加拿大华人论坛 加拿大生活信息[评论]体检了还被移民部一刀切！刘力康输了

在加拿大

新闻:《体检了还被移民部一刀切！刘力康输了》的相关评论律师王仁铎 加拿大联邦法院前日判决，驳回去年被「一刀切」的技术移民申请人刘力康，要求移民部发给签证的司法覆核案。法官费伦(Michael Phelan)指出，移民官虽然延迟作出决定，但不能视为点击展开...加拿大政府和司法部门在2008技术移民申请一刀切这件事上做得确实算得上厚颜无耻，但终归属于小众事件，这对加拿大国家荣誉有影响，但无切身利害。刘力康先生请保重，在下看来，这事已经尽力，不应再继续耗神；待稍事休整，再做打算。亦没必要将此事看作是否应移民加拿大的最终衡量依据。这事可以自认倒霉，但人活一世，谁没碰上几桩倒霉事？但也需知：没有人永远倒霉。

评论
上善若水，道法自然。 赏 反馈:Kai G 2014-01-17#2 M 2,909 $0.00 回复: [评论]体检了还被移民部一刀切！刘力康输了什么狗屁律师，一点基本的常识都没有。除了法律的基本条文，还有许多更加重要的条件需要考量。法官是社会生活中的一员，他的判断首先应当基于社会的和谐与顺畅，尤其是实行判例法的国家。

评论
回复: [评论]体检了还被移民部一刀切！刘力康输了这个律师很不给力

评论
回复: [评论]体检了还被移民部一刀切！刘力康输了那些整天谩骂国内政府的所谓正义人士呢?怎么都选择性失明了呢?

评论
回复: [评论]体检了还被移民部一刀切！刘力康输了楼上的可以开骂啊，为啥要等别人骂

评论
回复: [评论]体检了还被移民部一刀切！刘力康输了那些整天谩骂国内政府的所谓正义人士呢?怎么都选择性失明了呢?点击展开...去找海格z还有Feat吧

评论
回复: [评论]体检了还被移民部一刀切！刘力康输了移民不是生活的全部，但移民部这种做法确实很无赖。同情。并祝顺安！

评论
心安处是美好。回复: [评论]体检了还被移民部一刀切！刘力康输了You made a wrong decision to hire a wrost lawyer

评论
回复: [评论]体检了还被移民部一刀切！刘力康输了同情

评论
感谢生命中的一切人和事，无论好与坏，无论对与错，无论爱与恨，施予的都是收获 回复: [评论]体检了还被移民部一刀切！刘力康输了似乎无切身利害，实际上加拿大不用赔偿付利息损失还沾了光，只是很多申请者家庭因为一刀切遭受巨量时间金钱损失，还有对加国人权民主法制的深深失望。这次判决恰恰是律师依靠判例而法官竟然无视以前判例做出矛盾的判决。骂人之前希望先了解一下谁到底无耻。worst不是律师，是某些人，选择性失明。

评论
回复: [评论]体检了还被移民部一刀切！刘力康输了似乎无切身利害，实际上加拿大不用赔偿付利息损失还沾了光，只是很多申请者家庭因为一刀切遭受巨量时间金钱损失，还有对加国人权民主法制的深深失望。这次判决恰恰是律师依靠判例而法官竟然无视以前判例做出矛盾的判决。骂人之前希望先了解一下谁到底无耻。worst不是律师，是某些人，选择性失明。点击展开...能否将以前的判例拿出来比较一下，看是否具有可比性。这样的情况，在加国历史上难道还有先例可援。

评论
回复: [评论]体检了还被移民部一刀切！刘力康输了[FONT=&quot]http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/site/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/61899/index.do[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT][FONT=&quot][43] [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The complicating factor in this case is that, at the time the decision was rendered on the application, the provisions of section 87.4 were not yet law. Consequently, at the time the decision was made, the application was not terminated. Upon the issuance of operational bulletin 442, the Minister directed that the application be processed. The application was processed and decided. At the time section 87.4 was passed into law, the application was no longer an undecided application that could be terminated, but was an application that was legally decided, albeit after March 29, 2012.[/FONT] [FONT=&quot] [/FONT] [FONT=&quot][44] [/FONT][FONT=&quot]In my view, subsection 87.4(1) is not applicable in the circumstances. The provision cannot serve to strike a validly rendered visa officer’s decision. The provision expressly deals with undecided applications, not decisions. While it is true that Mr. Zhu’s application remained undecided after March 29, 2012, a decision was rendered by the Officer on May 17, 2012 before the provision was passed into law. Had the application not been decided before subsection 87.4(1) was passed into law, then the application would have been terminated. At the time the decision was rendered, the law was not in effect and the decision was valid.[/FONT] [FONT=&quot] [/FONT] [FONT=&quot][45] [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Section 87.4 of the IRPA does not address the specific circumstance of Mr. Zhu’s application. There is no transitional provision to address applications that were decided after March 29, 2012 and before the new provisions were passed into law on June 29, 2012. The provision deals with undecided applications and does not provide for nullification of lawfully rendered decisions of visa officers. Parliament would have had to expressly provide for such a result in the amended legislation[/FONT]

  ·中文新闻 韦克利教堂刺伤事件：马尔·马里·伊曼纽尔基督好牧人
·中文新闻 就业数据：失业率上升，所有人都关注通胀