回复: ME被切的同学们，重新拿到签证的希望现在几乎是看得见摸得
As a result, until such time as the FSW proposal becomes law, this office will continue to make selection decisions on pre C-50 applications. Your application has been put into process, and a selection decision has been made.
。。。省略。。。
Medical examinations are part of the application process. They do not guarantee the issuance of a visa.
上面是ME信中的摘录。
This is a very useful piece of information, and it reminds me that the ME letter is a very important evidence for this group's litigation.
The purpose of ME group's litigation(and any other group's) is to order CIC to PROCESS their files, not to issue their visas, to process means there will be 2 possible outcomes: refused or approved.
The ME letter clearly indicates it's a part of the procession, it won't gurantee a visa, that's exactly the evidence that a selection decision will be processed to approval or refusal, not terminated. Termination and refusal are totally different legal concepts.
In the Pre-Bill C38 era, it's absolutely illegal to terminate an application after it has been rendered a selection decision by a VO, ME goup's selection decisions were made
absolutely before Bill C38 came into force, even though they were also made after March 29(but before June 29) ,
a time when the minister has no authority to terminate any files whatsoever.
As regarding post March 29 selection decisions, Justice Blanchard has given a full judgement that they are legal and unaffected by Bill C38, yes, Justice Blanchard has given full suppotive judgement towards SD.
The ME letter is a legal document which guarantees this application will continue to be processed to approval or refusal, not termination. Justice Blanchard has rightly pointed out, this legal decision hasn't been terminated, as it's a big bug of 87.4:
"There is no transitional provision to address applications that were decided after
March 29, 2012 and before the new provisions were passed into law on June 29, 2012"
"if Parliament wished to limit the remedies available on judicial
review in such cases, it would have to do so expressly in the statutory scheme."
