Federal Skilled Worker Class Action Lawsuit

[warmest]

Here is some information from Tim Leahy:

Good day,

Some of you have been asking what you can do to assist in the fight against the Kenney's closing your skilled worker applications. There is something that you can do -- and I am willing to assist you in that endeavour.

Sometime after March 1st, Justice Rennie will issue his decision on the legality of the closing of the files. His ruling can be expected to be appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal. So, the decision will not settle the matter. It will, however, give us an opportunity to bring the issue into the political arena. Justice Rennie's ruling will, of course, impact on the message we send but, whichever way he rules, the time will have come to try to persuade Kenney's colleagues to end the matter.

Here is the approach I would suggest: ethnic organizations approach Members of Parliament (MP's) from his political party (the Conservative Party -- called the Tories) -- and object to what is happening. If the Tory MP's believe that they will lose the ethnic vote in the next election, they might try to get involved because they only have a majority owing to the ethnic vote. (Obama's winning virtually all of the Hispanic vote was the difference between victory and defeat, as virtually all of the political commentators mentioned. So, they know that they need the ethnic vote.).

So, what can you do? First, if you have family or friends in Canada, you can ask them for names and email address of people who are involved in such groups and who involve themselves in the political process either by attending MP's fund raisers or by helping out in campaigns. If you find such people, I will be pleased to give them the information I want them to convey to the Tory MP's. (There is no point in approaching the Liberal or NDP MP's because neither Kenney nor the Prime Minister care what they think -- and they will always oppose anything the Tories are doing anyway. So, we need to concentrate on the Tory MP's.

If you have family or friends who are will to raise you specific case with their MP but do not know who is their MP, they can go to parl.gc.ca to find their MP. All they need to do is to insert their postal code, and the MP's name and points-of-contact will be provided.

We need to wait until after the decision because it will flavour what we write. In the meantime, however, please try to find people in leadership roles in ethnic organization so that I can give them the facts I would like them to convey to Tory MP's.

Regards,

Tim

 

[GNPLC]

Hi SP88, the backlogs consist of 10422 Pre 2008 and rest are Post 2008. For more info goto www.cic.gc.ca, click 1. research and statistis 2. Quaterly admintrative release you will see Permanent Residence awaiting a decision. Thanks and God bless

 

[Badal789]

Here is some information from Tim Leahy:

Good day,

Some of you have been asking what you can do to assist in the fight against the Kenney's closing your skilled worker applications. There is something that you can do -- and I am willing to assist you in that endeavour.

Sometime after March 1st, Justice Rennie will issue his decision on the legality of the closing of the files. His ruling can be expected to be appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal. So, the decision will not settle the matter. It will, however, give us an opportunity to bring the issue into the political arena. Justice Rennie's ruling will, of course, impact on the message we send but, whichever way he rules, the time will have come to try to persuade Kenney's colleagues to end the matter.

Here is the approach I would suggest: ethnic organizations approach Members of Parliament (MP's) from his political party (the Conservative Party -- called the Tories) -- and object to what is happening. If the Tory MP's believe that they will lose the ethnic vote in the next election, they might try to get involved because they only have a majority owing to the ethnic vote. (Obama's winning virtually all of the Hispanic vote was the difference between victory and defeat, as virtually all of the political commentators mentioned. So, they know that they need the ethnic vote.).

So, what can you do? First, if you have family or friends in Canada, you can ask them for names and email address of people who are involved in such groups and who involve themselves in the political process either by attending MP's fund raisers or by helping out in campaigns. If you find such people, I will be pleased to give them the information I want them to convey to the Tory MP's. (There is no point in approaching the Liberal or NDP MP's because neither Kenney nor the Prime Minister care what they think -- and they will always oppose anything the Tories are doing anyway. So, we need to concentrate on the Tory MP's.

If you have family or friends who are will to raise you specific case with their MP but do not know who is their MP, they can go to parl.gc.ca to find their MP. All they need to do is to insert their postal code, and the MP's name and points-of-contact will be provided.

