LATEST CAIPS NOTE UPDATE FOR PRE JUNE 2008 WHOSE FILE GOT REJECTED BY LAW

[kau_shik_patel]

Good day,


In case you are one of those who received letters from a province, inviting you to extract yourself from the FSW backlog, and you accepted the invitation, you may now be eligible for an open work permit in that province. Here is the link to the operational bulletin, giving the parameters.


http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/manuals/bulletins/2012/ob470.asp


Regards,


Tim

 

[kau_shik_patel]

We enclose the Respondent's answers to your written interrogatories.

In accordance with Rule 95 of the Federal Gourts Rules. we raise following objections:

Question 13: We object to this question on the basis that it concerns matters
which are outside the scope of the present litigation. Furthermore, the FSW caps have been the subject of separate litigation before this Court and leave was dismissed. (See for example: Nikolenko v. MGI, IMM-7936~11, Ahmed v. MGI. IMM-4488-11, Abughabieh v. MGI, IMM-6933-11, Alam v. MGI, IMM-6469-11).

Question 30: We object to this question on the grounds that it is argumentative.

Questions 39-47: We object to these questions on the grounds that they are
irrelevant and beyond the scope of the present litigation. This case raises no
issues with respect to the Arranged Employment Offer program or Provincial
Nominee migrants.

Questions 51-52: We object to these questions on the grounds that they are
argumentative and beyond the scope of the present litigation and this affianfs
knowledge.

Question 57: We object to this question on the grounds that it is argumentative.

Question 58-63: Although the affiant has provided answers to these questions.
we also note our objection to these questions on the grounds that the validity to the legislation is not at issue in this litigation. The questions are therefore outside the scope of the present legislation.

 

[kau_shik_patel]

ANSWERS TO WRITTEN EXAMINATION
1. In achieving the annual "target" per category, visa posts are
assigned "final dispositions" (FD's). As I understand FD's consist of
approvalsJ refusals and withdrawals. Is that correct? If not, what do FD's
encompass.

1.1 Although still used to quantify work performed at some missions "Final
Dispositions" ("FDsll ) have not been used by Citizenship &Immigration
Canada eCIC") for target management for close to a decade. In recent
planning years, operational targets consist of visas issued (i.e. only
documents issued on positive final decisions). While they do not
represent the full workload undertaken at the missions in the annual
processing of applications (targets are not assigned for withdrawals
and refusals), visa targets are a better tool for managing the number of
immigrants admitted to Canada each year.

1.2 From this point forward, I have assumed that all other questions
pertaining to "final dispositions" in fact refer to visa targets and have
answered the questions in that way.

2. Please provide the FD's per visa post for 2012.

2.1 Economic visa targets (by mission) are found at
http://wvvv./.cic.gc.caJengIish/departmenUips/economic.asp. For further
information on how CIC undertakes yearly levels planning and
development of operational targets, please see the following pUblicly available C1C website, which inc1udes a link to the 2012 targets:
http://www.clc.gc.ca/engIish/departmentlipsllndex.asp

3. Other than to visa~posts located abroad, are FSW FD's assigned
anywhere else?

4. If so, to what other location(s) are FD's assigned for 2012 and
what are the allocations?

Response to questions 3-4:

3/4.1 All offices (abroad and in Canada) with a visa target are listed in at the
link I proVided in your Question 2. With the recent closure of a number
of visa sections, targets will be revised and re-allocated among the
global network. Centralized Processing Pilot - Ottawa (CPPO) has a
FSWvisa target of 300 for 2012.

5. Does the FD relate to the number of assessments to be made or
does it include the applicant and dependants? In other words, if the FD
is 100, would that mean 100 final dispositions means decisions relating
to 100 files or to 100 people; i.e., applican1s and dependants?

5.1 As mentioned previously. visa target refers only to documents issued
for applications receiving a positive final decision. While the count is
closer to persons rather than cases, not all persons on an application
require a visa (e.g. certain minors).

6. How many people does ele estimate each FSW application
contains; e.g.• 2.43 persons per application?

6.1 In assigning visa targets to missions CIC does not have to estimate the
number of persons per application. ele's systems record the number
of dependants listed by the applicants on the forms they submit to CIC.

7. Please provide the 2012 FD and FSW UinventoryJ', as of 31
December 2011, per segmentj i.e., pre~Bi(J C..sO (pre-MI), M11, MI2, M13;
per visa-post involved in this litigation; viz., London, Vienna, Warsaw,
Accra, Nairobi, Pretoria, Amman/Damascus, Tel Aviv, New Delhi,
Colombo, Singapore, Manila, Seoul, Beijing, Hong Kong, Sydney,
Bogota and Port of Spain in the same or similar format as shown below.
(If FO refers only to the applicant, please show only applicants in the
inventoryj whereas, if FD refers to applicants and dependants, please
include both in the inventory.)

7.1 In addition to the inventories available to me and prOVided in my
Further Affidavit, please note that CIC pUblicly releases Quarterly
Administrative Data at the folloWing link:
http://ww..v.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/statisticslindex.asp , in addition
to the Government of Canada's open data strategy found at the
follOWing location: http://wvYw.data.gc.ca (search CIC).

7.2 Specific/Detailed statistical breakdowns by mission and FSW
I'segmenf (as requested in your questions) can be calculated in the
Department through cost recovered data requests; however, they are
not readily available to me within the pUNiew of my branch.

7.3 As noted preViously, CIC's visa targets by mission are publicly
available on the ele website. As my area of responsibility does not
leave me conversant with the specific details of each processing
office's inventory of FSW applications, I have obtained from CIC's
statistical unit the following inventory data (in persons):
Skilled Worker Inventory as of January 3,2012 (In Persons)

 

[kau_shik_patel]

8. Please provide the most current number of MI3 files for the visaposts
invQlved in this litigation.

8.1 As previously noted, my area of responsibility does not leave me with a
detaifed day-to-day knowledge of each office's specific case inventory.
I have obtained from CIC's statistical unit the following MI 3 application
data On cases) for each of the indicated visa posts:

9. In processing FSW files, does the visa post first process MI 3 files
in a FIFO manner, then MI 2 in a FIFO method, then' MI 1 in a FIFO
method 2!'!d fl!!~!!y, ~re-M! fHes O!: ~ ~!~O r:1et'1~d?

