Federal Skilled Worker Class Action Lawsuit

[hopeful4]

I think it was difficult in the first place to have a tourist visa while you have an open immigration file,,,,,this is called dual intent and was always a suspicious case,,,,,now it will even be more difficult because of the lawsuit.
I asked an immigration officer in 2010 if will be granted a student visa if I apply and he said: it is better to WAIT for the processing of my immigration file.
All the misleading , all the wrong info we got and continue to get,,,,,this should be against human rights ,,,


By the way does anyone know what happened in 2003 when New Zealand eliminated the backlog of applicants too? I read that the applicants won a lawsuit against the government then and the law was not applied,,,,,,,,,is this true?

 

[Feb2004]

Hi hopeful4,

I too applied for immigration in 2004. In 2010 I applied for student visa after getting admission in a Ph.d program. In 2009
my daughter also came to Canada on student visa. She too was part of the application in 2004. So immigration file does not affect your chances of a temporary visa. Though the program in which one is selected should be good enough to show that you are genuinely interested in studies.

 

[Benidiction]

I think it was difficult in the first place to have a tourist visa while you have an open immigration file,,,,,this is called dual intent and was always a suspicious case,,,,,now it will even be more difficult because of the lawsuit.
I asked an immigration officer in 2010 if will be granted a student visa if I apply and he said: it is better to WAIT for the processing of my immigration file.
All the misleading , all the wrong info we got and continue to get,,,,,this should be against human rights ,,,


By the way does anyone know what happened in 2003 when New Zealand eliminated the backlog of applicants too? I read that the applicants won a lawsuit against the government then and the law was not applied,,,,,,,,,is this true?

Hi Hopeful4,

I am also in the same boat like all of you here , passing days with great agony. Out of experience can say , I applied under FSW back in 2007 since then I traveled Canada thrice. Every time when I filled up the Visa from I did mention about my FSW application. Beside I obtained a letter from my lawyer confirming that I am a FSW applicant. So, guess this law suit should not be an issue to get Tourist Visa if anyone wants to, provided s/he meets the requirement.

Regards
Benidiction

 

[avijitsg]

Hi! i am new here. can anyone tell me about the following website's comments regarding "What should the Honourable Mr Justice Barnes, give THE Legal team for payment and who should pay?"
the website is "Canadian Soldiers Assistance Team (CSAT) Forums"
to find out search "Mr Justice Barnes"

Thanks

 

[sbernados]

so i guess, we have to wait again till November 16. Its prolonging our agony guys. Hopefully, we can hear good news on November , not waiting again for the next step.

 

[maintarget]

Good news

 

[hopeful4]

The real news will be in 2013,,,because in next November the decision will not affect us anyway,,another year of waiting,,,but we have done the maximum we can in all cases (before and after march 2012),,,, it is all in hands of God now ,,,just let us believe in his justice. ;D

 

[sbernados]

Posted by Tim Leahy in Linkedin:
Tim Leahy • There are two proceedings pertaining to these files. First, there is the so-called class-action lawsuit, commenced after the Minister announced his plan to close the files. The other is the unfairCIC.com proceeding, launched five months earlier, asking the Court to order CIC to process such files.

On September 18th, the Federal Court declined to extend beyond September 29th the bar for CIC to act on the closing of the files. Thus, as of October 1st refund cheques will begin to flow.

On November 16th, arguments will be heard over whether the proceeding challenging the closing of the files should proceed by way of a true class-action (where everyone would be covered) or by managed proceeding (where only those who sign on are covered). The managing judge prefers the latter; applicants' counsel, the former. It will not be until late November, therefore, before the 86,000+ applicants and their dependants know whether they need to retain a lawyer to fight for the or whether the lawyers already involved will be fighting not only for those who hired them, but for everyone.

The unfairCIC.com litigation is awaiting a ruling on whether the Court will enforce the Agreement that CIC would "be guided by" the lead case, where the Court, on June 14th, ordered CIC to process the lead litigant's file within four months. (The visas were issued two months later.)
http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/2012/2012fc758/2012fc758.html
If he so orders, he will also have to rule on CIC objection to the order including those who have signed on since the June 14th ruling. That decision could come as early as this coming week. If he rules against the litigants, they will become a part of the larger group challenging the closing of their files.

 

[sbernados]

LinkedIn Groups

Group: Canadian Citizenship and Immigration Forum
Discussion: Update on FSW "Class Action" lawsuits
Justice Barnes declined to extend the voluntary stay of action because (a) CIC has agreed not to destroy files for two years and, (b) in the judge's opinion, those who en-cash a refund cheque may resurrect their file by repaying the fee. Written reasons have not been released.

The effect of this ruling has no bearing on anyone who has joined the litigation. It's only possible impact is on those who have not joined. However, if Justice Barnes' view is correct, it will not affect them either. Likewise, if the Court declares s. 87.4 to be unlawful, it could include a direction allowing for the resurrection of files where the refund was accepted.

So, the injunction really was not necessary in the first place. In fact, I advised the Court on August 24th that I would not be seeking an injunction for the unfairCIC.com contingent because it was not necessary for my litigants. Justice Barnes appears to have agreed with me.

