回复: 2个话题：1这次败诉对ME组造成很坏的影响 2一刀切很难被撼动
回报于下，分享一下我给律师们的信：
Concerning compensation in Judg's decision, our applicants really cannot accept some words using to whitewash CIC's fault.Yes, our applicants [44]have freely chosen to apply to come to Canada and to incur the related expense. In reality,every contract is based on free will of all parties.Could everyone breach the contract regardless of harming other parties just because they freely enter the contract? Any excuse for depriving compensation is inhuman. For example,[43]"A taxpayer could not claim procedural protections against a change in income tax rates that adversely affected him."a taxpayer can receive service from government by paying tax. What our applicants received from the termination? Only cost and loss! Judge Rennie deems no [44]economic opportunities in immigration. In economic dictionary, I check out the opportunity cost which means the cost of passing up the next best choice when making a decision,not actual cost. If CIC notify applicants the risk of termination upon application, we can deposit this amount of money to receive fixed interest. However, From Rennie's decision our applicants cannot have the right to require the compensation for various fees and opportunity cost in terms of "interest" . Common sense tells us there is no justifiability in this decision.
Especially, another problem to ME group is the meaning of "a positive selection decision" which seems to be contradictory and obscure. [28] "It is apparent from the plain reading of the section that only the final decision given by an officer qualifies as a selection decision." However, OB442 differentiates the selection decision and final decision.For example,If the application has not been finalized before June 29, 2012 and the visa officer has established whether the applicant meets the selection criteria prior to March 29, 2012, this case continues processing to a final decision. Apparently,Rennie's final decision is different with the meaning of final decision in OB442. Confusingly,the Judge supports minister instruction OB442 in [35] "Operational Bulletin 442 is consistent with this interpretation." Fortunately, ME group still have hope with reference to [59] "As I have previously explained, if any applicants believe their applications were improperly identified as terminated and can point to a positive selection decision before March 29, 2012, they may apply to the Court for an order of mandamus." Here Judge Rennie's selection decision ,essentially being equivalent to selection decision in OB442 ,can be interpreted as final decisionaccording to[28]. ME group also received positive selection decision and had been accepted before the law coming into force. [35] "In my view, if the FSW application had been determined before Bill C-38 received RoyalAssent then there was no pending application for section 87.4 to terminate. It ceased to be “pending”. It was now spent. Section 87.4 only purports to terminate applications, not an applicant’s file indicating that he or she has been accepted, much less a permanent residence visa once it has been issued. Operational Bulletin 442 is consistent with this interpretation." ME group applications were also determined before June 29,2012. Therefore OB442 should change the definition of final decision to selection decision according to Rennie's decision. It is also fair to ME applicants considering that it is totally CIC's fault(illicit OB400) that visa officer cannot completed our cases in time before June 29 in 2012. For most of our applicants, we have finalized all my obligation before June 29,2012. The above is my analysis for your reference.
读到改变税率，我想起来CIC还有Bill38以前的法律保证我们按申请时标准审理。希望大家再琢磨一下判决，多跟律师与大家交流！我也发给了所有的律师。