9.1 While processing prioritization is determined based on Departmental
commitments, first-in-first-out ("FIFO") processing is not truly possible
even at the visa office levell as I explained in my Further Affidavit.
Applications are put Into process at various times throughout the year,
and are assigned across multiple officers, each with varying workloads.
Additionally, the individual characteristics of each application require
variable levels of officer attention and varying needs for client
interaction (whether in the form of interviews or supplemental requests
for information). Furthermore, delays resulting from requests to clients
and resulting from background checks and medical examinations can
vary significantly from one application to the next. As such, actual
processing outcomes rarely correspond to FIFO within a given cohort.
This said, MJ 213 & Arranged Employment Offer cases have the
highest priority, followed by MI1 cases, and then by pre C~50 cases.

10. Please provide the reduction in pre.MI files for 2011 or for the
preceding twelve months for the visa posts in play and state how many
were approvals,' refusals and withdrawalsj e.g., Visa Post 2011 inventory
current inventory Approvals refusals withdrawals

10.1 As my area of responsibility does not leave me conversant with the
specific details of each processing offieels inventory of FSW
'applications, I have obtained from CIC's statistical unit the following
pre C-50 data:

10.2 You will note that there is a slight discrepancy with the difference
between the 2010 and 2011 year end data (11 A20) and the number of
cases shoWing as finalized in the third table (11,651). I am advised by
CIC's statistical unit that such a discrepancy can arrive as a result of a
number of factors:

10.3 The inventory data are snapshots in tIme and are generally static.
However. the case finalization data are more 'live' and can fluctuate for
a number of reasons which can include, but are not limited to:
corrections to application date entries, corrections to category data
(e.g. Quebec vs. Federal SW). re-opening of cases, and improperly
closed cases.

11. If the preMMI inventory was reduced by other than withdrawals,
please expJain how it ~as possible that those files were assessed when
MI mes exceeded the FDs.

11.1 This is primarily a function of the FSW visa target assigned to a given
office, that office's inventory of pre C-50 and MI 1 applications, and the
inflow and timing of priority applications received by that office
throughout the year. Where the assigned visa target allows for it, and if
there are insufficIent priority applications (MI2I3/4 cases and cases
with Arranged Employment) at the right stage of processing to achieve
the visa target for the calendar year, MI1 and pre-C-50 applications
continue to be processed or put into processing.

12. Please assume ithe following: (a) the overall target remains the
same, (b) the 2012 FD's remain constan~ (e) 10,000 new applications are
accepted annually on ,he basis of the then current Occupation Listr (d)
the same number applications with arranged offers of employment are
received annually as were received in 2011 (or the preceding twelve
months), please state when the following litigants' files (a) were opened
and (b) will pe finalized or state that the date of finalization cannot be
projected.

12.1 There are too many hypotheticals involved in this question for me to
answer in a meahingful way. With respect to finalization. as per the
information I pro~ided in my Further Affidavit, it is not possible for the
Department to p,roject the finalization of Individual cases due to
mUltiple complex ~actors.

13. As ~f M~y 8th
, c;:C's WG:'6;~~ 5al~ tn(a~ 1uJuoD OL. applicants had
been received. Please (a) provide the date the cap was reached and (b)
the number of applicatfpn5 per occupation.

13.1 I have been advised not to answer this question.

 

[kau_shik_patel]

14. When Bill c-sol:was passed, did cle advise Parliament that, by
"fast-tracking" new applications, the older ones at many visa posts
effectively would be w~rehoused forever?

15. If such information was provided to Parliament, pleasa provide
proof that CIC so info~med Parliament and any response from any MP to
that prospect.

14/15.1 I do not ~ccept the premise of your question. elc continued
II processing all FS,W cohorts after MI were introduced. with an over 50%
reduction Obse~ed in the Pre C-50 cases three years after the
IInstructions werejintroduced.
I

16. The justificationj ele repeatedly states for processing Occupation
List (Ol) applicants before those who had applied earlier is that (a) an
"urgent labour market demandlJ exists for the OL occupations but (b)
the labour market de~and for the non OL occupations is less than for
those on the Occupation List. Please provide evidence on which that
claim rests or acknowl.~dgethat CIC dOB$ not have such evidence

16.1 This question rrlisrepresents GIG's rationale for the prioritization

approach that ha~ been used with Ministerial Instructions since 2008. I
would like to clarify what the process actually entaIls. I have described
in my previous ardavlts how the list of prioritized occupations was
developed for M1i1 but to quickly recap, the process started with the
projections produ,ced by Human Resources & Skills Development
Canada eHRSDtC") but also included input from provinces and
territories and inJut from stakeholders from employer organizations
across Canada. Although it would have been possible to have a
longer list than 38 pccupations, as I have previously also stated. the list
i was purposely kept small and focussed on the most significant pressures (Le., where the estimated supply Is projected to be
significantly lower than the anticipated demand) to ensure the intake of
new applications' was signIficantly reduced (a necessary condition for
starting to reduce the backlog - a fundamental objective of the
govemmenrs Action Plan for Faster Immigration). In additions while
CIC acknowledges that there were certainly individuals with claimed
experience in the same occupations who applied prior to February 27,
2008 ("pre C-50" applicants) the legislative authority for Ministerial
Instructions (S.87.3 IRPA) does not permit reaching back to
retroactively prioritize these applicants. As such, these applicants
were to (and continue to be) processed In the order they were
submitted (or "first-in-first auf' with the caveats I have also previously
noted) alongside newer MI-1 applicants.

16.2 Having now explained why pre C-50 applicants are not part of the
prioritization scheme, I tum now to those applicants that are: those
that applled under MI-1 to M14. For these applicants there are two
lists: the 38 under MI-1 and the 29 under Ml-2/3 (MJ-4 simply adds up
to 1000 individuals that have been pursuing PhDs in Canada for at
least 2 years). WJ1i1e CIC recognizes that there is overlap between 1he
two lists (18 occupations), as I have previously stated, applicants in all
MI streams havei been processed On a priority basis because they
have experience :In occupations in demand. However, because the
sheer number of MI-1 applicants (which were not subject to a
numerical cap} versus MI-213/4 applicants (that are sUbject to
overall/per occupation caps) it was not feasible to complete the
processing of MI-1 cases before starting on MI-2 applicants and still
maintain the commitment to processing applicants in 6-12 months. As
I have already noted, despite the overlap In occupations, because of
the use of caps and sub-caps per occupation. the MI-1 and MI-213/4
schemes are fundamentally different. As such, it would have been
impossible to retroactively reach into MI-1 inventories to pull those with
experience in occupations that might also be present in the MI-2 list,
subject them to the new MJ-2 requirements (mandatory language
testing for example) without creating an extremely cumbersome
administrative process that would have effectively paralyzed
operations for many months. The only logical solution then was for
CIC to do what it has done: attempt to process all three streams
concurrently so as to ensure the 6-12 month processing commitment
could be maintained to the degree possible. In practice, given the
number of MI-1 cases and the passing of time, it was inevitable that
these cases would start to take longer so elc continued to focus on
MI-213 to ensure the commitment could be met for these newer
applicants. At the end of the day, all MJ appHcants, whether in MI-1,2,
3, or 4 are prioritized but sheer numbers, the passage of time and the
limits imposed by the Levels Plan have meant that wait times have
increased for the older cases, in this case for those who applied under
MI-1. Finally, I would like to note that even with wait times that are longer than anticipated, all applicants under the MI scheme have
received and continue to receive decisions much more qUickly than
was the case in 2008 before the introduction of the Action Plan.

