Dear friends,
Updating Tim´s imformation.
Monday, 06/01/2014
Dear Litigants,
This morning, I emailed to DoJ counsel my written arguments for the second representative case and served them about an hour ago. It is now up to them to decide whether to agree to a hearing for both cases. I will revert when I have their decision. (If they do not, we will wait for the Court to set a hearing for IMM-1-13.)
The second case, which concerns a litigant who joined in the first batch after release of the decision of Liang, raises the same arguments as were made in IMM-1-13 plus the issue of those who were assessed after 29 March 2012 and directed to take medical examinations but not issued visas before 29 June 2012.
As I have mentioned, I do not accept DoJ's view that the Agreement only applies to those who joined before July 2012. Therefore, I did not make any argument as to why it should also apply to our second case. I will allow DoJ to make the argument in its response and will address it in my reply.
The person I chose for the second case and her husband are electrical engineers working in China for US companies which have operations in Canada. Her IELTS scores were exceptional -- 8.0, 7.5, 6.5 and 7.0 -- and she was a victim of HK's telling those whom it had directed in February to update their files not to do so because they would not review the file because Bill C-38 had been introduced. Later HK reversed its reversal but, in the interim, she had complied with the April directive and had ceased preparing her submission. After she was assessed, HK took 29 to send out the medical examination forms. As a result their medical results were received on July 4th and the head-tax, on July 6th. Her given name is the same as the world's most powerful typhoon to strike land, the one which wiped out an entire city in the Philippines in November. So, maybe her facts will sweep away those arrayed against us!
Finally, some of you continue to ask me to tell you whether you joined the group before the Liang decision was released or afterward. I can figure that out myself. What I had wanted to know was whether you had updated your files and, if so, when; or whether you had reason to believe that your file had been assessed. I have included that information from those who provided it on the List I will be forwarding to DoJ.
Anyone with a file number above IMM-6800-12 joined after the Liang decision. Disposition of the second representative case will apply to them if the Court accepts DoJ's position that their status in the group differs from those who had joined before. If the Court accepts my view, IMM-1-13 will apply to everyone, and those who were assessed after March 29th will benefit from the second case.
Regards,
Tim
;D