We need to wait until after the decision because it will flavour what we write. In the meantime, however, please try to find people in leadership roles in ethnic organization so that I can give them the facts I would like them to convey to Tory MP's.

Regards,

Tim

Good and effected way proposed by Tim Leahy.

 

[joe07]

Hi SP88, the backlogs consist of 10422 Pre 2008 and rest are Post 2008. For more info goto www.cic.gc.ca, click 1. research and statistis 2. Quaterly admintrative release you will see Permanent Residence awaiting a decision. Thanks and God bless

As Of December 31 (unless otherwise indicated)
Volumes (in persons) 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
(Sep 30)
Working Inventory
Federal Skilled Worker applications received on or after the priority processing date of February 27, 2008* n/a 111,520 128,769 173,050 160,849 94,895
Backlog
Federal Skilled Worker applications received before the priority processing date of February 27, 2008* 586,109 512,996 400,005 334,881 302,365 10,422
Well looks like the data says pre 2008 cases are only 10422. so looks like tough luck.

 

[kramvi]

pranx125, kramvi, manishpatel, tuheen, bdzahid,

Please STOP asking about ecase. This discussion is about the Federal Skilled Worker Class Action Lawsuit. Only post information that is related to the law suit.

We have informed everyone in several topics that ecase is not a guaranteed reflection as to what is happening to your file. Write either to your representative or VO.

I think you misunderstood. I don't even know what ecas is.

I just went to the regular screen to check my status and it doesn't pull up anything by my name or file number any more. So I am guessing that the file has gotten destroyed now.

Since they haven't informed me about it, I am thinking of writing the embassy and asking for what happened to the file (as if I don't know) and seeing what they answer. If they offer to provide me with a refund, I don't think I should accept it. What do you guys think?

I have gotten permanent residence in New Zealand so don't care that much about Canada anymore. I just want to get a visitor's visa to Canada to visit relatives but since I was denied in the past I am wondering if the same will happen again. That's why I am thinking that I should write the embassy and request my refund so that could be a credibility in getting the visa now.

 

[hopefulever]

Full Data on ecas is not deleted. what cic is thinking to remove all the data of pre fab 2008 applications. why there is delay? Any guess ? CHC may be feeling shy in displaying this sooooooo longggggggg data as dates even condemn chc .applicant has surpassed 104 months and cic telling to process 97 months old applications. wrong mathematics or willful blundur.

 

[avijitsg]

Quote form Court Index and Docket (http://cas-ncr-nter03.cas-satj.gc.ca/IndexingQueries/infp_RE_info_e.php?court_no=IMM-5635-12)

Date: 2013-02-20
Office: Ottawa
Recorded Entry Summary:
Letter from Applicant dated 20-FEB-2013 making submissions re: the applicability of the Charter to the Applicants as non-residents residing outside of Canada, pursuant to the Court's direction of 04-FEB-2013 received on 20-FEB-2013

 

[joe07]

Quote form Court Index and Docket (http://cas-ncr-nter03.cas-satj.gc.ca/IndexingQueries/infp_RE_info_e.php?court_no=IMM-5635-12)

Date: 2013-02-20
Office: Ottawa
Recorded Entry Summary:
Letter from Applicant dated 20-FEB-2013 making submissions re: the applicability of the Charter to the Applicants as non-residents residing outside of Canada, pursuant to the Court's direction of 04-FEB-2013 received on 20-FEB-2013

kindly explain ??

 

[warmest]

This is the latest update from Tim Leahy regarding the Federal Investor Mandamus Litigation.

Federal Investor Mandamus Litigation

The first federal investor mandamus court case is now awaiting a decision from a judge as to whether s/he will permit the litigation to be heard. Customarily the Federal Court takes a few months before revealing whether it will permit an immigration case to be decided on its merits. The hearing would likely be set for three months later. Approximately 70 more federal investor (IIP) cases are in the litigation queue.