 

[kau_shik_patel]

17. For example, in Mr. liang's affidavit, using Mr. liang's and his
wife's occupations, the folloWing information was provided in IMM-963411
••• Did you find this information to be inaccurate? If so, using a date
and an identified source of CICJs choice, how does CIC compare the
labour market demand for these occupations?

18. In the affidavit served in IMM4032..12, Mr. SinghJ using his and
his wife'S occupation adduced the following evidence: ••• Do you find
this comparison to be inaccurate? If so) using a date and an identified
source of CIC's choice, how does CIC compare the labour market
demand for these occupations?

Response to questions 17-18:
17118.1 r am not familiar with and cannot attest to the accuracy of the
snapshot information from a website such as Workopolis. The MI
occupational lists are developed based on HRSDC Canadian
Occupational Projections System ("COPS") projections and
consultations with the provinces and territories and employer groups
as explained in my Further Affidavit.

19. Are the following figures, giving the number of FSW files finalized
in each of the six preceding years and culfed from data.gc.ca, accurate?
If notJ what are the correct figures?

20. Are the folloWing figures, drawn from the same source and
stating the number of FSW files in the inventoryJ accurate? If not, how
many FSW files) per category, are there?

Response to questions 19-20:
19/20.1 I am not familiar with and cannot directly attest to the accuracy
of Open Data statistics, but have verified within the Department that
such data matches internal sources.

21. By my calculations. if CIC were to process the 1641351 FSW
inventory at the same rate as in 2009, the inventory would vanish in 17
months; orl in 34 months using the 2011 processing rate. Indeedl if elc
had maintained the 2009 standard in 2010 and 2011, there would not
even be an inventory because an additional 193.152 files would have
been finalized; i.e., nearly 30,000 more than the inventory as of 6
January 2012. Are my calculations correct? Or, if not, how 10ngJ
assuming no new FSW applications, would it take ele to have assessed
the entire FSW inventory (without regard to visa-post-specifie FOlS.)

21.1 In addressing this question, as mentioned in my Further Affidavit it is
important to note that there are multiple complex factors that determine
when applications are finalized and any Departmental projections with
respect to the elimination of the entire FSW inventory are sUbject to
fluctuations as new processing trends emerge and as Departmental
priorities change.

21.2 In trying to further understanding your assumptions, I am assuming
that by "processing rate" you are referring to the total volume of
decisions that were processed by CIC in the years you are listing for
comparison purposes. Within the department, we refer to these as
"total network outcomes" and they represent the volume of applications
finalized to a positive or negative decision, as well as any withdrawals.
However, this volume does not speak to the processing timesassociated with the finalized cases and are largely driven by the yearly levels plan.

21.3 Furthermore, your calculations are based on some faulty assumptions.
The high level of total network outcomes in 2009 and 2010 do not
represent 'normal' Skilled Worker processing. Specifically, the figures
for those years Include a large number of total network outcomes
flowing from refusals of applications submitted between February 27.
2008 and November 28, 2008. Those applications were submitted jat
risk' by persons prior to the first set of instructions being issued. A
large number of these applicants were not eligible for processing (no
eligible experience) and as such, their applications were closed and
fees refunded. Furthermore, your calculations do not recognize the
key limiting factor is that of available admissions space. This matter is
addressed in both my affidavits.

22. CIC has imposed moratoria on submission of new entrepreneur
applications and on parental sponsorships so that. according to CIC. it
can eliminate existing inventories. Why could ele not do the same for
FSW applicants? If not, why not?

22.1 I have been advised not to respond to this question.

23. Because CIC has stated that new FSW applicants are better
prospects for settlement than those who applied before 27 February
2008, would it also not fonow that entrepreneur applicants who apply
today or parents who are sponsored today would be better prospects
than those who have been waiting in their respective queues? If not,
why not?

23.1 ,Comparison cannot be made between these different types of
applicants since they represent different needs and objectives in the
Government of Canada's use of the immigration system. FSW are
brought in on the basis of human capital attributes and, more recently,
prioritized based on labour market demand - certainly, the same
cannot be said for parents and grandparents.

24. Visa posts are now sending out letters to pre-MI applicantsr
advising them that they may apply ur'lder a provincial program (PNP).
Earlier, CIC claimed that it could not assess pre-MI files of those with OL
experience because it did not have means for identifying those
applicants and reqUired them to re-apply. Would you please reconcile
these seemingly contradictory positions?

25. If ere has the means for identifying the occupation of pre-MI
applicants, why did it not call those files forward in 2008, 2009, 2010,
2011 but now in 2012) after the cap has been reached in most of the OL
occupations, advises them to apply for a PNP slot?

Response to questions 24~25

24/25.1 In the case of the current FSW backlog mining pilot project that
CIC is undertaking with province and territories, ele is not the body
assessing the merits of these applications. CIG is simply prOViding
provinces with lists of FSW Pre C-50 applicants who fall under the Pff
requested NOes of interest and the applicant is instructed by the Department that there is an opportunily to apply under the PNP by
submitting appropriate application to the PIT where they indicated they
are willing to immigrate. CIC is not involved In the subsequent PNP
process undertaken by each PIT to assess applicants and determine
whether they mayor may not be issued a nomination certificate. This
pilot is limited to a maximum of 1,500 nominations per year and is
significantly different than implying for CIC to undertake the operational
assessment of nearly 100,000 pre-C50 cases against MI criteria.
Resource implications of such an operations would bring the
Department's processing work to a grinding hall

26. If all the PNP.-eligible pre-MI or MI 1 applicants apply for their
respective PNP programs, how many applicants will that make? What is
the overall PNP quota?

26.1 Information as to how many applicants from these groups may be
eligible to apply under the PNP is not available to me and I am unable
to speculate as to how many might apply. The overall PNP nomination
certificate target is 20,665 certificates. Nominations from the pilot
project would be max. 1,500 nomination certificates over and above
.the overall certificate target.

