About LexisNexis Canada
Quicklaw
Butterworths Bookstore
LexisNexis
Customer Service
Contact Us
Site Map
Home
LexisNexis Home
About Quicklaw
What's New
Customer Service
Obtain Account
Academic Accounts
Recent Decisions


QL Home > Recent Decisions > LAW/NET™ Legal Update Service

LAW/NET™ Legal Update Service

Case Name:
Tabingo v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)

Between
Mae Joy Tabingo, Applicant, and
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Respondent

[2013] F.C.J. No. 410
[2013] A.C.F. no 410
2013 FC 377
Docket IMM-5635-12

Federal Court
Toronto, Ontario
Rennie J.

Heard: January 14, 15, 16, 2013.
Judgment: April 18, 2013.
(148 paras.)

Counsel:

Mario Bellissimo and Erin Roth, for the Applicant, Mae Joy Tabingo.

Lorne Waldman and Jacqueline Swaisland, for the Applicant, Yanjun Yin.

Matthew Jeffery, for the Applicant, Ali Raza Jafri.

Rocco Galati and Lawrence S. Wong, for the Applicant, Sumera Shahid.

Rocco Galati and Lawrence S. Wong, for the Applicant, Fang Wei.

Keith Reimer, Marin Anderson, Jocelyn Espejo-Clarke and C.
Julian Jubenville, for the Respondent.


            REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Overview

Legislative Background

The Applicants

Discussion

       Statutory Interpretation

       Bill of Rights

       Rule of Law / Unwritten Principles of the Constitution

       Judicial Independence

       Applicability of the Charter

       Life, Liberty and Security of the Person

       Equality

               Evidence of Discrimination

               Perpetuation of Stereotype

       Justification for Infringement

       Mandamus

       Humanitarian and Compassionate Relief

       The Application Fees

Conclusion

JUDGMENT

ANNEX A: Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27

ANNEX B: Canadian Bill of Rights, SC 1960, c 44

ANNEX C: Canada Permanent Residents by Source Country

ANNEX D: List of Applications Determined by this Decision

Overview

 1      RENNIE J.:— These applications concern section 87.4 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 (IRPA), a recent amendment introduced by Bill C-38, known as the Jobs Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act. Subsection 87.4(1) provides that applications for permanent residence as a member of the federal skilled worker (FSW) class made before February 27, 2008 are terminated unless an officer had made a selection decision before March 29, 2012.

 2      The applicants applied for FSW permanent resident visas before February 27, 2008. They have been waiting many years for their applications to be processed and are now subject to legislation which purports to cancel their applications without further consideration. They seek an order of mandamus directing the respondent to process their applications and have filed Notices of Constitutional Question alleging that section 87.4 violates the rule of law and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms [Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, Schedule B, Canada Act 1982, 1982, c 11 (UK), RSC, 1985, Appendix II, No 44].

 3      Eight applicants were identified to represent approximately 1400 other individuals, all of whom had commenced applications under section 18.1 of the Federal Courts Act, RSC 1985, c F-7, seeking similar relief. The applicants are:

a.

Mae Joy Tabingo, who applied for permanent residence at the visa office in Manila, Philippines in 2005 (IMM-5635-12);

b.

Habibollah Abedi, who applied for permanent residence at the visa office in Damascus, Syria in 2006 (IMM-8669-12);

c.

Maria Sari Teresa Borja Austria, who applied for permanent residence at the visa office in Manila, Philippines in 2005 (IMM-10307-12);

d.

Ali Raza Jafri, who applied for permanent residence at the visa office in Islamabad, Pakistan in 2007 (IMM-4866-12);

e.

Zafar Mahmood, who applied for permanent residence at the visa office in Islamabad, Pakistan in 2006 (IMM-8302-12);

f.

Sumera Shahid, who applied for permanent residence at the visa office in Islamabad, Pakistan in 2007 (IMM-3725-12);

g.

Fang Wei, who applied for permanent residence at the visa office in Hong Kong, People's Republic of China in 2007 (IMM-6165-12); and

h.

Yanjun Yin, who applied for permanent residence at the visa office in Beijing, People's Republic of China in 2007 (IMM-8747-12).

 4      For the reasons that follow, the applications are dismissed.

Legislative Background

 5      The FSW category falls within the economic class of immigrants who, pursuant to subsection 12(2) of the IRPA, are selected based on their ability to become established in Canada. The economic class also includes business immigrants, provincial and territorial nominees, the Canadian experience class and live-in caregivers, as well as their spouses and dependants.

 6      Section 75 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227 (Regulations) sets out the minimum requirements for immigration as a FSW. Sections 76 to 83 of the Regulations detail the selection criteria used to determine whether an applicant is able to become economically established in Canada.

 7      The number of FSW applications has consistently exceeded both Citizenship and Immigration Canada's (CIC) processing capacity and the number of immigrants permitted under the annual immigration levels plan. It could take many years for an application to be reached, let alone assessed and the necessary information updated. This delay made it difficult to align a candidate's experience and skills to Canada's current labour market needs, or so it is contended by the respondent. The ensuing backlog of FSW applications has been a concern of CIC for a number of years.

 8      To address this problem, the IRPA was amended in February of 2008 to introduce section 87.3. Section 87.3 authorized the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (the Minister) to issue Ministerial Instructions regarding the priority in which applications would be processed, and removed the obligation to process every application received. The Ministerial Instructions provided for a triage of applications according to revised eligibility criteria, including the establishment of categories of applicants and quotas. However, and of importance for the purposes of these proceedings, the Ministerial Instructions only applied to applications submitted after February 27, 2008.

 9      The first set of Ministerial Instructions was unsuccessful in restraining the growth of applications and reducing the backlog. A second set of Ministerial Instructions was thus introduced. The second set imposed a global cap on FSW applications; a maximum of 20,000 applications (excluding those with an arranged employment offer) were to be processed each year. Within that cap, a maximum of 1,000 applications per occupational category were to be processed each year. Applications exceeding those limits would be returned unprocessed. A third set of Ministerial Instructions lowered this cap to 10,000 FSW applications per year and 500 per occupation.

 10      The Ministerial Instructions had two consequences. First, the annual caps on total applications prevented the backlog from growing. Second, the Instructions created a hierarchy of processing priority. Applications received under the third Ministerial Instructions were given the highest priority, followed by applications received under the second and then the first Ministerial Instructions and finally, applications from before February 27, 2008. The Ministerial Instructions slowed, but did not completely halt, the processing of applications from before February 27, 2008.

 11      CIC also attempted to reduce the backlog by confirming whether applicants were still interested in immigrating to Canada. In 2009, CIC sent letters to pending FSW applicants offering to return the application fee if applicants wished to withdraw their application. These letters stated; 'No further offers to return your fee will be sent.'

 12      By April, 2011 the backlog had been reduced by 50%. Despite this progress, the government determined that further measures to eliminate the backlog were required.

 13      Before Bill C-38 received Royal Assent, CIC issued Operational Bulletin 400, which instructed that processing should not commence or continue for any FSW application received before February 27, 2008 for which a selection decision had not been made before March 29, 2012. The application of this bulletin was successfully challenged on the grounds that it implemented proposed legislation that had not yet become law. CIC subsequently issued Operational Bulletin 413, stating that managers must continue processing all FSW applications until Bill C-38 came into force.

 14      Bill C-38 received Royal Assent on June 29, 2012. CIC issued Operational Bulletin 442 to provide guidance on its implementation. Bulletin 442 provided that applications were terminated in two situations: (1) if an officer had not made a selection decision prior to March 29, 2012; or (2) if an officer made a selection decision on or after March 29, 2012 and the application had not been finalized as of Royal Assent. This is, in fact, a subset of the first situation.

The Applicants

 15      The applicants share the common characteristic of having their FSW applications terminated. The eight applicants are citizens of diverse nationalities and applied at different Canadian visa posts, including Islamabad, Beijing, Manila and Damascus. As noted, the eight applicants represent, in turn, several thousand FSW applicants who have had their applications terminated and who have commenced applications for judicial review.

 16      The applicants, collectively, raise the following issues:

a.

Whether section 87.4 applies retrospectively and terminated the applications upon its coming into force;

b.

Whether subsections 1(a) and 2(e) of the Canadian Bill of Rights, SC 1960, c 44 apply to provide procedural safeguards;

c.

Whether section 87.4 is compliant with the rule of law;

d.

Whether section 87.4 respects judicial independence;

e.

Whether section 87.4 is compliant with the Charter;

f.

Whether the Court may issue an order for mandamus;

g.

Whether the applicants may request humanitarian and compassionate relief;

h.

Whether section 87.4 complies with the Financial Administration Act, RSC 1985, c F-11; and

i.

Whether the applicants are entitled to interest on their application fees.

Discussion

Statutory Interpretation

 17      The first, and perhaps most significant issue, is that of statutory interpretation. The applicants submit that section 87.4 (Annex A), properly construed, does not apply retrospectively to interfere with vested rights. Further, they submit that it does not operate to terminate the applications as a matter of law, but rather that individualized adjudication must follow to determine what applications the provision in fact captures; put otherwise, the applications remain extant until a subsequent administrative action or adjudicative decision is made.

 18      As I will explain, these arguments cannot be sustained. It is evident, on a principled reading of the provision, that section 87.4 was intended to terminate the applications upon its coming into force. This requires that it apply retrospectively, cancelling any entitlement the applicants may have had to have their applications considered.

 19      The modern approach to statutory interpretation is set out by E. A. Driedger in Construction of Statutes (2nd ed. 1983), p 87: '...the words of an Act are to be read in their entire context and in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act, and the intention of Parliament.' As a corollary to this, when the language of the statute is precise and unequivocal, the ordinary meaning of the words plays a dominant role in the interpretive process: Celgene Corp v Canada (Attorney General), 2011 SCC 1, [2011] 1 SCR 3, para 21.

 20      Section 12 of the Interpretation Act, RSC 1985, c I-21 also instructs that:

12.

Every enactment is deemed remedial, and shall be given such fair, large and liberal construction and interpretation as best ensures the attainment of its objects.  12. Tout texte est censé apporter une solution de droit et s'interprète de la manière la plus équitable et la plus large qui soit compatible avec la réalisation de son objet.

 21      When determining what Parliament or the legislature intended, a court may reference the various ancillary principles of statutory interpretation. The applicants urge this Court to apply the presumption against interference with vested rights, the presumption against retrospectivity and the presumption that the legislature does not intend absurd or inequitable results. For the purpose of the statutory interpretation question I will assume that the applicants had a vested right to the processing of their application.

 22      Courts will not interpret legislation in a manner that removes existing rights or entitlements unless Parliament's intention to do so is clear. However, when a statute is unambiguous, there is no role for presumptions or interpretive aids, and the courts may not apply any of the interpretive presumptions noted earlier: Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada v Canada (Attorney General), 2012 SCC 71, paras 95, 159-160; British Columbia v Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd, 2005 SCC 49, [2005] 2 SCR 473, para 71; Gustavson Drilling (1964) Ltd v Canada (Minister of National Revenue), [1977] 1 SCR 271.

 23      Here, the ordinary meaning of the provision governs. The meaning and effect of the word 'terminated' is clear. Section 87.4, by its terms, is explicitly designed to apply retrospectively to applications dated before February 27, 2008 and to eliminate the obligation to further process pending applications. The plain and obvious meaning of section 87.4 requires that the provision be retrospective and interfere with vested rights, regardless of any perceived unfairness. The three presumptions relied on by the applicants are displaced by the clarity of Parliament's intention. Further, to interpret the section otherwise would leave it without any effect beyond refunding the application fee.

 24      The applicants point to various terms in section 87.4 which they contend are ambiguous and vague. In particular, the applicants identify the terms 'selection criteria' and 'other requirements applicable to that class' as undefined and as having multiple meanings. Additionally, the applicants argue that preliminary assessments are made at various stages in the processing of an application and therefore it is not clear what constitutes a selection decision and when it arises. Individualized evaluation is thus required.

 25      The wording does not demonstrate any ambiguity such that presumptions are triggered.

 26      The term 'selection criteria' is used elsewhere in the IRPA and Regulations. Section 70 of the Regulations provides that a visa officer shall issue a permanent resident visa if it is established that a foreign national meets various conditions, including the 'selection criteria'. Section 76 of the Regulations is titled 'Selection Criteria' and provides the criteria on which applicants will be assessed. When read in context, as it must, this term is not vague.

 27      The phrase 'other requirements applicable to that class' is also familiar to the Regulations. Satisfying such other requirements is a precondition for obtaining permanent residence visas and status in sections 65.1, 70 and 72 of the Regulations. The 'other requirements' would include, for example, the minimum requirements set out in section 75 of the Regulations.

 28      It is apparent from the plain reading of the section that only the final decision given by an officer qualifies as a selection decision. When an application is brought forward for processing, applicants are asked to provide updated forms and supporting documents. At this stage staff at the visa office perform an initial paper screening of the file. The file is then forwarded to an officer who decides whether the applicant meets the selection criteria and other requirements applicable to the FSW class. The language of subsection 87.4(1) specifically refers to this decision, as it is the only one made under the IRPA by an officer.

 29      Having determined that section 87.4 is intended to operate retrospectively, the question remains whether the FSW applications at issue were terminated by operation of law when section 87.4 came into force, or whether the applications are to be terminated following an individualized assessment and decision.

 30      The respondent takes the position that the applications were terminated by operation of law at the time of Royal Assent, on June 29, 2012. The applicants submit that the termination only takes effect once an officer determines whether section 87.4 applies. I conclude that what subsection 87.4(1) entails is a non-discretionary application of the law to incontestable facts.

 31      The applicants' position is premised on the language of section 87.4, contending it necessitates a decision-making process. As I have previously found, the language in section 87.4 is clear. Section 87.4 creates objective, factual criteria for termination: (1) the application was made before February 27, 2008; and (2) an officer has not made a selection decision before March 29, 2012. These conditions either existed or did not exist for each application as of the date of Royal Assent. The legislation does not contemplate any subsequent adjudicative process, nor does it authorize the exercise of judgment or discretion in applying the law to each application. An officer is not entitled to consider an applicant's unique circumstances or to weigh various factors. No new factual determination must be made other than to identify whether or not the file contains a selection decision.

