Federal Skilled Worker Class Action Lawsuit

[farmerofthedell]

I was asking just to know to which cause they belong: class action lawsuit or Tim Leahy's lawsuit. But so far, nobody has responded. Does that mean none of the clients of those lawyers are our forum members?

Only if someone responds, we can ask them of how much they paid to their lawyer, their terms and conditions, their cause and, of course, of what they think about their lawyers.

I recognize some of the names from entries in Tim's lead case. I believe Lawrence Wong, Wennie Lee and Erin Roth appear in the entries, but maybe not the other three. I think I've read somewhere that Lawrence Wong has files in the class action group.

 

[warmest]

@ warmest,
dear this is beyond of my understandings that the soul of the cases is of the same purpose,whether it is Tim Or Cohen BOTH are fighting the cases for the same purpose,,every litigant wants his case to be further processing then HOW Justice Barnes can take the different views for the same cases?whether his majesty is one sided i mean for Tim only??
Yes we can say that there is a doubt in litigation of pre juners and after juners.
I think if Tim's litigation of after juners takes some positive output then the justice of Barnes will be the same for every litigant whether he is Sir Tims Leahy or Sir David Cohen.
The above things are what i am thinking i am calculating.
All of my forum friends are requested to guide/correct me if they have something extra.
Best Regards.
Jevan.

Dear brother jevan,

In general, the main purpose of all the litigations (whether it is Tim's or Cohen's or for that matter any other lawyers') is to ask the court to order CIC to process our immigration files. Other than that commanality of the main purpose, there is no other thing in common when it comes to the various litigations.

Tim Leahy first started filing litigations for his clients way back in the midst of the last quarter of 2011. Note, Tim's litigation is not a class action lawsuit, meaning, a favourable response by the judge will only benefit the litigants of that particular case. It will not apply to the litigants of the other cases/lawyers.

The other lawyers, including Cohen, started filing litigations for their clients only towards the end of the first quarter of 2012. Note, these litigations are of the class action lawsuit type, meaning, a favourable response by the judge will benefit all of the applicants (both litigants and non-litigants, if the judge rules it that way).

Though both Tim and the class action lawyers' litigations have the same main purpose, they differ mainly in the relief they seek from the court. Tim is asking relief for his clients, whereas the class action lawyers are asking relief for the entire class. Hence, the judge has to give a different ruling for these two different litigations. By this, it does not mean the judge is one sided. The judge is forced to give a different relief to the two types of litigants just because the two types of litigants are seeking an entirely different relief for them altogether.

Now, I hope, this clarification of mine helps you to have a better understanding. Please feel free to shoot your questions if anything is not clear. I will be glad to answer. Thanks.

 

[warmest]

Hello Members:

Can anyone tell me what is difference in CAIPS or FOSS file and which is good for case status.

thank You.

As far as I understand, CAIPS is meant to know the case status of those applications being processed overseas (outside Canada) and FOSS is meant to know the case status of those applications being processed in Canada.

 

[warmest]

Hello I would like some redress in this situation. I cannot afford any retainer at this point in time but I would like some advice.

My eCAS is still saying "Application Received" but I got a request for documents in early June and then in early July after this thing was passed I got mesage from the VO that I should disregard those instructions due to the cessation of the applications.

I would like to know if there is any update on the refund and if there is anything I can do outside litigation to find out more.

Regarding refund, the best source to rely upon is the CIC website. They keep updating their website regularly, almost everyday. Who can beat them (CIC) on this? Had they reallocated some of their resources towards processing our pre-Feb 2008 backlog long time back, then thousands of applications would have been processed by now.

 

[warmest]

Thanks for your comments hopeful4, jevan and warmest. I will order my CAIPS and write to Tim Leahy.
Not only me there are other 3 (pre Feb 2008) applicants based on Colombo VO, who are in similar status. All have completed medicals before 28th March 2012, but still CHC says by operation of law application is suspended (same answer to all parities). Two have paid landing fees as well.
So far I have not ordered my CAIPS. However above one applicant collected his CAIPS and it says his application is suspended due OB442

You are welcome Sujman. Once you get your CAIPS notes and email reply from Tim, please keep us updated. Thanks.