27. llf the PNP quota is less than the number ofFSW applicants whom
CIC is diverting, does etc intend to increase the Rest of Canada (RoC)
PNP quotas to allow for timely processing of these files?

28. If CIC does not intend to increase the RoC PNP quotasJ will it
abolish all the applications lodged before whatever date the Minister
pulls out of a hat for whatever reasons strikes his fancy? If not, why
should anyone believe that CIC will not reverse this, or any. position it
states?

29. If ele will increase the RoC PNP quota, will it reduce the FSW
quota accordingly? [Answers for the RoC PNP programs may be
province-specific or collective.]

Response to questions 27-29

27/28/29.1 To note, the tenns IlRoC PNP quota" does not exist and I
am not sure what it refers to. That being said, assuming we are talking
about the entire PN program, I can comment that while a
commensurate increase in nomination certificates will be allocated to
the provinces, no additional admissions space Is being allocated to
Provincial Nominees for 2012 as a result of this Initiative. Furthermore,
there will be no changes to the FSW admissions targets in 2012 as a
result of the PNP pilot project.

30. If not, what assurance is there that the Minister will not change
his mind the next time he spies a microphone? In other wordsJ why
should anyone rely on anything elc says?

30.1 I have been advised not to answer this question.

 

[kau_shik_patel]

31. Mr. Liang's affidavit includes the following elc chart: Table 17:
Labour force status of Skilled Worker Principal Applicants [•••] Source:
Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants to Canada - Wave 2 (2003) This ele
report states: Of the skilled worker principal applicants who were
worldng at the time of the Wave 2 interview[Note 13],36% were working
in their intended occupations. As a comparison. 33% of skilled worker
principal applicants were working in an intended occupation 6 months
after arrival. The results from the second wave therefore show some
modest gains for skilled worker principal applicants finding jobs in
intended occupations.
http://www.cic.gc.calenglish/resources/research/lsicfsection8.asp Does
ele have any reason to beHeve that more than 36% of those with OL
experience will pursue their Uintended occupation" once they
immigrate? If so, provide the basis for holding that view.

31.1 The table proVided is based the longitudinal study done by Statistics
Canada on immigrants and is subject to STe methodology and
definition of occupational groups, etc. In addition, to note that gIven
Wave 2 population studied in this survey, the immigrants portrayedhere
would have arrived in Canada perhaps over a decade ago.
Secondly, GIC does not make judgements In its selection of potential
immigrants whether they will work in their "intended occupation". As
such, it is at the discretion of each immigrant to determine the
necessary steps required to bridging In their former
education/credentials and work experience once they are in Canada to
fulfil/labour market needs. I have provided my evidence on this subject
in my Further Affidavil

32. I count 18 of the 29 Ol occupations as requiring licensing before
being able to pursue that occupation in Canada. Am I correct in that
regard; or, if not, how many requiring licensing?

32.1 To the best of my knowledge. of the 17 occupations on the list that are
not trades. 12 are regulated. As for the trades, the story is complicated
and makes a simple count difficult. The regulation of trades varies by
province. For example, take plumbers: Trade certification is
compulsory in Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island. New Brunswick,
Quebec. Ontario, Saskatchewan and Alberta, while certification is
available, but voluntary, in Newfoundland and Labrador. Manitoba,
British Columbia, YUkon, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut.

33. HoW does GIC expect immigrants requiring licensing to ply their
trade to meet "urgent labour market demands"?

33.1 ctc does not currently have any requirement that prospective
immigrants meet Canadian licensing requirements. pke any other
person, an immigrant wishing to work in an occupation requiring
licensing would need to obtain said license. Through initiatives like the
Pan-Canadian Framework for the Assessment and Recognitron of
Foreign Credentials. the Government of Canada has been working for
a number of years with regulatory bodies to facilitate the process of
assessment and recognition of foreign credentials and education.

34. How does CIC define "urgent labour market demand"? How
quickly does ele expect immigrants to meet "urgent labour market
demands"?

34.1 As noted in my previous affidavit. elC uses a combination of inputs to
develop the priority occupations lists that have been in effect since
November 2008. These include projections from HRSDC's Canadian
Occupational Projections System (COPS), labour market pressures
identified by provinces and territories and input from employers and
other stakeholders. As I also noted in my previous affidavit, CIC does
not undertake the matching of immigrants with employers - somethIng
the market is much better positioned to do. However, through the
Ministerial Instructionsl CIC does fast-track the processing of
applicants with in..demand experience and education identified through
the methodology previously mentioned. By focussing on those
occupations and by bringing these immigrants faster, the approach
increases the chances that labour market needs, which is the extent of
CICls ability to influence this process.

35. The Affidavit of Pantea Jafari, adduced in both representative
cases, contains this except from a Toronto Star article, pUblished on 30
October 2011: • • . Does elc have statistics which dispute the
information· ·jn ..·the Star articlej vb:., 7,500 international medical
graduates (IMG's) have proven that they meet Ontario's requirements to
practice medicine but may not do so until they have completed a
residency program, for which only 236 slots are available per annum;
and 1,800 IMG's are seeking licensure but only 191 are admitted into the
licensing stream annually?

35.1 To the best of my knowledge CIC does not hold statistics on these
matters, which appear to be In the purview of the province of Ontario.

36. What is the situation in other provinces for the licensing of
IMG's?

36.1 I am afraid I do not have the necessary in depth knowledge of the
licensing regime for international medical graduates across
jurisdictions in Canada to answer this question.

37. What are the situations in RoC for the other licensed OL
occupations; i.e., numbers in the queue, number of licences granted per
annum per province per licensed OL occupation?

37.1 As with question 36, I am afraid I do not have the necessary in depth
knowledge of these issues 10 answer this question.

38. Please describe the effort ere is undertaking to facilitate the
licensing in Canada for immigrants in the Ot occupations so that they
can meet the alleged Uurgent labour market demand".

38.1 As I noted above. the Government of Canada is working on several
fronts to facilitate the process of foreign credential assessment and
recognition. A key initiative is the Pan-Canadian Framework for the
Assessment and Recognition of Foreign Credentials, the Government
of Canada has been working for a number of years with regulatory
bodies to facilitate the process of assessment and recognition of
foreign credentIals and education. A number of the occupations in the
most current priority occupations list are part of the Framework.

39. The alternative means for new FSW applicants is to secure an
approved ioh-offer' (an AEO). What pe~c~ntage of such appHcants ~oes
elc believe (a) intend to work in that job and (b) are likely to be paid the
wage required to obtain the AEO? If ere has studied this issue, please
summarize the findings, methodology and period under study.

39.1 Jhave been advised not to answer this question.

40. What effort is CIC pursuing to ensure the integrity of AEO-based
immigration? What is the projected cost to maintain a means for
thwarting massive fraud in AE()..based immigration?