 32      It was only necessary for CIC to identify, through an administrative review, which applications had been terminated. This is distinguishable from an adjudicative process whereby an officer would decide whether to terminate an application. Again, section 87.4 entails a non-discretionary application of law to verifiable and incontrovertible facts.

 33      The applicants' statutory interpretation argument also fails when viewed through the lens of section 12 of the Interpretation Act. If the files are not terminated, as a matter of law, but terminated only upon some subsequent assessment, then the plain and obvious meaning of section 87.4 would be undermined.

 34      The applicants point to CIC's Operational Bulletin 442 which provides that applicants who had not received a selection decision prior to March 29, 2012 but who had subsequently received a selection decision and had their application finalized before June 29, 2012 are not affected by section 87.4. This ensures that even if an application should have been terminated by section 87.4, i.e., captured by having been decided during the transition period, the positive selection decision stands if it was made before section 87.4 became law.

 35      In my view, if the FSW application had been determined before Bill C-38 received Royal Assent then there was no pending application for section 87.4 to terminate. It ceased to be 'pending'. It was now spent. Section 87.4 only purports to terminate applications, not an applicant's file indicating that he or she has been accepted, much less a permanent residence visa once it has been issued. Operational Bulletin 442 is consistent with this interpretation.

 36      Finally, the applicants submit that there must be some individualized decision so that the applicants could seek judicial review in the event that their application was terminated in error. I disagree. An applicant may apply to this Court for an order of mandamus to compel the Minister to process an application which had been identified as terminated if in fact a positive selection decision had been made. The Court will then determine whether the application is in fact caught by section 87.4. If not, then it was never terminated (only mistakenly classified as terminated) and an order for mandamus may follow. Accordingly, applicants have a process for redress if their application is identified as terminated in error.

 37      My conclusion on the issue of statutory interpretation is that section 87.4 terminates the applications at issue by operation of law. The presumptions put forward by the applicants do not apply and there is no requirement for individualized adjudication. Therefore, the application for mandamus must fail unless the legislation is unconstitutional or contrary to the Bill of Rights.

Bill of Rights

 38      The Bill of Rights was enacted in 1960 as a statute of Parliament. While it has diminished importance in light of the Charter, as the Charter does not contain a general guarantee of 'due process' or any protection for economic rights, the Bill of Rights retains continued significance in the landscape of Canadian jurisprudence.

 39      The applicants submit that section 87.4 violates their rights under subsection 1(a) of the Bill of Rights, which protects the right not to be deprived of property except by due process of law and subsection 2(e), which guarantees a fair hearing for the determination of rights and obligations (Annex B).

 40      My conclusion that there is no adjudicative process involved in terminating the applications is determinative of this issue. The due process protections of the Bill of Rights do not apply to legislative enactments: Authorson v Canada (Attorney General), 2003 SCC 39, [2003] 2 SCR 40, paras 42-46 and 59 and, as there is no individualized decision to terminate the applications, the Bill of Rights is inapplicable. The Bill of Rights only guarantees the fairness of proceedings before a tribunal or administrative body that determines rights and obligations.

 41      In Authorson, disabled war veterans relied on the Bill of Rights to claim interest on pension funds held in trust on their behalf by the federal government. Parliament had enacted legislation which barred any claim for interest that might otherwise be payable on the funds prior to 1990. The Supreme Court of Canada agreed that the effect of the statute was to take a property interest from a vulnerable group, in disregard of the government's fiduciary duty. However, this taking was within the power of Parliament.

 42      The Supreme Court of Canada rejected the argument that subsection 1(a) was triggered by the deprivation of property and the bar of judicial recourse. Major J, speaking for the Court, wrote:

What procedural protections for property rights are guaranteed by due process? In my opinion, the Bill of Rights guarantees notice and some opportunity to contest a governmental deprivation of property rights only in the context of an adjudication of that person's rights and obligations before a court or tribunal.

[...]

Similarly, s. 1(a) may be seen as conferring procedural protections against the deprivation of property that existed in 1960. Certain procedural rights in this regard have long been recognized. In Lapointe v. Association de Bienfaisance et de Retraite de la Police de Montréal, [1906] A.C. 535, the Privy Council recognized a right to have notice of accusations made and an opportunity to make a defence where the board of directors of a pension board stripped a police officer, who had resigned, of his pension. Where the law requires the application of discretion or judgment to specific factual situations, notice and an opportunity to contest may be required. For example, such rights may exist where the government eliminates a veteran's benefits because it believes he is no longer disabled, or because it believes he was never a member of the armed forces. However, notice and an opportunity to make a defence are not required where the government legislates to completely eliminate such benefits.

 43      To conclude, the language of Authorson is dispositive of this issue:

The respondent submitted that the clear, uncontested interpretation of s. 5.1(4) of the Department of Veterans Affairs Act is that it is an expropriation of disabled veterans' interest on DVA-administered pensions, and as such is inoperative. But no adjudicative procedure is necessary for the non-discretionary application of a law to incontestable facts. A taxpayer could not claim procedural protections against a change in income tax rates that adversely affected him.

 44      While I accept that the applicants have incurred various expenses in making their FSW applications this is not equivalent to a deprivation of property. Rather, the applicants have freely chosen to apply to come to Canada and to incur the related expense. Their FSW application did not provide any right to, or recognizable legal interest in, the potential future economic opportunities that might come their way if they were successful. At best, the applicants possessed a mere chance to gain access to economic opportunities in Canada. No economic right had vested and any opportunity remained prospective, contingent and speculative. In sum, a pending FSW application does not constitute property within the meaning of subsection 1(a) of the Bill of Rights. Even if it was considered property, the Bill of Rights does not prevent the expropriation of property without compensation by the passage of unambiguous legislation.

Rule of Law / Unwritten Principles of the Constitution

 45      The applicants contend that section 87.4 is unconstitutional. They argue that the provision violates the rule of law because it is vague and has retrospective effects.

 46      Three principles underlie the rule of law. First, the law is supreme over both the government and individuals. Second, law must be created and maintained to preserve and embody a normative order. Third, the relationship between individuals and the state must be regulated by law.

 47      None of these principles speak directly to the content of legislation. In consequence, as noted by the Supreme Court of Canada 'it is difficult to conceive of how the rule of law could be used as a basis for invalidating legislation ... based on its content'. The rule of law is primarily concerned with the relationship between the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government, and the legislature is only constrained in the sense that it must comply with the procedural requirements for enacting, amending and repealing legislation: Imperial Tobacco Canada, paras 58-60.

 48      There has been some debate as to the extent to which the rule of law and unwritten principles of the Constitution have embedded within them principles that would permit the invalidation of legislation on the basis of its content. This issue was joined in Babcock v Canada (Attorney General), 2002 SCC 57, [2002] 3 SCR 3. Section 39 of the Canada Evidence Act, RSC 1985, c C-5, barred the production of documents and their admission into evidence upon certification by the Clerk of the Privy Council that they were confidences of the Queen's Privy Council. It was contended that the unfairness of creating special evidentiary rules that favoured the Crown and the absence of judicial oversight of the certification process offended the rule of law. The Supreme Court of Canada rejected the argument: Babcock, para 57.

 49      The Supreme Court of Canada returned to the question three years later in Imperial Tobacco (paras 61-64) concluding that there is no constitutional guarantee that law be general in character and not confer special privileges on the government:

Nonetheless, considerable debate surrounds the question of what additional principles, if any, the rule of law might embrace, and the extent to which they might mandate the invalidation of legislation based on its content.

[...]

This debate underlies Strayer J.A.'s apt observation in Singh v. Canada (Attorney General), 2000 CanLII 17100 (FCA), [2000] 3 F.C. 185 (C.A.), at para. 33, that '[a]dvocates tend to read into the principle of the rule of law anything which supports their particular view of what the law should be.'

The appellants' conceptions of the rule of law can fairly be said to fall at one extreme of the spectrum of possible conceptions and to support Strayer J.A.'s thesis. They submit that the rule of law requires that legislation: (1) be prospective; (2) be general in character; (3) not confer special privileges on the government, except where necessary for effective governance; and (4) ensure a fair civil trial. And they argue that the Act breaches each of these requirements, rendering it invalid.

A brief review of this Court's jurisprudence will reveal that none of these requirements enjoy constitutional protection in Canada.

 50      With the exception of criminal offences and sanctions there is no requirement that legislation be prospective, even though retrospective and retroactive legislation can overturn settled expectations and be perceived as unjust: Imperial Tobacco, paras 69-72. Whatever personal and economic opportunities a pending FSW application may represent to an applicant, it does not equate with, or possess the characteristics of an interest that would preclude its termination on the basis of the rule of law. Here, Parliament has expressed a clear intention that section 87.4 apply retrospectively. Though this may be perceived as unjust, it does not violate the rule of law.

 51      Section 87.4 is also not contrary to the rule of law due to vagueness. I have found that its meaning is readily apparent on a plain and obvious reading. Second, vagueness has only been used to invalidate legislation in exceedingly rare circumstances and then only in a criminal law context: R v Spindloe, 2001 SKCA 58, para 78.

 52      As was the case in Imperial Tobacco, the applicants have argued for an understanding of unwritten constitutional principles that would expand on the rights specifically provided for in the written Constitution. In particular, the applicants have argued that, embedded in the rule of law, there is a broader equality right than that provided for in section 15 of the Charter. Acceptance of this argument would render the written constitutional rights redundant. The recognition of unwritten constitutional principles is not an invitation to dispense with the written text of the Constitution: Reference re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 SCR 217, para 53, and, while the parameters of the unwritten principles of the Constitution remain undefined, they must be balanced against the concept of Parliamentary sovereignty which is also a component of the rule of law: Warren J Newman, The Principles of the Rule of Law and Parliamentary Sovereignty in Constitutional Theory and Litigation (2005) 16 NJCL 175.

 53      The argument predicated on the rule of law and unwritten principles of the Constitution is therefore dismissed.

Judicial Independence

 54      Although unwritten, judicial independence is a foundational principle of the Constitution. Judicial independence safeguards the judiciary's freedom to render decisions based solely on the requirements of the law, without interference from the executive branches of government. There are three essential conditions of judicial independence: security of tenure, financial security and administrative independence. The applicants have not identified a basis on which section 87.4 interferes with any of the essential conditions of judicial independence.

 55      In Imperial Tobacco, the Supreme Court of Canada emphasized that judicial independence does not include the freedom to apply only laws of which the judiciary approves. This would require 'a constitutional guarantee not of judicial independence, but of judicial governance.'

 56      The rule of law mandates that the government is not beyond the law. However, the government is only bound by the law as it exists from time to time. Subject always to the Constitution, both written and unwritten, Parliament may change the law and this includes barring certain claims through limitation and Crown immunity statutes: Bacon v Saskatchewan Crop Insurance Corp, [1999] 11 WWR 51 (Sask CA), leave denied [1999] SCCA No 437.

 57      The applicants argue that section 87.4 unduly interferes with the courts by prescribing certain outcomes. They draw support for this from subsection 87.4(3) which they argue excludes any form of judicial supervision, and subsection 87.4(5) which bars any right of recourse against the Crown for damages.

 58      This argument misunderstands the origins and purpose of judicial independence. Parliament is free to craft legislation and the courts must, assuming it is constitutional, interpret and apply that legislation as written. It is not interference with judicial independence for Parliament to write legislation which leads to a certain outcome when properly applied. This is the proper function of lawmaking, of which there are many examples. Authorson, Imperial Tobacco, and Babcock involved legislative change or adaptation to what would otherwise be decided through judicial process. In Authorson, causes of action to recover interest were barred; in Imperial Tobacco, a duty of care and causation were decreed by legislation and in Babcock, relevant evidence could be rendered inadmissible by a certificate of the Clerk of the Privy Council.

 59      As I have previously explained, if any applicants believe their applications were improperly identified as terminated and can point to a positive selection decision before March 29, 2012, they may apply to the Court for an order of mandamus. The rule of law mandates that all administrative action must have its source in law. If CIC improperly identifies an application as terminated and refuses to process it, that action would be without a source in law and therefore amenable to the Court's jurisdiction. Additionally, this Court is not prevented from scrutinizing the legislation to ensure it is compliant with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Section 87.4 does not bar access to the courts.

 60      Finally, Crown immunity clauses, such as that contained in subsection 87.4(5), are not unconstitutional unless the statute itself is ultra vires on division of powers grounds: Alberta v Kingsway General Insurance Company, 2005 ABQB 662, para 67. In Kingsway General Insurance Company, the legislature of Alberta passed legislation to immunize the government from liability resulting from insurance reforms, targeting a specific action which was pending before the Court of Queen's Bench. The Court determined that the legislation was within the competence of the legislature and did not violate the rule of law even though it barred a specific, pending action.

Applicability of the Charter

 61      The applicants contend that section 87.4 infringes their rights under sections 6, 7 and 15 of the Charter. At the hearing, the applicants abandoned their reliance on subsection 2(d) of the Charter, the right to freedom of association.

 62      As a threshold issue, there is the question whether the applicants, as non-citizens residing outside of Canada, are entitled to the protection of the Charter. This question is one of application of the Charter, and not to be confused or conflated in its analysis with that of standing. The applicants are 'directly affected' by the passage of Bill C-38, as to have sufficient legal interest to commence the applications. Whether the Charter applies or extends to non-residents is a discrete legal question.