CIC's arguments are more important for what was not said than for what was said. Minister Kenney has not denied that he is planning to abolish the current federal investor (IIP) files. He has also confirmed that CIC has been directing investor funds into Québec in far greater amounts than he has permitted to flow into the other provinces, thereby discriminating against RoC.

CIC has also signaled its recognition that, properly decided, CIC will lose the litigation because its counsel spent so much time attacking my approach to the litigation. CIC counsel also attacked the litigant himself at paragraphs 35 and 39 for seeking the Court's intervention.

An interesting aspect of CIC's defence is its repudiation of what it had told the litigant on September 28th. At that time, CIC told his lawyer that, after having ordered him to perfect his application, it would not look at the file for 36 to 48 months. CIC has now claimed that it will do so this year but pointedly refused to say when. CIC admitted that the visa post housing his file has been allocated a quota sufficient to finalize all the IIP files in its inventory. So, why has it refused to give a date for when it will do so? Why has it refused to promise to finalize the file before abolishing the IIP files?

In reducing the 36-48-month wait it had claimed in September to "before the end of the year", CIC's witness claimed that the 36-48 month period referred to the worldwide inventory. However, that inventory stood at over 22,000 on September 30th, and Minister Kenney will only allow 1,400 files to be processed a year. Thus, the true warehousing period is 16 years, not the three to four years CIC's witness told the Federal Court under oath.

 

[warmest]

This is the latest e-mail sent by CIC New Delhi to an Indian applicant who applied in February 2005.

Dear Sir/Madam,

This is in response to your recent email enquiry to the Immigration Section of the High Commission of Canada in New Delhi. As you may be aware, the Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act became law on June 29, 2012. Under this legislation, Federal Skilled Worker (FSW) applications that were made before February 27, 2008 were terminated by operation of law if a decision based on FSW program selection criteria had not been made by an immigration officer before March 29, 2012. You are receiving this message because your application has been terminated as a result of the new law. Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) is now starting to return processing fees to all those affected by the Government of Canada’s Jobs, Growth and Long-Term Prosperity Act. To avoid delays in processing your refund, we encourage you to consult the CIC website, http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/department/media/notices/notice-returns.asp, for more information. We trust that this information will be of assistance.

Immigration Section/ Section de l’immigration -1 High Commission of Canada/ Haut-Commissariat du Canada PO Box 5209 7/8 Shantipath, Chanakyapuri New Delhi, India/Inde 110021

Websites/ Sites web: www.india.gc.ca www.cic.gc.ca www.vfs-canada.co.in

For all e-mail correspondence with our office, we request you to use the enquiries form at: https://dmp-portal.cic.gc.ca/cicemail/intro-eng.aspx?mission=new+delhi Always include the applicant's full name, date of birth, passport number and file number in your message.

 

[warmest]

This is the latest news from Tim Leahy.

Good Day,

Some of you know that Lawrence Wong won the case of Zhu Fei. It is, indeed, very helpful but those who have written me have made far more out of it than is realistic. I have attached the decision which Lawrence graciously sent me after he had received it.

Justice Blanchard ruled that s. 87.4 did not apply to Mr Zhu because it only applies to FSW files which (a) had not been assessed before March 29th and (b) were still open on June 29th when Bill C-38 became law. Because Mr Zhu had been refused, his file was not open on June 29th and, thus, s. 87.4 did not apply to his case. In other words, Zhu applies only to cases which had been assessed and refused after March 29th but before June 29th.

While applicants' counsel will try to make the most of the decision, it is an extremely narrow ruling and does not question the legality of s. 87.4. Thus, Justice Rennie's decision will be more important once it is released.

Although the decision says that no question was certified, the Court index shows that he is allowing submissions on having a question certified for appeal. If he certifies a question, it will go the the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA).

My view is that, if it goes to the FCA, the decision will be overturned. The reason I feel this way is because I do not understand how the decision can result in Mr. Zhu's obtaining an immigrant visa unless s. 87.4 is ruled illegal.

