hopefulever said:
I think you are missing on one important point of law. there were some litigants who already challeneged and one in rennie court before cic could decide the date of march 2012.what about these litigants who challenged before 29th march 2012.It is an important isue before the FCA.
You are all right; but what I want to say is that litigants and non-litigants both are applicants. If the government or CIC or both plan to terminate any applicant (whether he is litigant or not) it should be after accessing and processing only. Terminating any applicant without accessing and processing is wrong as per CIC's older ministerial instructions as applicable to pre-Feb 2008 cases.
This report presents the findings of the implementation evaluation of the first set of Ministerial Instructions (MI), which were issued on November 2008 on the basis of a legislative amendment made to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) earlier that year.
1.2.1 Ministerial Instructions (MI)
The federal government elected to respond to the backlog issue by introducing amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), through Bill C-50 (the Budget Implementation Act), Bill C-50, which came into effect on February 27, 2008 and made a number of fundamental changes to the way in which most immigration applications [Note 5] and requests were managed: it eliminated the (previous) obligation to process all applications received; and authorized the Minister to issue instructions (Ministerial Instructions) to immigration officers regarding which applications were eligible for processing, based on the government's overall goals for immigration. Under these “MI authorities,” the Minister had the power to limit the numbers of applications processed, accelerate some applications or groups of applications, and return applications without processing them to a final decision.
•The following ministerial instructions are directed to CIC's visa officers and identify the immigration applications and requests that will be given priority processing.
•The instructions come into force on their date of publication in the Canada Gazette.
•The instructions apply only to applications and requests made on or after February 27, 2008.
•All applications and requests made prior to February 27, 2008, shall be processed in the manner existing at the time of application.
•The instructions comply with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and support the economic, family reunification and refugee protection goals of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
•The instructions do not apply to refugees or protected persons or persons making a request on humanitarian or compassionate grounds from within Canada.
•The instructions respect all previously established accords and agreements, including the Canada-Quebec Accord, and all agreements with the provinces and territories.
•Any categories for which instructions are not specifically issued shall be processed in the usual manner.
CIC was obliged to access and process pre-February 2008 applicants when Bill C-50 was enacted on 27 February 2008. It's obligation to access and process each and every case was abolished only for applications to be received on or after 27 February 2008 in that Bill C-50. It was not meant to be applicable retroactively. Therefore, framing Bill C-38 Section 87.4(1) is contradictory to Bill C-50 instructions as it has been made for the convenience of CIC to terminate the pre-February 2008 applicants.
It would have been better if they would have terminated all the previous cases at that time on 27 February 2008. Then all the people would have saved these 5 years, time, money, and mental peace and many would have reapplied according to the new rules at that time and would have reached Canada or they would have been free do anything else. CIC must have intended it at that time but due to legal restrictions, it could not do that. But the minister and CIC kept on inventing the ways and now when the people started litigation due to long delay, it took as personal prestige issue and terminated the backlog by introducing new clause in the Bill C-38.
Appicants who applied after 27 February 2008 can be segregated according to 29 March 2012 whether the decision was made or not; but pre-February 2008 applicants should not be terminated. So, Bill C-38 Section 87.4(1) should be abolished as it has been made with malicious intent to get rid of the backlog and to shirk the responsibility to process those cases. Though it was passed in the parliament, it is illegal and at least unfair and inhuman for the innocent applicants.