 63      Without a doubt, as legislation enacted by Parliament, section 87.4 must be Charter compliant. If not, a remedy is available under section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982. Similarly, Charter compliant legislation must be administrated in a manner consistent with the Charter. If not, a remedy is available under section 24 of the Charter. In all cases, the central and controlling frame of analysis is that constitutionality is governed by effect and consequence, not legislative intent. In this case, the repercussions and effects of section 87.4 are outside of Canada, and fall upon nationals of other countries. At issue, therefore, is whether section 7 and section 15 rights are vested in foreign, non-resident applicants. The legislation would not violate the applicants' Charter rights if they do not have those rights to begin with.

 64      Section 6 of the Charter is explicitly limited to citizens and permanent residents. Therefore, the applicants' reliance on that section must fail. However, section 7 and section 15 do not contain that explicit limitation, applying to 'everyone' and 'every individual' respectively.

 65      There has been clear guidance from the Supreme Court of Canada and the Federal Court of Appeal as to when the Charter applies to the actions of Canadian officials outside of Canada. The present case has a significant distinction from these authorities. The issue here is not whether the Charter applies to officers and agents of the Government of Canada when abroad, but whether it affords rights to foreign nationals outside of Canada who are affected only by legislative change of Parliament. The weight of the case law indicates that non-citizens outside of Canada may not claim the protection of the Charter, absent exceptional circumstances involving the actions of Canadian officials or agents abroad.

 66      Justice Edmond Blanchard considered this issue in Slahi v Canada (Minister of Justice), 2009 FC 160 (aff'd 2009 FCA 259), in the context of a section 7 Charter claim brought by foreign nationals who had been detained at Guantanamo Bay and questioned there by Canadian officials. Justice Blanchard conducted a detailed review of the law on extra-territorial application of the Charter, starting with Singh v Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1985] 1 SCR 177. In Singh, it will be recalled, Justice Wilson accepted that the term "everyone" in section 7 of the Charter 'includes every human being who is physically present in Canada and by virtue of such presence amenable to Canadian law'.

 67      Justice Blanchard also noted Justice L'Heureux-Dubé's dissenting reasons in R v Cook, [1998] 2 SCR 597 wherein she noted:

I am not convinced that passage of the Charter necessarily gave rights to everyone in the world, of every nationality, wherever they may be, even if certain rights contain the word "everyone". Rather, I think that it is arguable that "everyone" was used to distinguish the rights granted to everyone on the territory of Canada from those granted only to citizens of Canada and those granted to persons charged with an offence.

 68      The majority in Cook had determined that the Charter did apply in the context of an American citizen who had been questioned by Canadian authorities in the United States and then faced trial for murder in Canada, without explicitly addressing Justice L'Heureux-Dubé's concern.

 69      More recently, in R v Hape, 2007 SCC 26, [2007] 2 SCR 292 the Supreme Court of Canada effectively overruled the majority in Cook and determined that the Charter did not apply to Canadian police officers while conducting an extraterritorial search and seizure under the authority of local officials. Writing for the majority, Justice LeBel emphasized that Canada cannot act to enforce or give effect to its laws, including the Charter, within the territory of another state absent that state's consent or some other exceptional basis in international law. Justice LeBel also acknowledged, but did not explicitly endorse, Justice L'Heureux-Dubé's dissent in Cook. I note, parenthetically, that the circumstances of this case do not involve the application of Canadian law within the territory of another state.

 70      Having reviewed these authorities, Justice Blanchard concluded, at paragraphs 47-48 that:

In summary, the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court teaches that section 7 Charter protections may be available to non-Canadians when they are physically present in Canada or subject to a criminal trial in Canada, and that Canadian citizens, in certain circumstances, may assert their section 7 Charter rights when they are outside Canada.

[...] The Applicants are not Canadian citizens. They have failed to establish the required connection to Canada. Consequently, their circumstances cannot engage a section 7 Charter right.

 71      This decision was upheld by the Federal Court of Appeal in Slahi v Canada (Minister of Justice), 2009 FCA 259. The Court agreed with Justice Blanchard's determination 'that section 7 was inapplicable to the applicants while detained by U.S. authorities at Guantànamo Bay because they are not Canadian citizens'.

 72      In Canada (Justice) v Khadr, 2008 SCC 28, [2008] 2 SCR 125, the Supreme Court of Canada found that the Charter applied to Canadian agents who questioned Omar Khadr, a Canadian citizen, while he was detained in Guantanamo Bay. Two factors distinguish Khadr from the present case. First, Mr. Khadr was a Canadian citizen. Second, it was accepted that Canada had participated in a process that violated Mr. Khadr's fundamental human rights under both Canadian law and international law. This finding was at the core of the decision in Khadr.

 73      Amnesty International Canada v Canada (Chief of the Defence Staff), 2008 FC 336 (aff'd 2008 FCA 401), involved detainees held by the Canadian Forces in Afghanistan in the context of an ongoing armed conflict. The Federal Court of Appeal upheld Justice Anne Mactavish's conclusion that while the detainees were protected by international humanitarian law, they did not have Charter rights as 'there has been no consent by the Government of Afghanistan to having Canadian Charter rights conferred on its citizens, within its territory': Amnesty International, para 172.

 74      It is significant that the jurisprudence interpreting section 15 has developed in reference to Canadian society and Canadian norms and values. In Law v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1999] 1 SCR 497, Justice Iacobucci explained that discrimination promotes the view that an individual has less value 'as a human being or as a member of Canadian society.' In determining whether a claim for discrimination has been made out, a court is to consider whether the claimant has a 'disadvantaged position within Canadian society.' The Supreme Court of Canada recently endorsed this language in Quebec (Attorney General) v A, 2013 SCC 5, para 151.

 75      Other recent decisions of this Court have found that non-citizens outside of Canada generally do not hold Charter rights: Zeng v Camada (Attorney General), 2013 FC 104, paras 70-72; Kinsel v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 1515, paras 45-47; Toronto Coalition to Stop the War v Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2010 FC 957, paras 81-82. These three decisions followed Justice Blanchard's determination that a Charter claim may only be advanced by an individual who is present in Canada, subject to criminal proceedings in Canada, or possessing Canadian citizenship.

 76      This limitation on the application of the Charter is not a recent development. Even prior to Slahi, the Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal had interpreted Singh as barring Charter claims from non-citizens outside Canada: Canadian Council of Churches v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1990] 2 FC 534 (CA) (aff'd on other grounds [1992] 1 SCR 236); Ruparel v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1990] 3 FC 615; Lee v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1997] FCJ No 242; Deol v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2001] FCJ No 1034 (aff'd on other grounds 2002 FCA 271).

 77      The only exception counsel identified involved an applicant claiming the right to citizenship, rather than the privilege of immigration: Crease v Canada, [1994] 3 FC 480. In that case the applicant had applied for citizenship from within Canada and had a Canadian mother.

 78      The respondent does not dispute either the applicants' standing or the application of the Charter. The parties appear to coalesce around the proposition that the FSW applications establish a sufficient nexus with Canada to extend the reach of sections 7 and 15. The jurisprudence does not support this concession. What is in issue involves the repercussions abroad of domestic legislation. In this case, there is no question of the extra-territorial application of the Charter as an adjunct of the actions of Canadian officials abroad, nor is there, as I conclude on the evidence, non-compliant administration of the legislation. The issue framed by this case is whether the protections provided by sections 7 and 15 reach foreign nationals, when residing outside of or beyond Canadian territory.

 79      Despite my reservations as to the correctness of the concession, given that there is no lis between the parties on the issue, I will not determine the point. Charter jurisprudence should develop incrementally through the interface of opposing positions and interests. In any event, it is unnecessary to determine the point, as I find that the claims of infringement fail on their merits.

Life, Liberty and Security of the Person

 80      Section 7 of the Charter provides that:

7.

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.  7. Chacun a droit à la vie, à la liberté et à la sécurité de sa personne; il ne peut être porté atteinte à ce droit qu'en conformité avec les principes de justice fondamentale.

 81      A prerequisite to a discussion of the principles of fundamental justice is that the applicants' life, liberty or security interests be demonstrated to have been engaged: Blencoe v British Columbia, 2000 SCC 44, [2000] 2 SCR 307, para 47. I have concluded that the applicants' argument under section 7 fails at that threshold question.

 82      In Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) v Chiarelli, [1992] 1 SCR 711, the Supreme Court of Canada concluded that deportation of a non-citizen for committing serious crimes did not violate section 7. While the respondent urges Chiarelli as a conclusive answer to the section 7 challenge, the applicants say that this is too broad a reading, noting that the Court in Chiarelli did not determine whether deportation could be conceptualized as a deprivation of the right to liberty, only that it did not violate the principles of fundamental justice.

 83      In a subsequent decision the Supreme Court of Canada relied on Chiarelli in support of its conclusion that 'the deportation of a non-citizen in itself cannot implicate the liberty and security interests protected by s. 7': Medovarski v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 SCC 51, [2005] 2 SCR 539, para 46. In both decisions, the Supreme Court of Canada emphasized that, 'The most fundamental principle of immigration law is that non-citizens do not have an unqualified right to enter or remain in Canada.'

 84      These decisions are dispositive of the applicants' section 7 arguments. While the focus was on the right to remain in Canada consequent to criminal conduct, the Supreme Court of Canada spoke at a higher level of principle when it concluded that there is no unqualified right to enter into Canada.

 85      The applicants seek to confine the scope of Chiarelli and Medovarski. They contend that their liberty and security of the person interests are engaged because immigration is a decision of fundamental personal importance and because of the psychological stress they have experienced. The applicants were assured that their applications would be processed. They incurred substantial costs and made personal sacrifices in hopes of immigrating. They waited patiently in the queue, for many years. They are now dismayed to learn that it was all for nothing.

 86      Mae Joy Tabingo, a qualified nurse, waited seven years, only to find that it was for naught. As the door she was seeking to enter closed, another door opened to other nurses who had not stood in the same line. I accept her evidence that she perceives this to be unfair.

 87      Fang Wei applied to immigrate to Canada in order to join her husband who landed as a permanent resident on June 14, 2006. Because her husband did not disclose their marriage on landing, she cannot be sponsored by him as a spouse. Ms. Wei and her husband have delayed having children as a result of their separation and her life has been 'on hold'. CIC repeatedly reassured her that 'all of the applications in our inventory will be processed' and she was not advised that she could reapply under that the new Ministerial Instruction scheme.

 88      Sumera Shahid made her application in September of 2007. CIC mistakenly returned her file on the erroneous basis that she had failed to include the appropriate fee. CIC confirmed acceptance of her application in November of 2007 and advised that processing would take three to three and a half years. Ms. Shahid repeatedly inquired as to the status of her application and was reassured that a decision would be forthcoming.

 89      Ali Raza Jafri also applied in 2007 at the Islamabad visa office, based on his experience as a marketing manager. His wife and children were listed as his dependants. In 2009 he requested that his application be transferred to another visa office but this was denied. He now feels 'completely betrayed' by the termination of his application. He gave up job opportunities and delayed buying a home in anticipation of immigrating.

 90      Habibollah Abedi is a citizen of Iran where he has worked as an aircraft maintenance engineer. He applied at the Damascus visa office in 2006, listing his wife and children as dependants. In 2010, his file was transferred to Warsaw and in 2012 the Warsaw office advised that it was trying to 'manage arrivals' and needed to 'stagger' the issuance of visas.

 91      Maria Sari Teresa Borja Austria applied at the visa office in Manila in 2005, listing her son as a dependant. She hoped to be reunited with her sister in Canada. When she applied, Ms. Austria was 49 years old and would have received 10 out of 10 points for her age. Now, she is outside of the prescribed age range and would not be entitled to any points for her age. For Ms. Austria, the possibility of submitting a new application is no solution to having her pending application terminated.

 92      Zafar Mahmood applied in 2006 at the Islamabad visa office, with his wife and three children as dependants. CIC informed him that the anticipated processing time was 36 - 42 months, and so he expected a decision by May of 2010. His application was transferred to London in 2010 and by then the anticipated processing time had increased to 88 months.

 93      Yanjun Yin applied in 2007, listing his wife as his dependant. In March of 2010, he provided updated documentation to the Beijing visa office, as requested by that office, and anticipated that a decision would be forthcoming. Mr. Yin has been diligent in corresponding with CIC and the Minister regarding his pending application. He and his wife pursued English language and professional education in anticipation of immigrating.

 94      These circumstances are said to engage the applicants' section 7 interests.

 95      Section 7 is primarily, but not exclusively, concerned with the rights of individuals in the criminal justice context, including rights on search, seizure, detention, arrest, trial and imprisonment. However, the liberty interest protected by section 7 encompasses more than freedom from physical restraint and includes the freedom to make fundamental personal choices: Blencoe, paras 49, 54. Additionally, security of the person can protect both physical and psychological integrity: New Brunswick (Minister of Health and Community Services) v G(J), [1999] 3 SCR 46.

 96      The applicants contend that their pending FSW applications engage these fundamental interests. The FSW process provides the sole path by which they can attain additional rights and a standard of living essential to their physical and psychological integrity. They also say that completing their applications and emotionally investing in the decision to leave their country of origin constitutes a fundamental personal choice. However, giving section 7 its widest scope, I find that there are no section 7 interests engaged by section 87.4.

 97      In R v Morgentaler, [1988] 1 SCR 30, Justice Wilson, speaking for herself, determined that a woman's liberty interest was engaged by restricting access to abortion. She explained at page 166, that the right to liberty 'grants the individual a degree of autonomy in making decisions of fundamental personal importance.' Justice La Forest endorsed this passage in B (R), v Children's Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto, [1995] 1 SCR 315 at page 369, in deciding that section 7 protected the rights of parents to care for their children.

 98      In Rodriguez v British Columbia (Attorney General), [1993] 3 SCR 519, Justice Sopinka wrote that personal autonomy and basic human dignity are encompassed within security of the person. This includes the right to make choices concerning one's own body and control over one's physical and psychological integrity. In Blencoe, the Court cautioned that only serious, state-imposed impacts on a person's psychological integrity may engage section 7: Blencoe, paras 56-57.