40.1 I have been advised not to answer this question.

41. Does the GoG intend to deport those who immigrate on the basis
of fraudulent AEO's? How much would such enforcement action cost on
an annual basis?
• ~,o_ ....... _ .......... ~....;.;J. -.:0 L";; •• il f. ,II U;jj:tu.1, _ ,j~#.i

41.1 I have been advised not to answer this question.

42. The Minister has stated that he wants an employer--driven FSW
program. If CIC believes that employers will actively involve themselves
in this project, what is the basis for that belief?

42.1 l have been advised not to answer this question.

43. According to HRSDC, employers are required to pay recruiters for
job placement and recruiters may not extract placement fe9S from
imported workers. To what extent does CIC believe that Canadian
empioyers customariiy pay these fees and recruiters are not charging
imported workers for their jobs? If etc believes that employers
customarily pay the recruiters and the recruiters do not collect from the
workers, on what basis-does that belief rest?

43.1 Jhave been advised not to answer this question.

 

[kau_shik_patel]

44. What percentage of AEOMbased immigrants work for their
sponsor for at least one year? For three or more years? What is the
basis for that finding?

44.1 I have been advIsed not to answer this question.

45. Does elc have, or intend to have, a program to reimburse
importing employers for the cost they incurred in importing workers
who take a higher-paying job or leave the province within a year of Uleir
immigration? How much does, or would. such a program cost?

45.1 I have been advised not to answer this question.

46. What is the percentage of PNP migrants who reside in the
sponsoring province two years after immigration? What is the basis for
this answer?

46.1 I have been advised not to answer this question.

47. What enforcement mechanisms are, or may be expected to be, in
place to ensure that PNP immigrants reside in the sponsoring province?
What is, or is estimated to be. the cost for monitoring the retention rate
of PNP migrants? What is the basis for that answer?

47.1 I have been advised not to answer this question.

48. On 16 February 2012. CIC issued a press release, quoting the
Minister saying: uTo maintain the support of Canadians for our
generous immigration and refugee systems, we must demonstrate that
Canada has a fair, well-managed system that does not tolerate queue
jumping,J~ concluded Minister Kenney. How does cle reconcile this
declaration with (a) its policy of processing files lodged after 25 June
2010 ahead of those filed before 27 February 2008 and (b) abolishing the
queue in which FSW applicants have been standing since before 27
February 2008?

48.1 I note that this quotation is out of context. This statement was related
to Refugee Refon:n legislation in the context of migrants making spurious refugee claims. I disagree with the premise of the question
and have explained the policy rationale for Mr1 In my first affidavit.

49. On May 4th, the GI~be & Mail ran an article stating, inter alia:
Immigration Minister Jason Kenney has enacted long-overdue reforms
to streamline the selection system for economic immigrants. More
points will be given for younger people with language proficiency who
have prearranged employment. He also plans to tackle the backlog by
closing 1DO,OOO files involving 300,000 people. This is a necessary
measure - but one with consequences. It puts a stain on Canada's
credibility. and more reforms are necessary to ensure the problem
doesn't recur. .
aJ Please describe CIC's involvement having this story written.
b) How has the Ministerstreamlined the selection system?
c) How much processing time has the Minister reduced?
d) On what information did the G&M base the finding that
Ilc/osing 100,000 files involving 300,000 people -... is a
necessar-vlneasura"?

49.1 Questions regarding this Globe & Mail editorial and the opinions
contained in it should be directed to its author. J have no knowledge of
this editorial or the Globe &Mail's sources. I have explained the policy
rationale for the Ministerial Instructions In my previous affidavits.

50. The Globe & Mall describes the abolition of the FSW backlog as
"one with consequences" because nit puts a stain on Canada's
credibility". Does CIC disagree with the Globe's description of the
consequence to CanadaJs reputation the closing these files will
engender? If so, on what basis?

50.1 I am not familiar ,with this article and am not qualified to offer an
opinion on this matter.

51. How does ClC view the impact this arbitrary closing of 100,000
files will have on the iwillingness of those seeking to immigrate to be
willing to stand in an immigration queue as opposed to jumping on the
smugglers' next ship to Canada?

51.1 I have been advised not to answer this question.

52. How much do ole and CBSA estimate it will cost to house and
feed all those who come to Canada via the assistance of a facilitator?

52.1 I have been advis.~d not to answer this question.

53. At 1126, Justice l Kelen held in Dragan, hold that in 2001, CIC
allocated 5185 million for visa processing and collected $310 million in
visa fees. Please state the amount allocated for FSW visa processing
from 2006 to date and the corresponding amount of fees collected from
FSW applicants.

53.1 This question implies that elc collects more fees than what it spends
processing applications. The premise of the question is false in that: a)
the money collected by CIC from application fees go into the
Government of Canada's Consolidated Revenue Fund (CRF) and is
not linked to amount of money provided by GoC to CIC on a yearly
basis; b) preJjmjn~ry analyses of the Permanent Resident fee has
shown that Canadian taxpayers subsidize afmost 60% of application
processing (i.e. fe~ for APR covers only 40% of processing costs).

54. With the creation.l0f the cia in SydnaYJ NS, assessing files shifted
from visa posts to the CIO. Did this shift result in a reduction or
increase in the cost of processing FSW applications? If it resulted in an
increase in the cost tol process FSW filesJ does that mean that fewer
FSW files can be proceSsed each year?

54.1 I find that this qJslion confuses concepts: processing volumes are
related to setting o~ Annual Levels Plan and not to cost of processing.
In addition. the Jentralization of FSW applications at CIO-Sydney was
done to enable the new MI regime and was furthermore desired for
improvement in data and program integrity. To note, it was also a great
opportunity for GIC to test and learn about processing of overSeas
applications in ~anada, which is ao example of the direction of
modernization at CIC.

55. At 1i2GJ you statld ihat CIC sincerely believed that FSW tiles can
be processed in six to twelve months but for the greater intake than
expected. Once CIC be~ins to assess an FSW file, assuming no security
issues, how long should the applicant expect to wait before the visa is
issued?

55.1 I explained this lin my Further Affidavil In addition. it would be
operationally impQssible to process all FSW fries in one month given
that there are probessing times stemming from client compliance, time
required to book and do medicals with Designated Medica!
Practitioners and to receive medical results (e.g. certain tuberculosis
tests require 901 days for sputum culturing), time required by
admissibility asse~sment partners (CaSAl RcM?, CSIS) who also
have resources linked to processing volumes (xx proc tImes), as well
as number of offic!rs trained to give decisions on immigration files and
location capacity.