 

[warmest]

@ sujman,
oh my god,,i think chc people got mad or they have to fire their employees who are responsible maintaing our files..in one side they are telling us that only those files will be moved further which have got decision before march29,2012 even then jun29,2012 AND their people sending such replies to even those who had even done their Medicals,,STRANGE,,EVEN STRANGE THAT THEIR CAIPS ALSO REFLECTING THE SUSPENDED ORDERS,,, u people must must join us in litigation whether he is Sir Tim or David.
Best Regards.
Jevan.

Yes jevan, you are right. Every applicant whose application has not been processed yet should join a litigation without fail. The choice of the lawyers is always theirs. No matter which lawyer they join the litigation, they must join a litigation at the earliest, that too before the Class Action Lawsuit Hearing in November. This is to send a strong signal to the judge and to ring the death bell for CIC's misdeeds.

You are right in saying that the people in CIC are mad and they have to fire their employees who are responsible in maintaing our files. I would even suggest replacing those staff working in Canada with we applicants once we get our Canadian permanent residence and later our Canadian citizenship. ;D By this, we can get employment and contribute towards Canada's growth. Those sacked CIC staff should be deported out of Canada and sent to hot and dry desert areas. ;D :-*

 

[farmerofthedell]

Regarding refund, the best source to rely upon is the CIC website. They keep updating their website regularly, almost everyday. Who can beat them (CIC) on this? Had they reallocated some of their resources towards processing our pre-Feb 2008 backlog long time back, then thousands of applications would have been processed by now.

It is impossible for CIC to speed up processing even if they had twice or thrice the visa officers involved. That's because CIC sets targets for each program per visa office per year, which is the upper limit that they will process. What they could have done, instead, was to even out the duration of the backlog by allocating much higher targets for countries with backlog of maybe over 5 years, and allocating lower targets for those with less than 2 years' backlog. While the backlog would not have disappeared, at least no one would have been rendered "obsolete" because of the length of processing time.

 

[ns777]

hello members!!

i'm a pre-february 2008 applicant under FSW category. recently i got my CAIPS notes where i've seen that "Paper file sent to REG file BF'D to: C38 on 31.01.2013 Microlocator". can anyone please explain what does it mean?

 

[warmest]

It is impossible for CIC to speed up processing even if they had twice or thrice the visa officers involved. That's because CIC sets targets for each program per visa office per year, which is the upper limit that they will process. What they could have done, instead, was to even out the duration of the backlog by allocating much higher targets for countries with backlog of maybe over 5 years, and allocating lower targets for those with less than 2 years' backlog. While the backlog would not have disappeared, at least no one would have been rendered "obsolete" because of the length of processing time.

The problem got aggravated when Jason Kenney took over as Minister of Citizenship, Immigration, and Multiculturalism and went on to issue the three sets of ministerial instructions (MI-1, MI-2 and MI-3) one after the other. We thought by then that the pre-Feb 2008 applications will be processed simultaneously alongwith the MI-1, MI-2 and MI-3 applications. We never thought that the new applications will be prioritised over the pre-Feb 2008 applications. CIC completely stopped processing (freezed) the pre-Feb 2008 applications and thereby completely warehoused our applications. The resources that were meant to process the pre-Feb 2008 applications were utilised to process the MI-1, MI-2 and MI-3 applications. This is totally unfair on the part of CIC. That is why Tim Leahy has named this litigation against CIC as unfairCIC litigation.

 

[kiwi1]

Hi all

In the CAIPS report, where can we find the file assessment date?

Thanks for your help......

 

[warmest]

This is what is mentioned in the Report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration entitled CUTTING THE QUEUE: REDUCING CANADA'S IMMIGRATION BACKLOGS AND WAIT TIMES. This report was tabled in the 1st Session of the 41st Parliament of Canada.

