[如何理解614的判决书】

lamjin

[54]
As a practical matter, an obligation to assess FSW applications on a FIFO basis would be unworkable. As indicated in the evidence of J. McNamee, applications proceed at different speeds depending, in part, on the workload pressures at each visa post, but also for reasons over which the applicant and not the government has control. If FIFO processing were required, many questions would arise. Would priority be assessed by country of origin, type of occupation, or receipt at the Central Intake Office? Would applications that are completed diligently by the applicant have to await processing while problems with other incomplete applications are resolved, because they were submitted first? Imposing a strict FIFO requirement on a complex system such as this would undoubtedly result in further delay and confusion in an already over-burdened process.
实际操作上，先进先出的方式是不实际的。


实施严格的先进先出，无疑会进一步导致延误和混乱。

lamjin

[55]
The applicants also argue that they have a legitimate expectation to have their applications processed based on the selection criteria in place when their applications were submitted.  The applicants appear to want the Court to pre-emptively prevent the Minister to decide in the future to change the substantive basis on which the applications will be considered.  However, there is absolutely no evidence that the Minister will begin applying the new criteria retrospectively.  On the contrary, the Minister has made it clear that all applications are to be processed in accordance with the criteria in place at the time the applications were submitted.  Thus, there is no evidentiary foundation on which this argument can be based.

原告想用他们申请时的移民标准来处理。想让法庭提前判决来阻止移民部长用新标准来处理旧案。然而没有任何证据表明，移民部长用新标准处理旧案。 恰恰相反，移民部长已经澄清，所以案子将按申请时的标准处理。

lamjin

[56]-[58]  是讲补偿费用的。
[56]
Rule 22 of the Federal Courts Immigration and Refugee Protection Rules, SOR/93-22 provides that, save the existence of special reasons, no costs should be awarded in an application for judicial review arising under the IRPA.  While there is some precedent for an award of costs if the Minister has been found to have unreasonably delayed processing an applicant’s application (Shapovalov v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 753), I do not find a cost award to be justified in this case.


法官没发现有补偿司法费用的必要。

lamjin

[57]
I note that the mere finding that mandamus is warranted is, in and of itself, insufficient to award costs:Subaharan v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) 2008 FC 1228.  Similarly, the importance of the issue at bar is not, in and of itself, a special reason: Ndungu v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FCA 208.

给费用补偿只有有法院判决令是不够的。 同样，案件本身的重要性也不是给费用补偿的特殊理由。

lamjin

[58]
I also note that there were additional affidavits and interrogatories in this case. Although those are steps contemplated by the Rules, little of the information sought by the applicants was of any relevance to the disposition of this application, a point evinced by the fact that the Court was not directed to much of the evidence. Furthermore, the applicants adduced many arguments that were of little assistance to the Court in these applications, and which required the respondent to expend resources to address them. In light of all these considerations, I find that special reasons to award costs do not exist in this case.



鉴于原告其他理由对本案都没什么帮助，所以法官找不到给予费用补偿的理由。

lamjin

[59] - [62]  是讲需要法庭确认的两个问题。

[59]
Two questions were proposed for certification:
1. Having regard to the IRPA, and in particular the objectives at sections 3(1)(a), 3(1)(c) and 3(1)(f), can the Minister prioritize applications within the Federal Skilled Worker category?
2. Does the Federal Court have the jurisdiction to backdate its Judgment and Reasons in order to circumvent the effect of validly-enacted legislation?

1. 在移民法中， 特别是在
[size=16.363636016845703px]sections 3(1)(a), 3(1)(c) and 3(1)(f) 条款中， 在联邦技术移民类别中，移民部长是否有权优先处理一些申请？

[size=16.363636016845703px]2. 联邦法庭是否有判决权来回朔判决，来规避现行有效法律？[size=16.363636016845703px]

[size=16.363636016845703px]（注：对这两个问题的回答也很关键）

lamjin

[60]
I decline to certify either question.  Question 1, is overly broad and lacking in context.  The question is not whether the Minister can set priorities, either under his general responsibility for the management and direction of the department or under specific authority of s. 87(3). As a matter of law, that is clear.  What was in issue was whether, having set priorities, and clearly indicated how they would be applied, the delays were reasonable.

法官拒绝证实上面任何一个问题。 问题1太泛泛，缺乏上下文。 问题不是是否部长能否设置优先级，无论是在一般情况下，还是在s87(3) 特殊情况下。这一点，法律很清楚。 问题是设置优先级后能够清楚表明，这些优先级是如何实施，延误是如何合理的。

lamjin

[61]
Thus, the proposed question is not grounded in the legal issues in these applications, and is not and could not be determinative of them.

这样，上述问题1 也就没有法律基础，也就不能并且不可能成为他们案子的决定因素。



（注： 第一个问题， 法庭没有支持。）

lamjin

[62]
Question 2 was proposed in response to a request by the applicants that the Court issue its decision nunc pro tunc.  The Court’s authority to do so is not in doubt.  Here, however, no such order is warranted or being made.  The proposed question is thus academic.  It is also vague and otherwise unacceptable for certification, assuming as it does, an unproven intention to negate the effect of an undefined legislative provision.