56. The Globe & Mai~ article confirmed CIC's intention to change the
FSW selection criteria grid, speaking of it, in effects as a fait accompli. Is
it CIC's intention to ap, Iy the new selection criteria when assessing
files lodged before they 0 into effect?

56.1 No. Furthermore, I am not familiar with this article and cannot comment
on it.

57. If the answer is ~'no'" what assurance can anyonet have that elc
will keep its word? Aff:er all, ele enticed applicants with the promise of
processing files on a ~FO basisJ giving an estimated process time upon
receipt of each application, but abruptly changed it position on 27
February 2008. CIC, lafter instituting iis queue-jumping processing
policy, promised to prpcess the earlier applications; vide your Exhibit
; bUt, four years later, announced, effective the day before, that it
would close all un-asspssed FSW fiUs lodged before 27 February 2008;
vide your ~32; that it wpuld break that promise, too. ele stated that files
lodged after 27 February 2008 would be processed in under one year,
but breached that prpmise as well. So, why should anyone trust
anything CIC on this issue?

57.1 I have been adviJd notlo answer this question.

58. A ele's spokesp~rsontold a reporter, enquiring into the proposed
abolition of the pre..BiII C·30 files, that the reason- for doing so is
because IICanada nee, to modernize the type of workers it brings in if
we want to maintain 0lur economic competitiveness'"~ Please describe
CIC·s version of the "modernized immigranfl

58.1 I have no knowlJdge of what an unnamed CIC spokesperson may
have told an unna~ed reporter in an unidentified article. However, my
affidavits discuss the policy rationale behind the Ministerial Instructions
with respect to melting the needs of the Canadian economy.

59. How does that Idefinition mesh with the Minister March 1st
comment to the Globe ~ Mail, where he is reported to have stated: Fresh
off a trip to labour-starved Saskatchewan, Mr. Kenney said in an
interview Wednesday ~at he wants to craate a new economic stream for
trades people, who cufr.rentlY don't qualify under Canada's educationfocused
federal skilled orker program.

59.1 This question falls outside the scope of my knowledge. I cannot
speculate as to what the Minister or Parliament may decide in future.

60. Please describe the effort CIC had made to ascertain how well the
100,000 pre-Sill CM 50 applicants match its definition of the "modernized
immigrant".

60.1 My previous affidavits. which explain the prospective nature of the
Ministerial Instructions, deal with this question to the best of my
knowledge.

61. As you know, if.the BUdget is defeated, the Government falls and
new elections are called. Did ele insert the provision to abolish the pre27
February 2008 in the OmnibUS Bill C-38 because, if voted on
separately, it would not garner enough Tory support to pass the House?
If that is not the r9aso~, will ele remove that provision from Bill C·38
and allow it be debated and decided on its own merits? If not, why not?

61.1 I cannot answer this question. It falls outside the scope of my
knowledge.

 

[kau_shik_patel]

62. The abolition provision, buried in the Omnibus Bill C-3B, reads: .•
• Inclusion of 87.4(5) reveals that ele recognizes that, by abolishing
these files four to eight years after having accepted full consideration
for their being processed to completion, CIC, absent this provision,
would be sUbjection sc.tians for damages.
a) Against whicj) specific causes-oF-action is CIC seeking to
immunize itself?
b) How much ddes C/C estimate such would cost the Treasury if
the provision is excluded?
c) Please cite otfJersuch immunization provisions the Parliament
ofcanada ha~ passed?
d) If, for the applicants' unearned fees it has been holding, CIC
paid interest at the rate Revenue Canada charges taxpayers
for failing to Ipay income taxes on time, how much would
Canada owe its victims?

62.1 cannot answer lthis question as it is beyond the scope of my
knowledge.

63. AS?4 repudiates !contracts into which elC entered four to eight
years earlier and purports to bar the victims of this unprincipled action
from urecourse or indehmity". Would this action not also mean that,
once the Conservativei lose their majority, the new Parliament could
pass legislation dep~ving all former ConservativeJ Progressive·
Conservative or Refor~ MpJs of their pensionsJ retroactively to eight
years before, and require them to reimburse the payments they had
received? If notJ why not?

63.1 I cannot answer this question as it is beyond the scope of my
knowledge.

64. On May 12th, th~ Globe &Mail reported that the Senate is poised
to pass Bill C..38 before Parliament recesses for the summer. Does CIC
expect AS?4 to be pa~sed before the end of June? The Senate could
delay the bill, but there are no NDP senators. and the Liberals and
Conservatives have already struck a deal: the bill is being stUdied in
advance of its arrival by several committees, which means by the time it
reaches the Senate it will already have been fully considered, and can
be swiftly passed. :

64.1 It is up to Parliame'nt to decide when the legislation will pass.

65. Are you, Mr. McNamee, as a Canadian. proud of the treabnent to
which your employer -l your government - has subjected those who,
prior to 27 February 20Q8, applied in good faith to immigrate to Canada.
erroneously trusting in the veracity of the Government of Canada?

65.1 I do not view my personal feelings on the subject as relevant.
However, as a pUbiic servant I have the responsibility to implement the
policies of the g4vemment of the day. As early as 2006, the
Government of Ca,nada announced its intention to take action to
address numerous Cleficiencies In the immigration program, particularly
the growing backlog of unprocessed applications and the resulting long
and growing wait ti'i"es. As ) have noted in my previous affidavitsj in
the 2008 Action Ir,Ian for Faster Immigration the Government of
Canada made expli~it its intention to reverse this trend by stopping the
growth of these bac~'ogs. processing faster and reducing wait times.
The intent was, anfi remains. to ensure the immigration system can
better respond to la~our market needs by prioritizing those immigrants
with in-demand skills and experience and to process them faster,
ideally within 6 to 12 months. Over the last four years. additional
policy and program changes I previously noted (four sets of Ministerial ,
Instructions, efforts to centralize and increase efficiency, etc.) have all
been part of the vi~ion of creating a "real time" immigration system.

65.2 I would also wish fo note that as outlined in the objectives for Canada's
immigration system in the Immigrant and Refugee Protection Act
(IRPA), Canada's! economic immigration programs exist in order '10
support the dev~lopment of a strong and prosperous Canadian
economy." As SU~hl it is reasonable for the Government of Canada to .
take action if it f~els that the objective is not being met. For the
reasons I have n~ted in my affidavit, many of the applicants who
applied several ye~rs ago would still have needed to wait for several
more years to arrive in Canada - a situation that the Government of
Canada detennineq would not support the above-stated objective.