The first set of Ministerial Instructions (MI) caused a backlog to buildup in the Federal Skilled Worker Program (FSWP). In an attempt to remediate the situation, a 2nd as well as 3rd set of Ministerial Instructions was released. Consequently, applications received under the 2nd and 3rd set of Ministerial Instructions were unfairly prioritized and processed over applications under MI1.

So, Jason Kenney by his stupid acts was committing one blunder after the other which according to the applicants are considered as sins. Kenney has spoilt the lives of not only the 100,000 applicants but also that of their spouses and dependents who sum up to over 300,000. All these people's lives are stagnating, not knowing which way to go. Kenney has ruined and placed our lives in dark. It is for the court to show us the light.

 

[warmest]

The only people who gained from Jason Kenney's misdeeds are those MI-1, MI-2 and MI-3 applicants who got their visas. These people never had a job offer before getting their visas. They were just lucky as Kenney allowed them to break the queue. We all pre-Feb 2008 applicants were taken for a ride by Kenney and he is now pretending as if he is a saviour of Canada. Oh God!

 

[hopeful4]

WARMEST even the MI 1 applicants are complaining now about long processing times,,,,some of them are joining Tim litigation

 

[hopeful4]

Ns777
The files was sent to the official whose initails are written (this is only an abbreviation of his name). Thed BD f is the bring forward date, which means that an officer should examine your application in that date to see if any change happened.
Did you get any score in your CAIPS?

 

[jevan]

Dear brother jevan,

In general, the main purpose of all the litigations (whether it is Tim's or Cohen's or for that matter any other lawyers') is to ask the court to order CIC to process our immigration files. Other than that commanality of the main purpose, there is no other thing in common when it comes to the various litigations.

Tim Leahy first started filing litigations for his clients way back in the midst of the last quarter of 2011. Note, Tim's litigation is not a class action lawsuit, meaning, a favourable response by the judge will only benefit the litigants of that particular case. It will not apply to the litigants of the other cases/lawyers.

The other lawyers, including Cohen, started filing litigations for their clients only towards the end of the first quarter of 2012. Note, these litigations are of the class action lawsuit type, meaning, a favourable response by the judge will benefit all of the applicants (both litigants and non-litigants, if the judge rules it that way).

Though both Tim and the class action lawyers' litigations have the same main purpose, they differ mainly in the relief they seek from the court. Tim is asking relief for his clients, whereas the class action lawyers are asking relief for the entire class. Hence, the judge has to give a different ruling for these two different litigations. By this, it does not mean the judge is one sided. The judge is forced to give a different relief to the two types of litigants just because the two types of litigants are seeking an entirely different relief for them altogether.

Now, I hope, this clarification of mine helps you to have a better understanding. Please feel free to shoot your questions if anything is not clear. I will be glad to answer. Thank

Dear brother jevan,

In general, the main purpose of all the litigations (whether it is Tim's or Cohen's or for that matter any other lawyers') is to ask the court to order CIC to process our immigration files. Other than that commanality of the main purpose, there is no other thing in common when it comes to the various litigations.

Tim Leahy first started filing litigations for his clients way back in the midst of the last quarter of 2011. Note, Tim's litigation is not a class action lawsuit, meaning, a favourable response by the judge will only benefit the litigants of that particular case. It will not apply to the litigants of the other cases/lawyers.

The other lawyers, including Cohen, started filing litigations for their clients only towards the end of the first quarter of 2012. Note, these litigations are of the class action lawsuit type, meaning, a favourable response by the judge will benefit all of the applicants (both litigants and non-litigants, if the judge rules it that way).

Though both Tim and the class action lawyers' litigations have the same main purpose, they differ mainly in the relief they seek from the court. Tim is asking relief for his clients, whereas the class action lawyers are asking relief for the entire class. Hence, the judge has to give a different ruling for these two different litigations. By this, it does not mean the judge is one sided. The judge is forced to give a different relief to the two types of litigants just because the two types of litigants are seeking an entirely different relief for them altogether.

Now, I hope, this clarification of mine helps you to have a better understanding. Please feel free to shoot your questions if anything is not clear. I will be glad to answer. Thanks.

s.

@warmest,
thanks alot dear.