 99      I accept that the applicants have experienced stress and hardship; I also accept that the circumstances of some of the applicants are compelling. However, immigration is not of such an intimate, profound and fundamental nature as to be comparable with a woman's right of reproductive choice, or the freedom of parents to care for their children. The ability to immigrate, particularly as a member of an economic class, is not among the fundamental choices relating to personal autonomy which would engage section 7. While it may have life-altering consequences, the possibility of immigrating to Canada as a successful FSW applicant does not engage life or liberty interests.

 100      The voluntary character of the applicants' decision to apply for a FSW visa, and to voluntarily put major life decisions in abeyance pending the outcome, is determinative of the question as to whether security of the person is engaged. Voluntariness distinguishes the applicants' situation from that in Rodriguez. Sue Rodriguez suffered from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, a terminal illness. She challenged the law against assisted suicide so that she could die at the time and in the manner of her choosing. The Supreme Court of Canada accepted that she would slowly deteriorate, become dependent and lose her dignity. The hardship she experienced is incomparable in extent and dimension to that experienced by the applicants, and more importantly, she had no choice.

 101      The applicants' situation is also unlike that in New Brunswick v G(J) wherein the Supreme Court of Canada found that an application by the state to remove children from a parent affected the parents' security of the person. Child apprehension is a profound intrusion into private life and stigmatizes the parent who is judged as 'unfit.' In reaching this conclusion, Chief Justice Lamer emphasized that, 'the right to security of the person does not protect the individual from the ordinary stresses and anxieties that a person of reasonable sensibility would suffer as a result of government action.'

 102      The loss of the expectation or hope is understandably distressing. I also accept that, given the passage of time, the effect on the points awarded on the basis of age and the shift in occupational priorities reflected in successive Ministerial Instructions, the opportunity of re-applying has evaporated. Nevertheless, I find that the interests protected by section 7 are not engaged in these circumstances. In my view, the applicants have experienced the ordinary stresses and anxieties that accompany an application to immigrate. All section 87.4 did was terminate the opportunity. Therefore, the section 7 argument fails at the threshold question.

Equality

 103      Subsection 15(1) of the Charter provides that:

15.(1)

Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.


* * *

15.(1)

La loi ne fait acception de personne et s'applique également à tous, et tous ont droit à la même protection et au même bénéfice de la loi, indépendamment de toute discrimination, notamment des discriminations fondées sur la race, l'origine nationale ou ethnique, la couleur, la religion, le sexe, l'âge ou les déficiences mentales ou physiques.

 104      The applicants argue that section 87.4 codifies and legitimizes past discrimination on the basis of national origin and country of residence. As such, the application and implementation of the law is discriminatory.

 105      It is also axiomatic to Charter analysis that, regardless of Parliament's intention or purpose, the legislation is assessed by its effects on individuals and groups. It is not enough for legislation itself to be constitutional; legislation must also be administered in a Charter compliant manner: Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium v Canada (Minister of Justice), 2000 SCC 69; [2000] 2 SCR 1120.

 106      The applicants' evidence is that approximately 92% of the terminated applications originated in Africa, the Middle East, Asia and the Pacific, while 8% of the terminated applications originated in Europe and the Americas. They argue that the sole conclusion that can be drawn from these differential rates in the clearance of FSW backlogs is that CIC's manner of implementing the IRPA, namely the allocation of resources and other operational decisions, has resulted in differential treatment on the basis of national origin or residence.

 107      From this global analysis of the evidence the applicants point to specific visa posts for further support. The rate of reduction varied dramatically depending on the visa office in question. For example, Mae Joy Tabingo is a citizen of the Philippines and applied at the Manila visa office. Manila had a backlog of 21,581 files as of February 27, 2008. On June 29, 2012, there were 13,733 files remaining. In contrast, the Buffalo office in the United States had 17,225 applications in its backlog as of February 27, 2008. On June 29, 2012, there were only 9 remaining files to be terminated.

 108      This is significant because subsection 11(1) of the Regulations requires persons applying for a permanent resident visa to apply at the visa office serving their country of citizenship or residence. The objective of this regulation is to ensure that applications are assessed by the visa posts best situated to verify and assess the application materials. This does not mean, however, that applications, once received, are necessarily processed in that country's visa post.

 109      As a matter of first impression, the visa office processing rates support the inference that nationals of the Americas and Europe have been prioritized over those from Asia, the Pacific, the Middle East and Africa, and support the claim of differential treatment based on national origin. Closer examination reveals a different picture.

 110      As a preliminary issue, I note that national origin is an enumerated ground of discrimination and that citizenship has been recognized as an analogous ground. The applicants primarily rely on national origin for their section 15 argument. They have placed less emphasis on country of residence, which they argue is a ground of discrimination analogous to those set out in section 15.

 111      There is no case law which suggests that country of residence is an analogous ground.

 112      Analogous grounds arise or are established on the basis of personal characteristics that are immutable, or changeable only at unacceptable cost to personal identity. When determining whether grounds of discrimination are analogous to those listed in section 15, courts should consider whether the characteristics at issue have historically served as 'illegitimate and demeaning proxies for merit-based decision making' and whether the distinction being drawn affects a 'discrete and insular minority or a group that has been historically discriminated against': Corbiere v Canada (Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs), [1999] 2 SCR 203, para 13.

 113      The applicants point to R v Turpin, [1989] SCR No 1296 wherein the Supreme Court of Canada left it open that a person's province of residence might, in appropriate circumstances, ground a claim of discrimination. Further, in Corbiere, the Court found that the residence of aboriginal Canadians, specifically the question of whether an aboriginal band member lives on or off a reserve, is an analogous ground of discrimination. However, the Court made it clear that residence decisions faced by non-aboriginal Canadians should not be confused with the profound decisions aboriginal band members make to live on or off their reserves, assuming choice is possible. Aboriginal identity, including identification with an ancestral land, is unique. The situation in Corbiere is not comparable to that of the applicants.

 114      It is doubtful that country of residence could be an analogous ground. Country of residence is not an immutable characteristic, nor is it vital to identity, given the applicants' willingness to immigrate. Nor are the applicants a discrete and insular minority, and certainly not such a group within Canadian society. Country of residence, in contrast to race and religion, does not have the same historical antecedence of being a basis for discrimination, nor is there sufficient evidence that would establish that residence is an illegitimate or demeaning proxy for merit-based decision making. Accordingly, I find that country of residence is not an analogous ground of discrimination under section 15 of the Charter and turn to the applicants' argument based on national origin.

 115      Finally, it is said that the applicants share the common characteristic or condition of economic disadvantage and in some cases, poverty. It is difficult to make a singular finding of financial circumstances across a broad class of individuals, resident in all corners of the globe. This aside, poverty or economic disadvantage is not an immutable, indelible personal characteristic. Financial circumstances and the associated social conditions change; individual fortunes may ebb and flow, several times, over a lifetime, as may the general social and economic condition of their country of origin.

 116      In Withler v Canada (Attorney General), 2011 SCC 12, [2011] 1 SCR 396 the Supreme Court of Canada cautioned against a formalistic approach to section 15 and the rigid reliance on comparator groups. The Court re-focused section 15 on the core question of substantive discrimination, the foundational principle expressed in Andrews v Law Society of British Columbia, [1989] 1 SCR 143.

 117      Section 15 does not guarantee identical treatment. Given that the search is for substantive discrimination, differential treatment is not necessarily discriminatory. Justice McIntyre explained discrimination in Andrews as follows:

[...] discrimination may be described as a distinction, whether intentional or not but based on grounds relating to personal characteristics of the individual or group, which has the effect of imposing burdens, obligations, or disadvantages on such individual or group not imposed upon others, or which withholds or limits access to opportunities, benefits, and advantages available to other members of society. Distinctions based on personal characteristics attributed to an individual solely on the basis of association with a group will rarely escape the charge of discrimination, while those based on an individual's merits and capacities will rarely be so classed.

 118      In determining whether a law is discriminatory within the meaning of section 15, there is a two part test: (1) whether the law creates a distinction based on an enumerated or analogous ground; and (2) whether the distinction creates a disadvantage by perpetuating prejudice or stereotyping: Withler, paras 30-31. Put otherwise, not all distinctions are discriminatory.

Evidence of Discrimination

 119      On its face, section 87.4 only differentiates FSW applicants based on the date of application. However, I accept the applicants' evidence that processing rates varied between visa offices, such that section 87.4 had a differential impact and outcome depending on where an applicant applied. That however, does not necessarily indicate a distinction based on an enumerated or analogous ground.

 120      The applicants are a diverse group. They share no commonality of race, national or ethnic origin, colour or religion. They are nationals of various countries, having made their FSW applications in the Philippines, Syria, Pakistan and China. The eight applicants in turn represent hundreds of additional applicants across the global spectrum of race, nationality and religion.

 121      There is some dispute between the parties with regards to the statistical evidence. The applicants have argued that the respondent's evidence should be given little weight because its affiants do not have personal knowledge of the statistical evidence they provided. While the statistics are hearsay, I consider the evidence reliable and necessary in the circumstances. I doubt that statistics regarding the FSW program in an organization as large and complex as CIC could be within the personal knowledge of any particular affiant. Additionally, apart from the objection raised at the level of principle against the receipt of hearsay evidence, no precise or particular deficiency was raised that might call the accuracy or reliability of the evidence into question.

 122      Once received, CIC transferred many applications between visa offices for processing. 10,000 applications were transferred from the Islamabad visa office to London and of these, 512 were processed. Ali Raza Jafri, Sumera Shahid and Zafar Mahmood's applications are among those that were transferred from Islamabad to London in 2010 and 2011. Additionally, 6,000 files and 4,600 files were transferred from Damascus and New Delhi, respectively, to Warsaw. Nearly 10,000 of these applications were processed in Warsaw. The applicant Habibollah Abedi's application was transferred to Warsaw in 2010.

 123      On February 27, 2008, there were 29,423 files in the backlog inventory at the visa offices in Africa and the Middle East. On June 29, 2012, 17,257 files remained in the backlog, a 41% reduction. However, the applicants note that 769 files which originated in Damascus were transferred to Warsaw but not processed. Adding these files back, there were 18,026 files remaining which originated from the Africa and Middle East region, a 39% reduction in the backlog from this region.

 124      For the Asia and Pacific region, there were 123,923 applications in the backlog on February 27, 2008. As of June 29, 2012, 62,265 files remained, indicating the backlog was reduced by 50%. Again, adding back the 9,503 files transferred from Islamabad and New Delhi but not processed, 71,768 files remained, a 42% reduction in the backlog.

 125      Overall, 39% of the backlog files originating in Africa and the Middle East and 42% of the files originating in Asia and the Pacific were processed before section 87.4 became law. In comparison, 88% of the backlog files from Europe and 92% from the Americas were processed.

 126      This evidence demonstrates, in the applicants' view, that the Africa, Asia and Middle East visa posts were chronically and deliberately under-resourced, reflecting discrimination against FSW applicants from countries served by those offices. Applicants from those regions were presumed to be less worthy, less capable of being successful immigrants, and therefore the corresponding visa posts were resourced at lower levels.

 127      The respondent provided evidence to explain the different processing rates between the various offices.

 128      James McNamee is the Director for the Immigration Strategies and Analysis Division, Strategic Policy and Planning Branch for CIC. He explained that each mission receives a varied mix of applications including temporary resident visa applications and non-FSW permanent resident applications such as those in the family class. Temporary resident visas, which include visitors, international students and temporary foreign workers, may be prioritized because they are time sensitive.

 129      David Manicom, Director General of the Immigration (Policy) Branch for CIC gave evidence that external factors influence CIC's ability to resource certain visa offices. For example, natural disasters, political instability and regional conflicts resulted in temporary and partial closures at the visa offices in Islamabad and Damascus. Additionally, staff turnover varies between offices. During 2007 and 2008, the Accra, Ghana regional processing centre lost five of its six decision makers. Finally, Mr. Manicom noted that there are physical and security limitations to adding more resources. At various times in the past six years, the Accra, Cairo, Damascus, Islamabad, Manila, Nairobi, New Delhi and Pretoria offices have been staffed at their maximum, given the availability of space.

 130      Mr. Manicom also explained that applications from certain regions require more time and resources to process. The Accra office is illustrative. Mail service is unreliable and bandwidth for e-mail and other telecommunications has been problematic. Documentation can be of poor quality and fraud is elevated, requiring additional verification measures. Local conditions make verification of birth, education and training credentials more difficult and time-consuming.

 131      Additionally, Mr. Manicom testified that certain visa offices had different priorities. The Damascus, Cairo and Nairobi offices processed large numbers of refugees. For Manila, the Live-In Caregiver Program and Provincial Nominee Program were of increased importance.

 132      Mr. Manicom also gave evidence regarding the Buffalo regional processing centre, which was responsible for applications out of the United States and Canada. Because many of the applications in Buffalo were by persons already in Canada, it was allocated a larger portion of the total FSW immigration targets. This is because applicants applying in Buffalo are often already studying, living and working in Canada. Additionally, many of these applicants had arranged employment opinions or work permits which rendered them eligible for priority processing.

 133      There is one element of the evidence which is particularly compelling on the question as to whether the difference in clearance rates is evidence of discrimination. Each visa office processes applicants from many different countries. For example, citizens of the United States, Great Britain and France represent a only a small percentage of cases processed at the Buffalo, London and Paris offices, 7%, 14% and 7% respectively. Applicants from India represent 26% of the cases processed in Buffalo and 21% of the cases processed in London. Applicants from China represent 18% of the total cases processed in Buffalo while applicants from Iran represent 9% of the cases processed at that post. Citizens of Pakistan represented 17% of all applications processed in London.

 134      Having reviewed this evidence, I conclude that the applicants have not demonstrated that section 87.4 has had a disproportionate impact on the basis of national origin. The evidence is that CIC transferred files from high demand posts to lower demand posts in order to facilitate timelier processing. Additionally, the high clearance rate at the Buffalo post does not represent a bias towards applicants from the United States, as only 7% of the applicants at that office were in fact Americans. Rather, the Buffalo office managed time-sensitive and priority applications from individuals already lawfully in Canada. The applicants submit that CIC discriminated against individuals from Asia, the Middle East and Africa; however, 69% of the applications processed in Buffalo, which had one of the highest clearance rates, were from citizens of those regions.