65.3 That said, this depision was not made lightly and I can certainly
understand the disappointment that many of the applicants feel.
However, since 2~08, the department has made every effort to
eliminate the backlcig through processing and that has seen more than
50% of the applicants that were in the queue before February 2008
receiving a decisionl The prospect of the remaining applicants waiting
another 5 or more years, or more than 10 years since they applied
originally was not a good outcome for the applicants or for Canada.

65.4 In closing, I would like to note that the decisive action of the
govemment since 2006 has signfficantly improved the immigration
program, particularly if one considers what would have happened had
no action been taken. In 2007. when there was no ability to limit the
intake of new applications, at the average rate of new application
intake of the previous 5 years (2001·2006). CIC projected that the
FSW backlog alone was going to reach over 1 million persons with
average wait times of almost 10 years. That did not.happen.

 

[kau_shik_patel]

Here is what I just sent to DoJ



Dear Counsel,


I do not yet have time to deal with the interrogatories but I would like to give you a heads-up 'cause these niggardly times lines are as hard on you as they are on me. From your perspective, however, it's all for the better 'cause Justice Barnes has seriously crippled our ability to put together a strong offence.


I expect that I will send you the same set of interrogatories. The only additional questions I have in mind at this point are:


1. For either the last twelve months, ending June 30th; or for 2011, whichever is easier for you, please provide
a. the number of FSW files finalized in New Delhi, Beijing, Hong Kong and Manila and
b. the dates the finalized files were lodged.


2. The perception for the Chinese litigants is that Beijing is sending out medical forms and up-dates for pre-Bill C-50 applicants, whose files had been assessed before 29 March 2012, in no order whatsoever; which is to say, newer applicants are receiving these request whereas some earlier applicants are not. Excluding files under a court order to be processed, please provide the formula (if any) Beijing is using for processing this cohort of applications.


3. If Beijing, Hong Kong, Manila, New Delhi, Ankara, London and Warsaw reached their FSW target in 2011, please give the date of having done so; or, if not, the target and number of FSW visas issued up to the date of the answer (or an earlier date if easier to provide).


4. On March 7th, Minster Kenney gave an address in which he mused that he liked the New Zealand approach to clearing backlogs: legislate them into oblivion. In view of his March 29th announced that he was doing so I presume that the March 7th comment was not an off-the-cuff remark but more accurately falls into the trial balloon category. Therefore, please provide the following information:
a. the date CIC staff began envisioning A87.4,
b. the dates and participants at meetings (formal or informal) to discuss the A87.4 option
i. names and
ii. positions held.
c. date decision was made to legislate s. 87.4 into existence and
d. names and titles of those who proposed/made that decision.


5. On November 2nd, the Minister said:


"As of today, the skilled worker backlog stands at about 100,000 people. [...]

* * *

"[...] I’m pleased to announce that the Federal Skilled Worker Program will continue to be our flagship immigration program.




"It remains the single largest avenue for permanent immigration to Canada and, as such, next year we plan to welcome between 53,500 to 55,300 federal skilled workers, which includes their spouses and dependents. Combined with previous actions taken to manage the backlog, this means that by the end of next year we will be able to process new applications as they are received and aim to process them in less than a year [...]




"Practically, what does this boil down to? It means that when the applicants for the skilled worker program next year make their applications, we will be getting to their applications, making a decision and admitting them in a few months, certainly less than a year. […]




"We’ll also be creating a new skilled trades stream, which will have a lower benchmark for language proficiency. [...] "


(a) Please give a breakdown of the 100,000 inventory by category; i.e., pre-Bill C-50, MI 1, MI 2, etc.
(b) How does the Department intend to allocate the FSW quota between the various classes, including the "new skilled trades stream" -- either globally or specifically for at the visa posts involved in this litigationl viz., London, Vienna, Warsaw, Accra, Nairobi, Pretoria, Damascus, New Delhi, Colombo, Singapore, Manila, Seoul, Beijing, Hong Kong, Sydney, Bogotá, Kingston and Port of Spain?
(c) Please explain how the Department expects to process applications received in 2012 "in a few months, certainly less than a year" when the current inventory stands at 100,000 and the 2013 FSW quota has been set at 53,500 to 55,300?


6. The Minister has been quoted as stating that there will be no MI 1 inventory by the end of 2013. Please explain how CIC envisions accomplishing that task.


Regards,


Tim

 

[kau_shik_patel]

if any body has any question please e-mail Tim leahy he can ask CIC to answere through court.

 

[umerrais79]

Friends I need your help. I am Pakistani Citizen and Applied at Islamabad Visa Office in 2005. Following is my Case History:

Category................................: FSW1
Visa Office..............................: Islamabad -----> London Visa Office
NOC Code...............................: 2173 (Software Developer)
App. Filed...............................: 17-08-2005
AOR Received..........................: 30-08-2008
Doc's Request..........................: Sent with application
IELTS Request.........................: Sent with application
File Transfer to LVO..................: 29-09-2010
Documents Updated Request......: 12-06-2012
Updated Documents Sent..........: 08-07-2012
Updated Documents Confirmation: 22-08-2012
File Case Against Cic in F. Court..: 06-09-2012

Friends I want to know that if I am a Back Logger Pre February 2008. Than why CIC LVO sent me letter to update my documents in June 2012 and said to wait for 4 months, after that they sent me confirmation that my updated documents received in August 2012 and suddenly in September 2012 LVO said that my application is rejected because of Law passed in June 2012 for Back Logger Pre February 2008. I want to know than why CIC request me to sent updated documents in June 2012, because of that I file a late case in September 2012 against CIC in federal court because I got to know in September 2012 that I was rejected and even I am a Software Developer (2173) and I am eligible for Opportunities Ontatrio FSW Pilot Programme but I did not get invitation for this. Now where I am standing I dont understand this, because I think I am standing in middle of sea and there is no diesel in my ship. So could any one of you could help me in telling that what is my status is my application is rejected or still going on.

 

[kau_shik_patel]

Good Day,

On November 14th after close of business, Justice Barnes set January 14th-16th for the hearing date for those challenging the Minister's treatment of skilled worker applicants. This shorten time-line has forced applicants' counsel to revise how they had intended to proceed.

First, Justice Barnes' manoeuvre obliged the lawyers, who were seeking a class-action, which if granted would have governed all the applicants whose file s s. 87.4 closed, to abort that effort. The motion was to have been heard on November 23rd and 30th. However, twice Justice Barnes, who was to decide the case, stated that he did not want to certify a class. If he ruled that way, an appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal could not be heard before January 14th. Moreover, if he had certified a class, there would not be enough time to organize it effectively before January 14th. Therefore, there will be no class-action lawsuit but only managed litigation governing those who retained a lawyer to represent them.

