a destination they have been dreaming of for years, not China, a place they have been trying to escape, primarily for the future of their next generation). This group of litigants has been forced to the corner, because these are “lives”, not “files”, that you will be shredding, by implementing Bill C-38 in such a ridiculous way as imposed by OB 442. This is also because we are still having this last light of hope, hoping “justice” will eventually be recognized and upheld, a belief supporting us to continue to pursue our “Canada Dream”!
Our legal counsel has shared his sympathy, particularly to this group of ME’d applicants, not from a professional standpoint, but more as a layman, using his common sense, judging from what has been taking place in Hong Kong in the past couple of month after the proposed bill as of March 29, 2012.
Justice von Finelstein synthesised:
[21] The actions of CIC in this instance lack common sense. As Muldoon J. so aptly put it in Taei v [M.E.I.] …, [1993] F.C.J. No. 293 (dealing with a refugee claim rather than a live-in caregiver) "(t)he rule of law does not require that statutes be read and interpreted in a robotic mindless manner. Common sense has not been abolished either by the Charter or by statute". It is also useful to recall the admonition of Jerome A.C.J. in Thakorlal Hajariwala v. M.E.I. [1989] 2 F.C. 79 that "the purpose of the statute [then the Immigration Act which is now the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act] is to permit immigration, not to prevent it.”
Jonalyn May Lim v. M.C.I , 2005 FC 657, von Finkelstein, J.
So here, we are begging you, setting aside the whole economic and political backdrop for thirty seconds, to listen to this group of victims, about fairness, about equity, and about their lives:
1. We are of the view that the unfair and inconsistent implementation of OB442 is totally arbitrary, treating the same group of applicants in an unjustifiable different way with no reason. It does NOT make any sense under "common sense" to differentiate this same group of applicants (who was invited by your HK office to perfect their applications by submitting supporting documentation, by taking medical examinations, by going through this painful process), some of whom got visa and went to paradise, and some of whom spent so much time, efforts and money to comply with what your office asked and requested them to do (simply in reliance of the "good faith" of your office) got terminated and went to hell. Does that make sense under “common sense”? How do you justify this “discrimination”?
2. The fact that OB442 allowed the finalization of cases where selection decision was made post March 29 itself proved the level of discretion that the Minister has in applying Bill C-38. Isn't contradictory for the Minister to allow some of the cases to be finalized before June 29, while Bill C-38 has no reference to June 29 as any sort of cut-off date whatsoever? If the Minister has no discretion or power whatsoever, then what is the justification to allow the issuance of visa for those applicants who got “finalized” before June 29?
Finally, I want to quote A25(1) of the Act, as reminded by our legal counsel:
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]
By virtue of “humanitarian”, we are requesting your office to take into account the best interests of this group of ME’d applicants and the best interests of the children directly affected.
Thanks, again, for your time and attention! We would be extremely grateful if you can continue to appropriately and timely process and finalize our applications.
With best regards,
On behalf of a group of ME’d HK FSW Applicants
This is a petition on behalf of a group of ME’d HK FSW applicants (including both applicants who have taken medical examinations per your office’s request and those who have received instruction to take medical examination prior to June 29, 2012) who are now, based on your interpretation of Operational Bulletin 442, affected by Bill C-38 and OB 442 (a list of which is attached hereto).
As you have probably noted, this group of ME’d applicants have initiated a litigation proceeding against the Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration at the Federal Court of Canada. As you may appreciate (since you have been living and working in this part of the world), Chinese are inherently seeking “harmony”, and litigation is nothing fun for anyone, particularly for people who have been quietly waiting in the queue for the past 6 years, most of whom are experiencing the very first lawsuit in their lifetime, ironically, in Canada, a destination they have been dreaming of for years, not China, a place they have been trying to escape, primarily for the future of their next generation). This group of litigants has been forced to the corner, because these are “lives”, not “files”, that you will be shredding, by implementing Bill C-38 in such a ridiculous way as imposed by OB 442. This is also because we are still having this last light of hope, hoping “justice” will eventually be recognized and upheld, a belief supporting us to continue to pursue our “Canada Dream”!
Our legal counsel has shared his sympathy, particularly to this group of ME’d applicants, not from a professional standpoint, but more as a layman, using his common sense, judging from what has been taking place in Hong Kong in the past couple of month after the proposed bill as of March 29, 2012.
Justice von Finelstein synthesised:
[21] The actions of CIC in this instance lack common sense. As Muldoon J. so aptly put it in Taei v [M.E.I.] …, [1993] F.C.J. No. 293 (dealing with a refugee claim rather than a live-in caregiver) "(t)he rule of law does not require that statutes be read and interpreted in a robotic mindless manner. Common sense has not been abolished either by the Charter or by statute". It is also useful to recall the admonition of Jerome A.C.J. in Thakorlal Hajariwala v. M.E.I. [1989] 2 F.C. 79 that "the purpose of the statute [then the Immigration Act which is now the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act] is to permit immigration, not to prevent it.”
Jonalyn May Lim v. M.C.I , 2005 FC 657, von Finkelstein, J.
So here, we are begging you, setting aside the whole economic and political backdrop for thirty seconds, to listen to this group of victims, about fairness, about equity, and about their lives:
1. We are of the view that the unfair and inconsistent implementation of OB442 is totally arbitrary, treating the same group of applicants in an unjustifiable different way with no reason. It does NOT make any sense under "common sense" to differentiate this same group of applicants (who was invited by your HK office to perfect their applications by submitting supporting documentation, by taking medical examinations, by going through this painful process), some of whom got visa and went to paradise, and some of whom spent so much time, efforts and money to comply with what your office asked and requested them to do (simply in reliance of the "good faith" of your office) got terminated and went to hell. Does that make sense under “common sense”? How do you justify this “discrimination”?
2. The fact that OB442 allowed the finalization of cases where selection decision was made post March 29 itself proved the level of discretion that the Minister has in applying Bill C-38. Isn't contradictory for the Minister to allow some of the cases to be finalized before June 29, while Bill C-38 has no reference to June 29 as any sort of cut-off date whatsoever? If the Minister has no discretion or power whatsoever, then what is the justification to allow the issuance of visa for those applicants who got “finalized” before June 29?
Finally, I want to quote A25(1) of the Act, as reminded by our legal counsel:
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]
By virtue of “humanitarian”, we are requesting your office to take into account the best interests of this group of ME’d applicants and the best interests of the children directly affected.
Thanks, again, for your time and attention! We would be extremely grateful if you can continue to appropriately and timely process and finalize our applications.
With best regards,
On behalf of a group of ME’d HK FSW Applicants
支持?主?信，但要??，太樘VO可能看也不看！