Perpetuation of Stereotype

 135      Turning to the second part of the section 15 test, the evidence does not indicate that section 87.4 perpetuates a disadvantage through prejudice or stereotyping. The applicants contend that in failing to dedicate the necessary resources to the posts in Africa, the Middle East and Asia, CIC perpetuated the view that individuals in those countries are less worthy or desirable. Again, however, this argument fails under closer scrutiny. Persons from Africa and the Middle East represented about 23% of those who entered Canada in the economic class between 2002 and 2011. Half of all economic immigrants during that time were from Asia and the Pacific. In total, approximately 73% of Canada's economic immigrants are from the very regions that the applicants argue are viewed as undesirable (Annex C).

 136      The applicants have argued that section 87.4 perpetuates the mistaken belief that applicants who applied before February 27, 2008 are less qualified to immigrate. I accept the applicants' evidence that there are many qualified applicants in the backlog. Notably, Mr. McNamee gave evidence that, even up to the date the backlog was terminated, the backlog was successfully mined to find qualified applicants for the Provincial Nominee Program. Additionally, approximately one-third of all FSW permanent resident visas in 2011 were issued to applicants in the backlog. These visas would not have been issued if the applicants were not qualified. However, the date of application is not an enumerated or analogous ground and so stereotyping on this basis does not constitute discrimination.

 137      Section 87.4 must be considered in light of the wider immigration context. Visa offices do not only process FSW applications, but also a wide-range of visa applications, which have different priorities. Certain visa offices face unique challenges, such as weaker infrastructure, higher instances of fraud, or an influx of refugee claims. As the historical evidence consistently indicated, globally viewed, economic immigrants from Asia, the Middle East and Africa become Canadian permanent residents in large numbers. The evidence does not support the claim that section 87.4 is discriminatory.

Justification for Infringement

 138      As I have found that no section 7 interest is triggered by the termination of the FSW files, and that section 87.4, in its purpose or effect, is not discriminatory within the meaning of section 15, I will not address section 1 of the Charter.

Mandamus

 139      Mandamus is available to compel a public authority to perform a duty that it is obligated to do under its enabling statute. As I have found that section 87.4 of the IRPA unambiguous and constitutionally valid legislation, the applications are terminated and the respondent has no legal duty to continue to process them. There can be no order for mandamus.

 140      The applicants have argued that, even before section 87.4 came into force, the respondent had already breached their rights to timely processing of their applications and that there must be some remedy for this past breach. This argument fails as mandamus cannot remedy a past breach when there is no present duty.

Humanitarian and Compassionate Relief

 141      The applicants advance an alternative argument. They say that even if their files were terminated, they are entitled, under section 25 of the IRPA, to apply for humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) relief from the application of section 87.4. The applicants note that the Minister used a similar section to assist applicants who were issued visas in error even though their applications were captured by section 87.4. On the basis of the Minister's own conduct, it is said that the applicants are entitled to H&C consideration.

 142      Section 25.2 allows the Minister to grant permanent resident status to a foreign national who is otherwise inadmissible or who does not meet the requirements of the IRPA if the Minister is satisfied that the decision is justified on public policy considerations. It is axiomatic that, save for the public policy exception, an H&C application is not a free-standing, independent vehicle for entry; rather it is an authority in the Minister to grant relief from requirements or provisions of the IRPA in an otherwise deficient application or claim. Here, there is no application, nor any requirements which could be waived on H&C grounds.

 143      Applicants who were issued a visa in error were sent a letter informing them that their visa was invalid. They were then sent a subsequent letter explaining that the Minister considered there to be public policy considerations which warranted granting the visa and necessary exemptions. The letter asked the applicants to sign and date the letter to indicate that they wished to take advantage of the provision and to return it along with certain documents.

 144      The applicants submit that if the underlying application had been terminated, then the Minister could not invoke section 25.2. Those individuals had already been issued permanent resident visas; some may have already landed in Canada. I see no conflict between the Minister's decision under section 25.2 and his position in the present applications. The nature of the discretion conferred under section 25.2 is very broad, and, in any event, no request has been made to the Minister nor is there a refusal. The argument is thus premature.

The Application Fees

 145      The applicants submit that subsection 87.4(4), which provides that the application fees will be returned, is outside of the jurisdiction of the IPRA because only the Financial Administration Act can bind the Treasury Board. However, I agree with the respondent's submission that there is concurrent authority for this under the IRPA and the Financial Administration Act. The applicants also argue that subsection 87.4(4) violates subsection 19(2) of the Financial Administration Act which provides that application fees cannot exceed the costs. They argue that the respondent is required to pay interest on the application fees.

 146      There is no indication in the record that interest was earned or that the fees exceeded the costs associated with the applications. While the applications were not ultimately processed to conclusion, CIC still required resources to initially accept and manage the applications. In any event, even if there was an evidentiary foundation to the argument, any entitlement to interest was extinguished by section 87.4. For this reason, the applicants' unjust enrichment argument must also fail: Authorson.

Conclusion

 147      As noted earlier, the applicants have waited in the queue for many years only to find the entrance door closed. They see the termination of their hope for a new life in Canada to be an unfair, arbitrary and unnecessary measure. However, section 87.4 is valid legislation, compliant with the rule of law, the Bill of Rights and the Charter. The applications have been terminated by operation of law and this Court cannot order mandamus.

 148      In light of the serious issues raised and the general importance of this matter to many thousands of applicants the following questions will be certified:

a.

Does subsection 87.4(1) of the IRPA terminate by operation of law the applications described in that subsection upon its coming into force, and if not, are the applicants entitled to mandamus?

b.

Does the Canadian Bill of Rights mandate notice and an opportunity to make submissions prior to termination of an application under subsection 87.4(1) of the IRPA?

c.

Is section 87.4 of the IRPA unconstitutional, being contrary to the rule of law or sections 7 and 15 the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?


JUDGMENT

       THIS COURT'S JUDGMENT is that:

1.

The application for judicial review is dismissed.

2.

The applications for judicial review in the following proceedings are dismissed for the reasons given in this proceeding:


a.

IMM-8669-12: Habibollah Abedi v Minister of Citizenship and Immigration;

b.

IMM-10307-12: Maria Sari Teresa Borja Austria v Minister of Citizenship and Immigration;

c.

IMM-4866-12: Ali Raza Jafri v Minister of Citizenship and Immigration;

d.

IMM-8302-12: Zafar Mahmood, Shabnum Zafar, Abdul Majid Zafar, Abdul Sammad Zafar v Minister of Citizenship and Immigration;

e.

IMM-3725-12: Sumera Shahid v Minister of Citizenship and Immigration;

f.

IMM-6165-12: Fang Wei v Minister of Citizenship and Immigration; and

g.

IMM-8747-12: Yanjun Yin v Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.


3.

These Reasons for Judgment and Judgment apply in respect of all files listed in Annex D hereto.

4.

Leave is hereby granted to the parties to bring a motion beyond the ten day requirement specified in Rule 397 to vary the terms of this judgment by amending Annex D to address any omissions or errors in that Annex.

5.

The following questions are certified pursuant to subsection 74(d) of the IRPA:


a.

Does subsection 87.4(1) of the IRPA terminate by operation of law the applications described in that subsection upon its coming into force, and if not, are the applicants entitled to mandamus?

b.

Does the Canadian Bill of Rights mandate notice and an opportunity to make submissions prior to termination of an application under subsection 87.4(1) of the IRPA?

c.

Is section 87.4 of the IRPA unconstitutional, being contrary to the rule of law or sections 7 and 15 the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?


6.

Submissions on costs are due within twenty days of the date of this decision.

RENNIE J.

* * * * *

ANNEX A

Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27

Section 87.4

87.4 (1) An application by a foreign national for a permanent resident visa as a member of the prescribed class of federal skilled workers that was made before February 27, 2008 is terminated if, before March 29, 2012, it has not been established by an officer, in accordance with the regulations, whether the applicant meets the selection criteria and other requirements applicable to that class.


(2)

Subsection (1) does not apply to an application in respect of which a superior court has made a final determination unless the determination is made on or after March 29, 2012.

(3)

The fact that an application is terminated under subsection (1) does not constitute a decision not to issue a permanent resident visa.

(4)

Any fees paid to the Minister in respect of the application referred to in subsection (1) -- including for the acquisition of permanent resident status -- must be returned, without interest, to the person who paid them. The amounts payable may be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

(5)

No person has a right of recourse or indemnity against Her Majesty in connection with an application that is terminated under subsection (1).


* * *

Loi sur l'immigration et la protection des réfugiés (LC 2001, ch 27)

article 87.4

87.4 (1) Il est mis fin à toute demande de visa de résident permanent faite avant le 27 février 2008 au titre de la catégorie réglementaire des travailleurs qualifiés (fédéral) si, au 29 mars 2012, un agent n'a pas statué, conformément aux règlements, quant à la conformité de la demande aux critères de sélection et autres exigences applicables à cette catégorie.


(2)

Le paragraphe (1) ne s'applique pas aux demandes à l'égard desquelles une cour supérieure a rendu une décision finale, sauf dans les cas où celle-ci a été rendue le 29 mars 2012 ou après cette date.

(3)

Le fait qu'il a été mis fin à une demande de visa de résident permanent en application du paragraphe (1) ne constitue pas un refus de délivrer le visa.

(4)

Les frais versés au ministre à l'égard de la demande visée au paragraphe (1), notamment pour l'acquisition du statut de résident permanent, sont remboursés, sans intérêts, à la personne qui les a acquittés; ils peuvent être payés sur le Trésor.

(5)

Nul n'a de recours contre sa Majesté ni droit à une indemnité de sa part relativement à une demande à laquelle il est mis fin en vertu du paragraphe (1).


* * * * *

ANNEX B

Canadian Bill of Rights, SC 1960, c 44

subsection 1(a)


1.

It is hereby recognized and declared that in Canada there have existed and shall continue to exist without discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex, the following human rights and fundamental freedoms, namely,


(a) the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law;


subsection 2(e)


2.

Every law of Canada shall, unless it is expressly declared by an Act of the Parliament of Canada that it shall operate notwithstanding the Canadian Bill of Rights, be so construed and applied as not to abrogate, abridge or infringe or to authorize the abrogation, abridgment or infringement of any of the rights or freedoms herein recognized and declared, and in particular, no law of Canada shall be construed or applied so as to [...]


(e)

deprive a person of the right to a fair hearing in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice for the determination of his rights and obligations;


Déclaration canadienne des droits (SC 1960, ch 44)

paragraphe 1(a)


1.

Il est par les présentes reconnu et déclaré que les droits de l'homme et les libertés fondamentales ci-après énoncés ont existé et continueront à exister pour tout individu au Canada quels que soient sa race, son origine nationale, sa couleur, sa religion ou son sexe :


a) le droit de l'individu à la vie, à la liberté, à la sécurité de la personne ainsi qu'à la jouissance de ses biens, et le droit de ne s'en voir privé que par l'application régulière de la loi;


paragraphe 2(e)


2.

Toute loi du Canada, à moins qu'une loi du Parlement du Canada ne déclare expressément qu'elle s'appliquera nonobstant la Déclaration canadienne des droits, doit s'interpréter et s'appliquer de manière à ne pas supprimer, restreindre ou enfreindre l'un quelconque des droits ou des libertés reconnus et déclarés aux présentes, ni à en autoriser la suppression, la diminution ou la transgression, et en particulier, nulle loi du Canada ne doit s'interpréter ni s'appliquer comme [...]


e)

privant une personne du droit à une audition impartiale de sa cause, selon les principes de justice fondamentale, pour la définition de ses droits et obligations;


* * * * *

ANNEX C

[Editor's note: Annex C could not be reproduced online. Please contact LexisNexis Customer Service at 1-800-387-0899 or service

exisnexis.ca and request the following document: 13FC0410AnnexC.pdf.]