问题2 是为了回应原告的请求，法庭是否能改判它以前自己的判决(nunc pro tunc). 法庭有权这么做。然而，在这里不会有样的情况。  这个问题太理论话了。 而且很模糊, 法庭不能证实。如果假定是这样的， 就是一种企图否定一条尚未通过的立法条款。



（注：第二个问题， 法庭也没有支持原告！而且法官也明白原告的用意。）






全文完

lamjin

关键条款都看一边。
两个核心诉求问题 ：
1. Have the applicants met the requirements for an order compelling the Minister to process their applications?

2. Do the applicants have a legitimate expectation that their applications would be processed on a first-in, first-out basis?

和两个需要法庭证实的问题：
1. Having regard to the IRPA, and in particular the objectives at sections 3(1)(a), 3(1)(c) and 3(1)(f), can the Minister prioritize applications within the Federal Skilled Worker category?

2. Does the Federal Court have the jurisdiction to backdate its Judgment and Reasons in order to circumvent the effect of validly-enacted legislation?

法庭明确地否定了其中的三个(紫色字部分）。而第一条(桔色字)只是部分支持，只是梁的案子给以明确的判决，其他670却要视具体情况个案处理。  
不知筒子们从哪条可以看出 100%的胜利？

lamjin

为什么cic 不慌不忙？  因为人家赢了官司。

lamjin

那个后来律师搞的动议（motion）， 一是让法官解释那个“指导” 的含义，想让法官解释为，由于代表案审理， 剩下的670个不分条件，都要审理。 否则，就把每个案子都单独申请诉讼。
试想，如果有个移民申请案是在6月13日FN 的， 接着就参加了这个tim的诉讼， 614判决后，cic是不是也必须处理这个移民申请呢？ 此外，法官会判移民部必须审理那些614后已被C38终止的那635个案子吗？ C38是现行法律。 筒子们想想， 法官会判抵触现行法律的判决吗？

lamjin

2012年12月10日的一个最新判决表明， 那些希望法官改判的可能是一点都不存在的。
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/ ... 461/2012fc1461.html
这个案子是由另外一个法官Justice Russell作出的，驳回了一个印度被C38终止的案子要求继续受理的诉讼请求。 这个是227前申请，329之前没有SD 的。这印度申请人也试图用梁栋的案子做类比， 但法官说没有类比的可能性， 因为梁的案子329前有SD， 而且法庭614判决也是在C38生效前作出的，法庭不能给他案子作出具有回朔性的判决。

可以预见明年1月份的开庭， 法庭会根据现有的两个判例-----梁冬的案子和这个印度人的案子，依然不会作出任何抵触现行C38法案的判决的。

现在的官司，无非是律师在走形式和法律程序，任何继续加入诉讼的，都是在白送钱，对于结果，估计律师和中介们自己心里很清楚，但他们还在鼓励继续加入， 对他们来说赚的盆满钵满就是最大的目的，官司输赢无所谓。

lamjin

614 的判决中需要注意是第49条， 梁栋的案子被授予法官的强制令（mandamus)， 是CIC 必须处理的外， 而另外的670个 案子是否有这个强制令（mandamus）呢？   显然法官没有给这670个案子强制令，这670个是不受mandamus 的保护， 意味着这670 案子cic 是可以不处理的。 虽然梁的个案胜诉了，但并不是说所有670个的都获得这强制令（mandamus），法官的判决是要视具体情况处理（case by  case。 而目前实际情况看， CIC 也是这样做的。

lamjin

614中没有获得强制令mandamus的那些个案，就不受这个判决的保护， 规范这些个案的法规就只剩C38 了。

life007

看你写了这么多，我来捧个场
虽然俺没看，什么都不懂，其实也不想懂！
等有时间，俺来学习下这些英语句子。

lamjin

法庭似乎对已有判决的争议问题不再感兴趣，看样基本就是要搁置那些无理的诉求了，像什么要法官把614的一个案子获得的强制令解释成是670个案子都获得强制令， 什么要求判移民部长必须行使部长特权，放那些被切掉的635个案子， 什么后加入的也要享有以前判决的权利等等， 其实这些只能敛财的理由。
1月份的庭审似乎议题只讨论一个， 就是87.4 是否违宪的问题， 这个法庭还没有判决。对于上述问题， 由于已经有了两个判例了，上面的问题已经都不再是问题了。

lamjin

投资移民的要法院给禁止令的官司也输了。  任何想通过司法来干预立法的思路是走不通的，律师只能是走走形式诉讼程序， 他们很清楚不会有结果的。

lamjin

目前看TIM 的组的案子没什么希望了， 筒子们的钱是白交了， 只要符合C38的案子CIC 都在处理， 不符合的都在切掉， 就像一开始说的， 打不打官司没什么区别。

lamjin

目前结果看， 我对判决的解读完全正确。