The next issue is whether the Court will certify a class or whether each of the 86,000 applicants will have to sign on in order to be covered. That issue will be argued on November 16th. Do not expect a decision the next day. (Justice Barnes, who will be hearing the motion, has repeatedly expressed his preference for individual case proceeding together, creating the spectre of 86,000 cases being filed -- or ten times the number of cases the Court sees in a year.)

Please keep in mind that the legality of s. 87.4 was not an issue at the September 18th hearing.
Posted by Tim Leahy

 

[avijitsg]

Quote:
LinkedIn Groups

Group: Canadian Citizenship and Immigration Forum
Discussion: Update on FSW "Class Action" lawsuits
Justice Barnes declined to extend the voluntary stay of action because (a) CIC has agreed not to destroy files for two years and, (b) in the judge's opinion, those who en-cash a refund cheque may resurrect their file by repaying the fee. Written reasons have not been released.

The effect of this ruling has no bearing on anyone who has joined the litigation. It's only possible impact is on those who have not joined. However, if Justice Barnes' view is correct, it will not affect them either. Likewise, if the Court declares s. 87.4 to be unlawful, it could include a direction allowing for the resurrection of files where the refund was accepted.

So, the injunction really was not necessary in the first place. In fact, I advised the Court on August 24th that I would not be seeking an injunction for the unfairCIC.com contingent because it was not necessary for my litigants. Justice Barnes appears to have agreed with me.

The next issue is whether the Court will certify a class or whether each of the 86,000 applicants will have to sign on in order to be covered. That issue will be argued on November 16th. Do not expect a decision the next day. (Justice Barnes, who will be hearing the motion, has repeatedly expressed his preference for individual case proceeding together, creating the spectre of 86,000 cases being filed -- or ten times the number of cases the Court sees in a year.)

Please keep in mind that the legality of s. 87.4 was not an issue at the September 18th hearing.
Posted by Tim Leahy
Unquote.

Dear sbernados,
Thanks for the above information. But we are very eager to know about the status or future of case filed regarding "Application for Leave and Judicial Review to the Federal Court" of FSW pre-2008 application. If you know please tell us in simple words of the mentioned above. You aware that we are not layer and terms of law such as "s. 87.4" not clear to us.
Thanks!

 

[sbernados]

Quote:
LinkedIn Groups

Group: Canadian Citizenship and Immigration Forum
Discussion: Update on FSW "Class Action" lawsuits
Justice Barnes declined to extend the voluntary stay of action because (a) CIC has agreed not to destroy files for two years and, (b) in the judge's opinion, those who en-cash a refund cheque may resurrect their file by repaying the fee. Written reasons have not been released.

The effect of this ruling has no bearing on anyone who has joined the litigation. It's only possible impact is on those who have not joined. However, if Justice Barnes' view is correct, it will not affect them either. Likewise, if the Court declares s. 87.4 to be unlawful, it could include a direction allowing for the resurrection of files where the refund was accepted.

So, the injunction really was not necessary in the first place. In fact, I advised the Court on August 24th that I would not be seeking an injunction for the unfairCIC.com contingent because it was not necessary for my litigants. Justice Barnes appears to have agreed with me.

The next issue is whether the Court will certify a class or whether each of the 86,000 applicants will have to sign on in order to be covered. That issue will be argued on November 16th. Do not expect a decision the next day. (Justice Barnes, who will be hearing the motion, has repeatedly expressed his preference for individual case proceeding together, creating the spectre of 86,000 cases being filed -- or ten times the number of cases the Court sees in a year.)

Please keep in mind that the legality of s. 87.4 was not an issue at the September 18th hearing.
Posted by Tim Leahy
Unquote.

Dear sbernados,
Thanks for the above information. But we are very eager to know about the status or future of case filed regarding "Application for Leave and Judicial Review to the Federal Court" of FSW pre-2008 application. If you know please tell us in simple words of the mentioned above. You aware that we are not layer and terms of law such as "s. 87.4" not clear to us.
Thanks!

Hi avijitsg, first im not also a lawyer, i just gather these information for updates. Anyway, 87.4 is a section in the omnibus bill wherein it state there that all pre-2008 applicants will be terminated. This is what we are fighting for. Next year, it will be determine the legality of this section.

 

[avijitsg]

Dear sbernados,
Thanks for the information regarding "s. 87.4". Need to wait for the next year , I think the words "Justice delayed is justice denied" will never true in this case :'(

 

[avijitsg]

Hi sbernados,
Can you help me how can I insert hyperlink

 

[hopeful4]

what I Understand: The legitation of Tim Leahy has a hearing next week and he will ask to apply the judgment of the lead case to the rest of pre-2008 applicants? or to those who joined the Tim Leahy case only?

Does this include those who joined the class action with Cohen and Bellisimo as well?

 

[maintarget]

Also need to know,Good qustion...

what I Understand: The legitation of Tim Leahy has a hearing next week and he will ask to apply the judgment of the lead case to the rest of pre-2008 applicants? or to those who joined the Tim Leahy case only?

Does this include those who joined the class action with Cohen and Bellisimo as well?