* * * * *

ANNEX D

Lead: Mae Joy TABINGO IMM-5635-12

1 Michael Rashin IMM-5481-12
2 Adewale Soneye IMM-5482-12
3 Kakaly Sultana IMM-5483-12

4          Salman Fazal Mohamed Elrafie Mustafa Salih
IMM-5484-12

5 Mamdouh Adib Ghattas Mikhail IMM-5485-12
6 Chih Ming Tseng IMM-5486-12
7 Mangala Janaki Rajapakse IMM-5487-12
8 Nabil Zein IMM-5490-12
9 Emmanuel Chinonyelum Uba IMM-5493-12

10 Arunangshu Dutta IMM-5494-12
11 Maria Adaku Obi IMM-5496-12
12 Odai Ja'afar Sadik IMM-5498-12

13         Ibrahim Mahmoud Abdel Rahman Ibrahim
IMM-5499-12

14 Ribhi Asfour IMM-5500-12
15 Farouk Abdel-Hamid Farid Mahmoud IMM-5501-12
16 Antonio Hilarion Manuel IMM-5502-12
17 Bolormaa Dorjpalam IMM-5503-12
18 Cheng Wah Cheow IMM-5505-12
19 Cherry Corpuz IMM-5506-12
20 Neil Smith IMM-5507-12
21 Sanja Culakovska IMM-5508-12
22 Abdelghani Ahmed Said IMM-5509-12
23 Dharmendra V Shunmugam IMM-5511-12
24 Qutaiba Soufi IMM-5512-12
25 Nowfal Hani Taha IMM-5514-12
26 Edwin Chime Oji IMM-5515-12
27 Thomas Thompson Talabi IMM-5516-12
28 Imran Muhammad Aslam IMM-5517-12
29 Mamour Ba IMM-5519-12
30 Flochova Jana IMM-5520-12
31 Nohra Eugenia Posada IMM-5521-12
32 Jyotinder Singh IMM-5524-12
33 Amith Krishnan IMM-5525-12
34 Jaime Garcia IMM-5526-12
35 Ramiz Raci IMM-5527-12
36 Kaan Alkan IMM-5528-12
37 Fareeha Rasool IMM-5529-12
38 Rahat Kazi IMM-5530-12
39 Sonia Rohama Gill IMM-5533-12
40 Ahmed Ismail IMM-5534-12
41 Bassem Koujak IMM-5540-12
42 Leslie, Whai Lee Low IMM-5541-12
43 OLUWATOYIN Muraina Lawal IMM-5542-12
44 Aigbe Olotu IMM-5543-12
45 Mahmoud Terri IMM-5544-12
46 Hana Al-Jarrah IMM-5546-12
47 Estela Aclan IMM-5547-12
48 Mahajaheen Shirazi IMM-5548-12
49 Venkatesh Subbiah IMM-5553-12
50 Vittal Reddy Suriyagari IMM-5555-12
51 Amrit Singh Randhawa IMM-5557-12
52 Azeem Adnan IMM-5558-12
53 Amit Singh IMM-5560-12
54 Willy Diakola Mvemba IMM-5562-12
55 Adel Gaber Aly Mansi IMM-5564-12
56 Vijay Vishwabandhu Jobanputra IMM-5566-12
57 Swhail Najim Abbood Al-Jubouriy IMM-5567-12
58 Chetan Hirubhai Patel IMM-5568-12
59 Houda Kabalan EP, Omar Houssami IMM-5569-12
60 Nagalakshmi, Shanmugam IMM-5570-12
61 Lawrence Uchenna Oguejiofor IMM-5571-12
62 Watanjot Kaur IMM-5572-12

63         Zaid Abdulatteef Enayatullah Alemari
IMM-5573-12

64 Oluwayemisi Ruth Oyewumi IMM-5574-12
65 Nidhi Sood IMM-5575-12
66 Sarafa Adetona Soyemi IMM-5576-12
67 Selma Elizabeth Malathi D'Souza IMM-5577-12
68 Hemantkumar Chhotalal Joshi IMM-5578-12
69 Ifeoluwa Dorcas Akintade IMM-5579-12
70 Tammy Patience Egwe IMM-5580-12
71 Sriram Raj Pande IMM-5581-12
72 Olusegun Olutobi Sobande IMM-5582-12
73 Pratap Sinha IMM-5583-12
74 Jacintha Victor IMM-5584-12
75 Esther Folashade Moronkeji IMM-5585-12
76 Emmanuel Onyedika Okpara IMM-5586-23
77 Adefemi Adetayo Adsina IMM-5590-12
78 Tigura Sankar Reddy IMM-5591-12
79 Jude Idemudia Okoh IMM-5592-12
80 Clifford Obiyo Ofurum IMM-5593-12
81 Asim Nasarullaha IMM-5594-12
82 Ada Chibuzor Emekoba IMM-5595-12
83 Ikechukwu Ufoeze IMM-5596-12
84 Henrykennedy Jide Onwuka IMM-5597-12
85 Farooq Akhtar IMM-5598-12
86 Oladunni Monsurat Akhtar IMM-5599-12
87 Olusola Kunle Egbesola IMM-5600-12
88 Victoria Zakka IMM-5602-12
89 Adeniran Olufemi Adeyemi IMM-5604-12
90 Augustine Olusegun Iiori IMM-5607-12
91 Michael Tamuno-Elekima Kio IMM-5608-12
92 William Suico IMM-5609-12
93 Emilson Paul Madrid IMM-5610-12
94 Oluwagbemileke Adewumi IMM-5619-12
95 Adesodun Kolawole Olabiran IMM-5622-12
96 Farida Hassan Goronga IMM-5623-12
97 Dennis Tamunoipirinye Minimah IMM-5625-12
98 Anthony Lun IMM-5626-12

99         Johannes Petrus Louis Van den berg
IMM-5627-12

100 Rasha Salsaa IMM-5628-12
101 Ali Mabrouk Ghaith IMM-5629-12
102 Ambareen Ahmed IMM-5630-12
103 Shashi Ramnarain IMM-5631-12
104 Mayurkumar Prafulchandra Patel IMM-5633-12
105 Vikram Joachim Arouza IMM-5634-12
106 Irene Akpoegberibo Imoukhuede IMM-5637-12
107 Kirti Wardhen Sharma IMM-5638-12
108 Hitesh Sehgal IMM-5639-12
109 John Ohiolere Unuigboje IMM-5640-12
110 Padamprasad Upadhyay IMM-5641-12
111 Edwin Magtanum Tejon IMM-5642-12
112 Hakim Uddeen IMM-5643-12
113 Hany Mohamed Ahmed Khamis IMM-5644-12
114 Constantino Arcabos Lumanlan IMM-5646-12
115 Adewale Michael Badmus IMM-5647-12
116 Sajid Abdur Rahim IMM-5648-12
117 John Owuike Iheme IMM-5649-12
118 Charles Chukwuka Oranyeli IMM-5650-12
119 Anthony Abu Ikpea IMM-5657-12
120 Olusola Adeola Akinola IMM-5658-12
121 Patrick Ikechukwu Igbokwe IMM-5659-12
122 Innocent Uchechukwu Mmuoh IMM-5660-12
123 Rasheed Akinkunmi Adigun IMM-5662-12
124 Ahmed Nasr El Din Fathalla Ahmed IMM-5663-12
125 Ayman Al-khatab IMM-5667-12
126 Ibilola Aina Aridegbe IMM-5671-12
127 Abiola Oladipupo Fatukasi IMM-5674-12
128 Tarig Abel Magid Khalid Ibrahim IMM-5675-12
129 Omagbitse Emmanuel Ayavoro IMM-5676-12
130 Valiya Gangadharan IMM-5677-12

131        Dipakkumar Dhirubhai (Dipak) Patel
IMM-5679-12

132        Ahmed Khaled Abdal Sadek Mohamed Mohamed
IMM-5680-12

133 Joshua Katebe Mwenya IMM-5681-12
134 Ambreen Ali IMM-5682-12
135 Christo Ludick IMM-5683-12
136 Ata Taher Abdul Aziz Ata IMM-5684-12
137 Jacques Ambrose Van Rensburg IMM-5686-12
138 Atique Ahmed Minhas IMM-5687-12
139 Gulamabbas Hassanali Chagani IMM-5688-12
140 Jignasa Dharmesh Desai IMM-5689-12
141 Mohammad Zubair IMM-5690-12
142 Sajeeda Murtadha Suleiman IMM-5691-12
143 Shereef Zaghloul IMM-5694-12
144 Isa Balarabe Salau IMM-5695-12
145 Rowland Ayodele Adeyemi IMM-5698-12
146 Nasreen Eisakhani IMM-5703-12
147 Ali Saadatpajouh IMM-5704-12
148 Amir Naraghizadeh IMM-5705-12
149 Moloud Faradjpour Tabrizi IMM-5706-12
150 Oluwaseyi Sunday Sowemimo IMM-5709-12
151 Khaled Ladki IMM-5712-12
152 Antonio Rios IMM-5716-12
153 Irene Allo Osamor IMM-5717-12
154 Esteban Macaraig Ramirez IMM-5718-12
155 Hiwot Gebremeskel Reda IMM-5719-12
156 Leila Dayan IMM-5723-12
157 Jorge Conrad Villacarlos IMM-5724-12
158 Ibe Godwin Egwuatuonwu IMM-5726-12
159 Samuel Walter Frederick IMM-5728-12
160 Sohail Akhtar Tiwana IMM-5730-12
161 Omolola Taiwo Segun-Idahor IMM-5731-12
162 Shahina Hanif IMM-5734-12
163 Celestina Uzoezi Ogba IMM-5735-12
164 Laeya (Laya) Moosaee IMM-5736-12
165 Omoverere Agarin IMM-5741-12
166 Seyed Sepher Saremi IMM-5778-12
167 Balraj Bhatt IMM-5779-12
168 Folake Lawal IMM-5781-12
169 Olufisayo Olayemi Dipeolu IMM-5783-12
170 Ebrima Njie IMM-5785-12
171 Hiam Nasrallah IMM-5866-12
172 Kambiz Kiamehr IMM-5867-12
173 Cherry Lee Chavez IMM-5869-12
174 Karim Salehi IMM-6030-12
175 Srividhya Rajagopaul IMM-6031-12
176 Sham M. J. Saadaldin IMM-6032-12
177 Fidelia Ometere Ofuje Ogoh IMM-6033-12
178 Wilbert Brako IMM-6034-12
179 Pat Eloka Onukwuli IMM-6036-12
180 Raymond Georges Ayaovi IMM-6467-12
181 Arturo Banez II Panaligan IMM-7388-12
182 Huda Mohammed Abdullaziz Al-Safar IMM-7389-12
183 Cherilyn Martinez IMM-7390-12
184 Samuel Aderemi Awoyinka IMM-7391-12
185 Ahmed Abdel Rahman Hashem Khalifa IMM-7393-12
186 Stephen Talugende IMM-7394-12
187 Moronke Olupero Bamgbala IMM-7395-12
188 Timur Ergashev IMM-7396-12
189 AHMED Zahid IMM-7983-12
190 RAHMAN Mahbubur IMM-7987-12
191 RAHMAN Mustafizur IMM-7988-12
192 GHOSIAL Tapan Kumar IMM-7990-12
193 KNATNANI Sunilkumar Monandas IMM-7991-12
194 TUTEJA Poonam IMM-7992-12
195 ZGHEIR Khalid IMM-7993-12
196 MANNAN Farzana IMM-7994-12
197 AMAL Boutrous IMM-8151-12
198 SAMIR Yaakoub IMM-8154-12
199 ALAA Al-Tae IMM-8156-12
200 ESSAM Saleh IMM-8158-12
201 SAMIR Yousif IMM-8166-12
202 LOUAY Wahbi IMM-8170-12
203 SHERIF Ghobrial IMM-8171-12
204 SAMIH Yehia IMM-8173-12
205 MAHA Yehia IMM-8175-12
206 KHALID Abdouni IMM-8176-12
207 BADER Kabbara IMM-8178-12
208 FOUAD Safi IMM-8180-12
209 ASHRAF Habash IMM-8184-12
210 RIMON Gaid IMM-8186-12
211 Ahmad Todd Sameh (Moh'd Ali) IMM-8377-12
212 Ramy Shaker IMM-8378-12
213 Topia Olutoyin IMM-8379-12
214 Desai Hitesh Piyush IMM-8380-12
215 Farzana Begum IMM-8381-12
216 Veena Kumari Kaushal IMM-8382-12
217 Kishore Sangani IMM-8383-12
218 Ozair Khan IMM-8384-12
219 Ramir Varon IMM-8385-12
220 Suvra Sengupta Datta IMM-8386-12
221 Vijar Kumar Saini IMM-8388-12
222 Aamir Fareed Khan IMM-8390-12
223 Wael Mukalled IMM-8391-12
224 Mohammad Ali IMM-8392-12
225 Khalid Mahmood IMM-8393-12
226 Shehzard Ahmad IMM-8394-12
227 Amin Afridi IMM-8395-12
228 Muhammad Azam Khan IMM-8397-12
229 Olorunjube Ojomo IMM-8398-12
230 Md Talukder IMM-8399-12
231 Sean Mathews IMM-8401-12
232 Gagandeep Sidhu IMM-8402-12
233 Shaun Gleen Bernados IMM-8403-12
234 Qing Wei IMM-8570-12