The Court said that the Consulate denied Mr. Zhu fair treatment and, thus, needs to reconsider his case after allowing him to submit additional supporting documentation. The Court does not require CIC to issue Mr. Zhu an immigrant visa. The Court held that s. 87.4(2), which nullifies FSW court rulings made after March 29th does not apply for the reason I stated. Fine, but on June 29th, all the files which had not not been assessed before March 29th were closed. Thus, now that his case has been re-opened, s. 87.4 comes into play, and his file is closed.

Therefore, I expect two negative results. First, when the file goes back to the Consulate, Mr. Zhu will receive a letter saying that his file has been closed, obliging Lawrence to litigate that decision.

If it goes to the FCA, I would expect the FCA to apply the ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada in Mobil Oil Canada Ltd. v. Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 202 at 228-29, where it held that, even where procedural fairness has been breached (as Justice Blanchard ruled in Zhu), the case may still be dismissed if reconsideration of the case on its merits cannot but generate a negative result. If s. 87.4 is found to be valid, his file will be closed and cannot be reassessed.

Of course, I hope that my view is wrong. But, I need to caution you not to make too much of this case. It is still dependent on how Justice Rennie rules on s. 87.4. If he overturns it, the Consulate would have to re-assess Mr. Zhu's file -- subject to Justice Rennie's ruling being appealed to the FCA -- but so long as s. 87.4 remains in force, the Consulate, I would expect, will refuse to assess the case, arguing that the file is closed. (Lawrence has a counter-argument; viz., that the Court ordered the re-assessment; but, if it still refuses, it's back to the Federal Court.).

Where the case is important, however, is that it is further evidence that the Federal Court is not happy with s. 87.4. It may be that Justice Blanchard believes that Justice Rennie will strike down s. 87.4, in which case, Mr. Zhu's file will have to be assessed. Thus, the decision is, indeed, a ray of hope but it is not the promised land for other litigants, including those whose files were assessed after March 29th but who were not issued visas before June 29th.

Regards,

Tim

 

[warmest]

The Court Number of Lawrence Wong's client, Zhu Fei, is IMM-6325-12.

 

[warmest]

Here is the concluding part of that Court Order.

VII. CONCLUSION
[47] For the above reasons, I find that the process that led to the Officer's decision was an unfair process which resulted in a breach of procedural fairness. Consequently, the decision will be set aside and retumed to a different visa officer for reconsideration on a revised record to be perfected by the Applicant The Applicant will be afforded a reasonable delay to prepare and submit his forms and documentation in support of his application.

THIS COURT ORDERS that:
1. This application for judicial review is granted.
2. The decision to refuse Mr. Zhu's application for permanent residence in the Federal Skilled Worker class is set aside.
3. Mr. Zhu's application for permanent residence is to be perfected within a reasonable delay and remitted to a different visa officer for reconsideration.
4. Written submissions on any question of general importance to be raised shall be served and filed no later than February 22, 2013. Responding submissions, if any, shall be served and filed no later than February 27, 2013.

"Edmond P. Blanchard"
Judge

 

[Mancilla]

Lawyer ROCCO GALATI'S Version of Charter Rights Infringement:

It is respectfully submitted, in summary, that the question for the Court to be asking,
with respect to this question and concern, on the facts of this case, is as follows:

"Does the Constitution of Canada apply to Canadian legislation, and/or executive action taken under that legislation, which legislation applies to nonCanadian residents residing outside Canada, where the Canadian legislation gives those non-Canadian foreign residents the statutory right of judicial review to the Canadian legislation and/or actions or decisions taken there under by Canadian officials?"

It is respectfully submitted that the obvious answer to that question is "yes".

It is lastly submitted that, should the Court disagree with the Applicants, and not
engage in a substantive constitutional review of s. 87.4 of the IRPA, purportedly for
lack of jurisdiction, the Applicants strenuously request that the above-noted question
be certified for appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal.

 

[GNPLC]

Thanks Mancilla this info is helpful