The result is that a decision on these proceedings will only directly affect those who have signed on with one of the groups. Therefore, one needs to decide whether to participate in the litigation.

Second, by setting the hearing date for January 14th, Justice Barnes has given himself the out he needed to justify his refusal to rule on the motion I had filed on June 29th, asking the Court to enforce the February 3rd Agreement. We will now have to wait for the January 14th-16th hearing.

If the Court declares s. 87.4 (the provision closing the files) to be unlawful, all the closed files will, of course, be resurrected. However, because the litigation seeks an order requiring litigants' files to be processed within a specified time-frame, the litigants' cases -- if successful -- will move to the head of the queue. Whichever way the Court rules, the decision is expected to be appealed. So, the matter to be finally settled when that decision is made following the January hearing.

The unfairCIC.com litigation, however, is different because we are also seeking enforcement of the Agreement DoJ and I signed and filed with the Court on February 3rd. If the Court, agrees that the Agreement is enforceable, s. 87.4 will not have to be declared unlawful for the unfairCIC.com litigants to have their files processed. If he does rule in our favour, the judge will also have to decide whether the Agreement covers only those who applied before the June 14th decision was issued or whether it applies to all the litigants in the unfairCIC.com group, as Justice Barnes directed on June 26th.

The judge appointed to preside on January 14th-16th is Mr. Justice Rennie, the same judge who ruled in the unfairCIC.com litigants' favour on June 14th, at which time he stated that the Agreement was to govern disposition of the other litigants' files. However, CIC has refused to do so, using the excuse that, because the Minister closed the files, it would be unlawful to honour the Agreement.

But, on November 29th, the Minister confirmed what I have been saying -- and CIC has been denying -- since June 29th; namely that the statute gives the Minister the authority to override s. 87.4. On November 29th, the Minister issued Operational Bulletin 479-B, wherein he ordered visa posts "for reasons of public policy" to re-issue visas to applicants who had been assessed after March 29th and who had been issued visas unlawfully after June 29th, when 87.4 closed their files.
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/manuals/bulletins/2012/ob479B.asp

The Minister's doing so confirmed the position which I have been arguing. It should not, therefore, be difficult for Justice Rennie to see his way clear to order CIC to use this same provision in order to honour the Agreement we signed on February 3rd and he held on June 14th meant that the other litigants' files were to be finalized in a manner similar to his order which required CIC to finalize the lead litigant's file within 120 days. (They did so within sixty day.) Assuming he rule in a manner consistent with his June 14th ruling, he will have to decide whether the Agreement applies to all the unfairCIC.com litigants or only to those who applied before June 14th. If he limits his ruling to those who had joined before June 14th, the others' fate will turn on the ruling on s. 87.4.

When Justice Barnes set the hearing date, he said that any counsel who had filed written submissions by November 30th would be able to argue the case on January 14th-16th. Therefore, I served and filed four lead cases for the four unfairCIC.com groups: viz., FSW applications (1) lodged before 27 February 2008 and (a) never assessed, (b) assessed before March 29th or (c) assessed after March 29th and (2) lodged between 27 February 2008 and 25 June 2010. Thus, anyone in each of these four categories who joins the unfairCIC.com group before January 8th will benefit directly from Justice Rennie's ruling.

Sincerely,

Tim Leahy

 

[kau_shik_patel]

Dear Litigant,

I am receiving multiple emails on the same two issues and simply do not have the time to deal with them on a one-by-one basis -- hence this email.

First however let me tell you what I consider to be the important issues. DoJ's written submissions are due on Friday, after which I may examine the witness but have only one week in which to do so. I have decided to do so by submitting questions, as opposed to questioning in person, because the niggardly time-frame Justice Barnes had imposed makes it impossible for us to put together as strong an offense as I would like. A week later final written arguments are due, incorporating whatever additional evidence the questioning elicited.

In the meantime, one of the DoJ counsel is trying to limit our arguments and our access to the January 14th-16th hearing. I have do deal with that issue immediately.

Therefore, the constant request that I provide the handful of insistent litigants with their CAIPS notes is simply not a priority. CIC has sent them by disc which means that I have to load them into my old computer, label them by litigant's name (they only have an internal CIC file number on them), transfer them to the lap-top I use daily and then forward them. I probably have about 150 to 200 of these. I simply cannot justify taking the time to do so when the major issues I just raised must be addressed -- not to mention my other clients' concerns and deadlines for their cases.

I have prepared four separate written submissions, covering each of the possible situations the CAIPS notes will reveal. So, why the rush to see what they contain? Whatever the situation, your case will be before the Court in January unless DoJ counsel Martin Anderson has his way. I asked my junior to open all of them when I was in Alberta to pull out those which had been assessed. If your file proved to have been one which had been assessed and we had not already know that fact, I would have told you. None were.

The other issue concerns those whom we knew to have had their files assessed before March 29th. Because CIC refused to sign a consent order promising to process them in a timely manner, I filed separate cases for 18 of those whose CAIPS notes we had and wish to file the rest once I have the time to do so. Nevertheless, Beijing has been sending medical forms to some, prompting two queries to come from the Chinese contingent. The first is: "I want to withdraw now because I have my medical forms". My advice is to wait until they issue the visas before withdrawing. The second is: "Why are they issuing me the medical now?" While I do not know the answer, I can surmise three possible reasons: (1) your number just came up; it is entirely coincidental to the litigation; (2) Beijing received the list of our assessed files and, believing that the agreement was finalized, is erroneously processing the files and (3) they are doing so because they want to be able to tell the Court: "This case should be dismissed because we are already processing the file". I really do not know which of the reasons is the actual reason but I do believe that the litigation is what has caused the action to occur.

Please help me by allowing me to address the really important issues and by keeping in mind that, while answering one short email may not take much time, when as many as 1,300 people can ask the same question, it diverts me from what should be my central focus: making the strongest case for the January hearing -- and making sure that Martin Anderson does not bar the door to it.

Regards,

Tim

 

[kau_shik_patel]

CONSTITUTION ACT, 1982 (80)
1982, c. 11 (U.K.), Schedule B
PART I
CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS
Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:
...

1. What CIC has done goes against its founding principles ie, Two of the Ten Commandments of GOD. THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS AGAINST THY NEIGHBOUR. (It means you should not lie (tell an untruth) in such a way that it will hurt someone else).They have repeadly lied to us , we have the documentary evidence.
2. Thou Shalt not steal. They have taken money, interest, IELTS fees, and 9 years of our lives.
Along with the case the lawyers are filing why don't we write to our lawyers and give these two strong cases ?