235 Md. Rashed Ali Khan IMM-8574-12
236 Shatha Saeed IMM-8575-12
237 Abed Saleh IMM-8577-12
238 Asif Zaman IMM-8580-12
239 Tammam Al-Sarraj IMM-8718-12
240 Kakuyo Kagumaho IMM-8803-12
241 Gill Mahanveer Kaur IMM-8804-12
242 Phatra Rupinder Singh IMM-8806-12
243 Sandhu Paramjiti Singh IMM-8807-12
244 Kushan Mandeep IMM-8809-12
245 Aomreore Atinuke IMM-8810-12
246 Abbas Shoaib IMM-8811-12
247 Olubobokun Samuel IMM-8812-12
248 Sarrosa Joel Landazabal IMM-8813-12
249 Casseeram Comalprasad IMM-8814-12
250 Urama Benedict IMM-8815-12
251 Tamang Jay Kumar Lopchan IMM-8817-12
252 Kerim Ragia Abdel IMM-8818-12
253 Villahermosa Pamela IMM-8819-12
254 Dsouza Keith IMM-8820-12
255 Taleb Mustapha IMM-8821-12
256 Hamed Mohammad IMM-8822-12
257 Albheisi Ismail IMM-8824-12
258 Lorenzo Luzviminda Paz-San IMM-8860-12
259 Luna Immanuel IMM-8861-12
260 Oyeniran Gbade Oluwayomi IMM-8864-12
261 Syeda Zahra IMM-8867-12
262 Idowu Olufunmilola IMM-8870-12
263 Engelbrecht Jan-Michael IMM-8873-12
264 John Anil IMM-8875-12
265 Lamidi Adetunji IMM-8881-12
266 Abdullah Zead IMM-8882-12
267 Mehmood Mubashir IMM-8883-12
268 Eideh Shadi IMM-8885-12
269 Braudo Colette Carmel Deanna IMM-8887-12
270 Akash Mohamad IMM-9125-12
271 Arafeh Rim IMM-9126-12
272 Farahini Farhang Jalali IMM-9127-12
273 Ismail Zakaria IMM-9128-12
274 Tayarah Iyad IMM-9129-12
275 Khetarpal Shivani IMM-9130-12
276 Masri Nisreen IMM-9133-12
277 Al-Droubi Mohamad Moussalam IMM-9134-12
278 Ahmad Zeina Ali IMM-9136-12
279 Atasi Kasem IMM-9137-12
280 Charanbir Sidhu IMM-9332-12
281 Nestor Guillermo IMM-9335-12
282 Paramjit Aulakh IMM-9338-12
283 Marjan Merat IMM-9339-12
284 Sameh William Melek Azab IMM-9341-12
285 Rajneet Kaur Sandhu IMM-9342-12
286 Zaman Ashraf IMM-9343-12
287 Omar Nazhat IMM-9347-12
288 Jose Johnny Jose IMM-9351-12
289 Amritpal Dhaliwal IMM-9391-12
290 Ashutosh Nath IMM-9393-12
291 Ujiro Bovi IMM-9395-12
292 Abiodun Seriki IMM-9398-12
293 Chinyere Amaechina IMM-9400-12
294 Ahmed Al-Quzweny IMM-9401-12
295 Siddarth Kapila IMM-9402-12
296 Gervase Oliver Percus IMM-9405-12
297 Drusilla Mukasa IMM-9407-12
298 Farhanaz Beg IMM-9410-12
299 Abdulaziz Mohammed IMM-9411-12
300 Joel Batarina Primero IMM-9412-12
301 Waseem Al-Shadeedi IMM-9415-12
302 Ester Wairimu Kamunya IMM-9417-12
303 Janak Thapa IMM-9419-12
304 Ahmed Mohamed IMM-9421-12
305 Manraj Kaur Bhullar IMM-9423-12
306 Manu Sobti IMM-9427-12
307 Rekha Prasad IMM-9428-12
308 Annu Malhotra IMM-9429-12
309 Ella Olivier IMM-9430-12
310 Maher Jadallah IMM-9433-12
311 Waqas Hussain Tiwana IMM-9434-12
312 Antowan Hanna Shehata Samaan IMM-9438-12
313 Tendal Chikuku IMM-9440-12
314 Mahabub Sadik IMM-9442-12
315 Temitope Adenike Awe IMM-9444-12
316 Ahmad Golzadeh IMM-9531-12
317 Meynard Yuzon Gloria IMM-9533-12
318 Abu Saleh Md. Shabbir IMM-9534-12
319 Bhawna Parbhakar IMM-9535-12
320 Jaswinder Singh Rooprai IMM-9536-12
321 SYED MUHAMMAD SHAMSHAD AKHTAR IMM-9635-12
322 SYED MUHAMMAD IRSHAD AKHTAR IMM-9636-12
323 Muhammad Abbas Khan IMM-9637-12
324 SYED MUHAMMAD DILSHAD AKHTAR IMM-9638-12
325 Ghazak Jamil IMM-9646-12
326 SYED MUHAMMAD NAUSHAD AKHTAR IMM-9648-12
327 Ravinder Bilkhu IMM-10421-12
328 Amany Abdel Malek IMM-10415-12
329 Paul Olukayode Solola IMM-10416-12
330 Rahul Taneja IMM-10418-12
331 Chi-Ying Luo IMM-10419-12
332 Kirtan Varasia IMM-10420-12
333 Haleema Jihad IMM-10423-12
334 Hosam Bashandy IMM-10425-12
335 Aseel Shawqi IMM-10428-12
336 Anela Nazir IMM-10429-12

337 Gopala Pillai Sreekumar IMM-10430-12
338 Hafiz Muhammad Nadeem Majeed IMM-10431-12
339 Rolla Abou Hasera IMM-10432-12
340 Ravi Srinivasa IMM-10434-12
341 Wissam Ambriss IMM-10798-12
342 Alison Wilson IMM-10800-12
343 Abdelkarim Al-Raie IMM-10801-12
344 Ala Aldakak IMM-10803-12
345 Virk Simratjit IMM-11006-12
346 Ahmed Munawwar IMM-11008-12
347 Afshar Mohammad H.M. IMM-11011-12
348 Bahari Maha IMM-11012-12
349 Wajih Abbasi IMM-11355-12
350 PERVEZ AMIR Khambati IMM-11356-12
351 Seyi Awofeso IMM-11360-12
352 Hani Al Soufi IMM-11362-12
353 Samatha Katz IMM-11369-12
354 Kifah Samara IMM-11373-12
355 MYRNA Aouad IMM-11374-12

356        Elahee-Dinaully Roukayya Nessah Rassool
IMM-11579-12

357 Bissoondoyal Karuna Devi IMM-11585-12
358 Ping Sam Pong Sum IMM-11587-12
359 Aubeeluck Gunneeta IMM-11588-12
360 Appadoo Sarvapalli Balram IMM-11590-12
361 Dumur Toosmawtee IMM-11591-12
362 Samaye Monahar IMM-11592-12

363        MARIE-CLAIRE CHUNG CHIN KIOW YUEN ZING
IMM-11594-12

364 Sang Fong Fong Ng Wing IMM-11596-12

365        VERONIQUE MARJORIE LISEBETH AH LEUNG
IMM-11599-12

366 Ahyen Ng Tin Yun IMM-11600-12
367 Drioux Dolly IMM-11601-12
368 Muttur Bibi Rehana IMM-11602-12
369 Kin Suzy Chan IMM-11605-12
370 Thaman Rashmi IMM-11606-12
371 Brar Sawrnjit IMM-11607-12
372 Khon Li Live Chew Chong Tet IMM-11609-12
373 Aubeeluck Indira IMM-11610-12
374 Khan Farooq IMM-11611-12
375 Thomas Joseph Henrio IMM-11612-12
376 Peerbuccus Tahyab IMM-11626-12
377 Aumeer Komulpersad IMM-11627-12
378 Yelim Mary Joan Ng IMM-11631-12
379 Fat Marie Luisa Seu Yane Ah IMM-11633-12
380 Hok Men Kong Li Chen IMM-11634-12
381 Chin Lee Foon Fok Soy IMM-11651-12
382 Dhany Satcheedanand Singh IMM-11652-12
383 DEEPAK CHOPRA IMM-11665-12
384 HARITH AHMAD IMM-11666-12
385 SAIMA QAYYUM IMM-11670-12
386 HANAA ABD ELMALAK ISKANDER HANA IMM-11671-12
387 YASSER IBRAHIM HASSANEIN IMM-11676-12
388 ASHRAF KAMEL MOUSSA KAMEL IMM-11677-12
389 YAZID OUALI IMM-11678-12
390 RANDA HANI HASSAN MOST AHMED IMM-11679-12
391 MAGED NASSIF MORCOS RAFAT IMM-11680-12
392 REFAAT REFAAT KAMEL IMM-11681-12
393 KARIM MOHAMED ABDEL MOHSEN IMM-11682-12

394        MOHAMED ABDEL-KADER ABDEL-ATIF NADA
IMM-11683-12

395 NASHWA HELMY IMAM MORSY IMM-11684-12
396 NERMIN AHMED ALI M AL SHAIBA IMM-11685-12
397 MERVETTE MOHAMED ELHAMY HUSSEIN IMM-11686-12
398 ATEF SABRY MORGAN BESHAI IMM-11687-12
399 MINA SAMIR GAD BEN EL SABAGH IMM-11688-12
400 ALAA MOHAMED EL SALAMOUNY IMM-11691-12
401 MAGED MAGDY ISAAC MIKHAIL IMM-11692-12

402 SHAHEER FARAG SELIM FARAG IMM-11694-12

403 MAURICE GUIRGUIS IBRAHIM GHOBRIAL  IMM-11697-12

404 CHOUCRALLAH ABOU-SAMRA IMM-11698-12
405 HAZEM HAMDY AWAD EL-ADLY IMM-11699-12
406 CHRISTINE NAGAH EMIL MEKHAIL IMM-11702-12
407 LAMA ABDO IMM-11704-12
408 BALJINDER SINGH MANDER IMM-11705-12

409        MOHAMED ABDEL RAOUF ABDEL AZIZ SHARSHAR
IMM-11706-12

410 Dincecco Nevio IMM-11767-12
411 Jhita Lakhbir Singh IMM-11769-12
412 CANCEL JENNY IMM-11771-12
413 BIMAL KUMAR PRAMANIK IMM-11772-12
414 AMWER RAFIQUE IMM-11773-12
415 CHUKWUEBUKA OFOR IMM-11774-12

416        Khaled Mahmoud Lotfy Mahmoud Selim
IMM-12857-12

417 Carol Zouein IMM-12858-12
418 Delman Ali Ahmed IMM-12859-12
419 Rupinder Kaur IMM-12860-12
420 Eric Cajetan Dominique Fernandes IMM-12861-12
421 Ayman Adel Goubran Girgis IMM-12864-12
422 Malini Varma Beeponee IMM-12865-12
423 Olugbenga Taiwo IMM-12866-12
424 Alexander Anda IMM-12867-12
425 Ammar Falih IMM-12870-12
426 Adham El Sayed IMM-12871-12
427 AMIR Ehsan IMM-12930-12
428 ELUYINKA Awoyelu IMM-12933-12
429 BATBAYAR Erdenebayar IMM-12934-12
430 Hope Chijioke Amadi IMM-12937-12
431 GURJANT Sidhu IMM-12941-12
432 Tammy Jalboukh IMM-103-13
433 Vidhu Khanna IMM-104-13
434 Fatemeh Ghoulamipoor-Baroogh IMM-105-13
435 Geukjoon Park IMM-106-13
436 Sundeep Mehra IMM-107-13
437 Paul Thompson IMM-108-13
438 Mdna Elsayed IMM-109-13
439 Sung-Lung Shih IMM-110-13
440 Shadhon Kumar Ray IMM-112-13
441 Bassam Mura IMM-114-13
442 Kaweepoj Phacharintankul IMM-116-13
443 Kesiena Akpojetavwo IMM-281-13
444 Saulat Masood IMM-283-13
445 Bahman Farokhi IMM-284-13
446 Tamer Kirolos IMM-286-13
447 Maziar Nematpour IMM-287-13
448 Margaret Ralph Cabral IMM-288-13
449 Fatma Mahmoud Mangoud El Sadany IMM-289-13
450 Edha Lilly D'Souza IMM-290-13
451 Lorriane D'Souza IMM-291-13
452 Lani Louise Hardy IMM-292-13
453 Barbhuiya Md Abdul Jalil IMM-378-13
454 Eldin Serag Eldin Adel Serag IMM-379-13
455 Sujan Naveen Bahar IMM-380-13
456 Bola Raywant Kaur IMM-381-13
457 Sabet Iman IMM-382-13
458 Burbridge Craig Garth IMM-384-13
459 Barua Kiran IMM-385-13
460 Rahman A-K-M Mizanur IMM-388-13
461 Ayobami Olubiya IMM-486-13
462 Omar Ahmed Esmaeel IMM-668-13
463 SRIRAMACHANDRAN Srinivasan IMM-669-13
464 SHAHREZA Shahryar Niroomand IMM-804-13
465 SONIA PARVINDER KAUR SOHAL IMM-1101-13

466        VINCENTE EUGENIO ILLINGWORTH ASHTON
IMM-1103-12

467 Karroum Yasser Bou IMM-1105-13
468 Tabch Amira IMM-1107-13
469 El-Omari Tarek IMM-1108-13
470 KHALIL Ahsan Mohiuddin IMM-1428-13
471 Ziauddin Qazi IMM-1769-13
472 MICHAEL EDWARD AZIZ Sawiris IMM-1927-13
473 Sanjaykumar Patel IMM-2096-13
474 Christian Hubert Gravelean IMM-2097-13
475 Meena Kashyap IMM-2098-13
476 Ranjit Singh Padda IMM-2100-13
477 Sushma Sharma IMM-2103-13
478 Kulwinder Kaur Nanglu IMM-2104-13
479 Narinder Jeet Jassi IMM-2107-13
480 Amanjit Kaur Padda IMM-2109-13
481 Harjeet Bala Heer IMM-2110-13
482 Rakesh Kumar Verma IMM-2112-13
483 Pankaj Kumar Sharma IMM-2113-13
484 Gurpiar Singh Dhami IMM-2114-13
485 Bhupinder Bhushan Dembla IMM-2132-13
486 Varinder Singh Sohal IMM-2133-13
487 Harjinder Singh Bhardwaj IMM-2134-13
488 Rupinder Kaur IMM-2135-13
489 Tricia Murray IMM-2313-13
490 Enayat Boostanabadi IMM-2471-13
491 Mehra Jalili IMM-2472-13
492 Aroub Soubh IMM-2473-13
493 TEJASKUMAR JITENDRABHAI PATEL IMM-2560-13
494 PARISA SADRI IMM-2562-13

Lead Habibollah ABEDI IMM-8669-12

1 DABAL, MARAL IMM-8636-12
2 FATHIRAD, ATABAK IMM-8644-12
3 GHIGHANI, MASOUMEH IMM-8646-12
4 MOGHADDAM, NASSIM SAMADI IMM-8653-12
5 AGHILI, SEYED MAHDI IMM-8655-12
6 ROUHANI, SHOLEH IMM-8657-12
7 RASHTI, KOBRA TAJADDODITALAB IMM-8659-12
8 POURAMINI, MOHAMMAD IMM-8661-12
9 MAHJOUBI, PARSA IMM-8662-12

10 AHMADI, NAJMEH IMM-8671-12
11 BASHIR RAD, ALIREZA IMM-8672-12
12 MAGHDOUR MASHHOUR, ALI IMM-8674-12
13 HASSANZADEHNADERI, ABTIN IMM-8675-12
14 NIKOUKAR, MEHRNAZ IMM-8679-12
15 CHEGINI, GOSHTAB IMM-8688-12
16 MELIKA NASSIRI IMM-9094-12
17 ALIREZA SHENAVAEI IMM-9095-12
18 ZAHRA GHANADIAN IMM-9465-12
19 ROSHANAK LARY IMM-9914-12
20 REZA AZARI MOHEBI IMM-9915-12
21 SHAHLA AMRI SAROUKOLAEI IMM-9916-12
22 FOROUZAN POURDAYLAMI IMM-9917-12
23 EBRAHIM GHORESHI IMM-9918-12
24 FARAHNAZ MATALEBI IMM-9919-12
25 AREZU EGHTEDARI IMM-9920-12
26 SAEED NAJARANTOUS IMM-9921-12
27 SANAZ RAZMDIDEH IMM-11525-12
28 SHAHRAM KAHKOUEE IMM-11526-12
29 SYLVANA SEYFAIE IMM-11527-12
30 OSSIANI MARNANI ALI IMM-11528-12
31 PARISA NOROUZI IMM-11796-12
32 IRAJ TAKI IMM-11798-12
33 MOHSEN IMANI IMM-11800-12
34 SHAHRIAR MINAEE IMM-11801-12
35 AZADEH MAZAHERI TEHRANI IMM-11802-12
36 SHAHRAM TAHERI IMM-11803-12
37 ALIREZA SALIMIKHAH IMM-11806-12
38 KAVEH IRANZADEH BOOKANI IMM-11808-12
39 Rezaei, Ali IMM-12460-12
40 Saneei, Davood IMM-12461-12
41 Miripour, Arsham IMM-12462-12
42 RAEISI NOUR-MOHAMMAD IMM-852-13
43 FARZAD KHODSIANI IMM-855-13
44 KAMBOD EGHBAI TALAB IMM-857-13

Lead: Maria Sari Teresa Borja AUSTRIA IMM-10307-12

1 FAIZAN NAKHUDA IMM-5265-12
2 JAGDEEP HARIRAM MALHOTRA IMM-5267-12
3 WAFA JAWAD ABID IMM-5268-12
4 SARATHI BARDHAN IMM-5270-12
5 WISAM JASIM HILO IMM-5271-12
6 NURREIN MWATSAHU IMM-5272-12
7 SILPA SUMANTH TORANALA IMM-5273-12
8 MAEREG TAFERE ADHANOM IMM-5276-12
9 GRACE GHANTOUS IMM-5277-12

10 RESHIMA ANJUM IMM-5278-12
11 BAKER BASIL AL-BAHRI IMM-5279-12
12 JAGMOHAN SINGH IMM-5281-12
13 GEORGE REMON KASER IMM-5282-12
14 PAUL CRAAN IMM-5284-12
15 CHOWDHURY SHAKURUL (SOHER) ISLAM IMM-5288-12
16 SHAHANA AFROSE CHOWDHURY IMM-5289-12
17 SIMON HODKINSON IMM-5290-12
18 NG SIEW KUAN IMM-5291-12
19 AUXEELIYA JESUDOSS IMM-5293-12
20 SUFIAN KHALIL ALOTAIBI IMM-5294-12
21 FATAI THOMAS ALAO IMM-5295-12
22 SANTHI KUMARAN IMM-5296-12
23 DHEFAF MOHAMED MOHSIN IMM-5297-12
24 DIEMI ESTHER AKPOTOR IMM-5298-12
25 COLIN VAZ IMM-5300-12
26 GODSON CHUKWUEMEKA OKONWO IMM-5302-12
27 JOKOTADE CATHERINE AGBONYIN IMM-5303-12
28 RAMI AHMED FATHALLA IMM-5354-12
29 LANIE RAMOS IMM-5359-12
30 LORNA HARRIS IMM-5360-12
31 MICHAEL NSOBANI IMM-5361-12
32 MUHAMMAD FAHEEM JAMIL IMM-5362-12
33 SHEILA IFEOMA ONWUGHARA IMM-5363-12
34 HASSAN Y. HAMID IMM-5366-12
35 OLGA LOBO IMM-5367-12
36 MARWAN KACHEF IMM-5368-12
37 AHMAD A.H. MAH IMM-5369-12
38 AJAYI IFEDAYO FRANCIS IMM-5370-12
39 JOE KWABENA ASIEDU IMM-5372-12
40 GADA K. DHEA IMM-5424-12
41 Gursewak Singh Pannu IMM-8907-12
42 Pawan Jyoti Ghumman IMM-8908-12
43 Ravinder Singh Tamber IMM-8909-12
44 Reema Atwal IMM-8910-12
45 Parminder Jit Singh Gill IMM-8911-12
46 Rupinderjeet Kaur Ghuman IMM-8912-12
47 Sakinder Singh Gill IMM-8913-12
48 Rashpal Kaur Chahal IMM-8914-12
49 Neel Money Sharma IMM-8915-12
50 Rashpaul Singh Bhamra IMM-8916-12
51 Devinderjit Singh IMM-8917-12
52 Sardarjit Singh Aulakh IMM-8918-12
53 Usama Wasfy Roumany Gendy IMM-8919-12
54 Mohammed Salim-Ul-Mukim IMM-8920-12
55 Hargopal Singh IMM-8921-12
56 Rashpal Kaur IMM-8922-12
57 Prabhjit Kaur Brar IMM-8923-12
58 Rajdawinder Kaur Sandhu IMM-8924-12
59 Davinder Pal Singh Sapra IMM-8926-12
60 Prem Kumar IMM-8927-12
61 Paramjit Kaur Sandhu IMM-8928-12
62 Alpana Jayanand Rathod IMM-8930-12
63 Arpana Behla IMM-8931-12
64 Amir Shahzad Chaudhry IMM-8932-12
65 Harmandeep Kaur Dhaliwal IMM-8933-12
66 Syed Masood Ali IMM-8934-12
67 Vijay Kumar Thakur IMM-8935-12
68 Sukhmit Kaur Boparai IMM-8936-12
69 Aneet Pal Kaur IMM-8938-12
70 Twinklejit Kaur IMM-8939-12
71 Parminder Singh Randhawa IMM-8940-12
72 Anu Sharma IMM-8941-12
73 Gurmeet Kaur Loomba IMM-8942-12
74 Ajay Pal Singh Bhurji IMM-8943-12
75 Rahul Mukand IMM-8944-12
76 Satpal Singh IMM-8945-12
77 Amandeep Kaur Randhawa IMM-8947-12
78 Jagpal Kaur Sandhu IMM-8948-12
79 Deepak Issar IMM-8949-12
80 Sandeepkumar Amrarlal Patel IMM-8950-12
81 Puja Katyal IMM-8951-12
82 Ruplesh Kaur Mann IMM-8952-12
83 Jasjit Singh Ghatahra IMM-8953-12
84 Bhupinder Singh Sangatpuri IMM-8954-12
85 Narinderjit Singh Dhaliwal IMM-8955-12
86 Avinash Chander Pathak IMM-8956-12
87 Rajpal Kaur Brar IMM-8957-12
88 Harjinder Kaur Heer IMM-8958-12
89 Sandeep Kumar Vohra IMM-8959-12
90 Harpreet Singh Tung IMM-8960-12
91 Mahanbir Singh Randhawa IMM-8961-12
92 Inderpreet Kaur IMM-8962-12
93 Hussain Fida IMM-8963-12
94 Jagdish Kaur Sohi IMM-8964-12
95 Surinder Kaur IMM-8965-12
96 Devinder Pal Singh Pawar IMM-8966-12
97 Amit Puri IMM-8967-12
98 Clayton Baptist IMM-8968-12
99 Sanjeev Kumar Bedi IMM-8969-12

100 Dhiraj Nangia IMM-8970-12
101 Satwant Kaur Kaloty IMM-8971-12
102 Syed Navid Hasan Bokhari IMM-8972-12
103 Sukhbir Mann IMM-8973-12
104 Clement Udo Achor IMM-8974-12
105 Lakhwinder Kaur Saran IMM-8975-12
106 Kulwinder Singh Gill IMM-8976-12
107 Obaidur Rahman IMM-8977-12
108 Jagjit Singh Dhaliwal IMM-8979-12
109 Prabhjot Kaur Chahal IMM-8980-12
110 Sukhbir Kaur Randhawa IMM-8981-12
111 Rupinder Kaur Bajwa IMM-8982-12
112 Damanjeet Kaur Bhangu IMM-8983-12
113 Ravinder Kaur Kang IMM-8984-12
114 Amiteshwar Singh Chandok IMM-8985-12
115 Gurwinderbir Kaur IMM-8986-12
116 Adeel Ajaz IMM-8988-12
117 Bandral Manjunath Reddy IMM-8989-12
118 Randhir Singh Sagoo IMM-8990-12
119 Syed Asim Ali IMM-8991-12
120 Balbir Kaur Sandhu IMM-8993-12
121 Sawinder Singh Sandhu IMM-8996-12
122 Sher Singh Malhotra IMM-8997-12
123 Bhupinder Singh Kainth IMM-9001-12
124 Manjit Kaur Sandhu IMM-9002-12
125 Satinder Kaur Babrah IMM-9003-12
126 Rupinder Kaur Dhillon IMM-9005-12
127 Harwinder Kaur Baidwan IMM-9006-12
128 Shereen Adwer Abdel Meseeh Louka IMM-9021-12
129 Dimple Jha IMM-9026-12
130 Rajveer Kaur Bumrah IMM-9046-12
131 Baljeet Singh Batth IMM-9063-12
132 Satpal Singh Sidhu IMM-9068-12
133 Sodhi Singh Jhajj IMM-9070-12
134 Davinder Singh Bajwa IMM-9072-12
135 Jagmit Singh IMM-9074-12
136 Jiten Chopra IMM-9077-12
137 Kamal Kumar Badhan IMM-9080-12
138 Lalita Sharma IMM-9082-12
139 Gurinderjit Singh Pawar IMM-9083-12
140 Manpreet Kaur Sandhu IMM-9081-12
141 Puri Rajni IMM-9204-12
142 Lin Yih Liang IMM-9205-12
143 Justin Matthew Borja Austria IMM-9206-12
144 Jagmander Singh Sran IMM-9209-12
145 Harold Rabeca Rebuldela IMM-9210-12
146 Harjit Kaur IMM-9212-12
147 Krishnadas Thindiyath IMM-9213-12
148 Laveet Kaur Gill IMM-9215-12
149 Baljinder Kaur Aulakh IMM-9216-12
150 Sara Saleh IMM-9218-12
151 Rana Asim Sarwar IMM-9220-12
152 Sukhraj Singh Gill IMM-9221-12
153 Hassan Bahij Rahal IMM-9222-12
154 Manjit Kaur Gill IMM-9223-12
155 Amandeep Kaur Gill IMM-9224-12
156 Harbrinder Singh Chandi IMM-9225-12
157 Kabal Aingh IMM-9246-12
158 Tejpal Singh Sandhu IMM-9247-12
159 Sukhpal Veer Singh Mrahard IMM-9248-12
160 Sandeep Kaur IMM-9249-12
161 Gurpreet Singh Kainth IMM-9250-12
162 Parveen Sharma IMM-9251-12
163 Turna Navdeep Singh IMM-9265-12
164 Amandeep Kaur Gabi IMM-9266-12
165 Molokwu Azikiwe IMM-9267-12
166 Rajwinder Kaur Tatla IMM-9268-12
167 Bhupinderpal Singh Chumber IMM-9269-12
168 Zeyad Ahmed IMM-9270-12
169 Jagmohan Singh Bawa IMM-9271-12
170 Muller Sobhy Adeeb Matta IMM-9272-12
171 Peerzada Nusrat Aijaz IMM-9273-12
172 Manjeet Kumar Vishvkarma IMM-9274-12
173 Eseine Akhirebulu IMM-9275-12
174 Sylvester Okworu IMM-9276-12
175 Lalit Kumar Sharma IMM-9277-12
176 Mary Nassif IMM-9278-12
177 Kawaljit Zande IMM-9279-12
178 Karamjeet Kaur Sangha IMM-9280-12
179 Bal Rajwinder Singh IMM-9281-12
180 Fareedullah Fareedullah IMM-9282-12
181 Santhoshi Nallur Haleshappa IMM-9283-12
182 Tariq Ahmed Patoli IMM-9284-12
183 Harmandeep Singh Sandhu IMM-9285-12
184 Sukhbir Kaur Aulakh IMM-9286-12
185 Devinder Mohan Kaushal IMM-9288-12
186 Modaber Ahmed Khan IMM-9289-12
187 Vaneeta Mitul Mehta IMM-9290-12
188 Ekta Singh Bhupal IMM-9291-12
189 Maher Fayek Abd El Malek IMM-9292-12
190 Navdeep Singh Masoun IMM-9293-12
191 Monika Mengi IMM-9294-12
192 Surinder Pal Singh Multani IMM-9295-12
193 Rajwant Singh Sohi IMM-9296-12
194 Narinder Kaur Birdi IMM-9297-12
195 Amarjit Kaur Brar IMM-9298-12
196 Parveen Kumar Singla IMM-9299-12
197 Amritpal Kaur Gill IMM-9300-12
198 Amanpreet Kaur Manesh IMM-9301-12
199 Maher Al-Hasswy IMM-9302-12
200 Balwinder Singh Dhillon IMM-9303-12

201 Hartaj Singh Sidhu IMM-9305-12
202 Baljinder Kaur Gill IMM-9306-12
203 Rajinder Kaur Kahlon IMM-9307-12
204 Yashpal Kaur Cheema IMM-9308-12
205 Dhillon Jaswinder Kaur IMM-9309-12
206 Gurcharan Singh Saggu IMM-9310-12
207 Baljit Singh Jandu IMM-9311-12
208 Gurmail Singh Madahar IMM-9312-12
209 Jasanjeet Kaur Sishu IMM-9313-12
210 Rupinder Kaur Bhoi IMM-9314-12
211 Kiran Kumar Nangunoori IMM-9315-12
212 Kamaljeet Kaur Hundal IMM-9316-12
213 Avtar Singh IMM-9317-12
214 Pushvinder Kaur Khokhar IMM-9318-12
215 Baldev Singh Kahlon IMM-9319-12
216 Mandeep Kaur Sidhu IMM-9320-12
217 Inderpal Kaur Johal IMM-9321-12
218 Amarjit Singh Bhinder IMM-9322-12
219 Taranjeet Kaur Sethi IMM-9323-12
220 Surinder Pal Singh Kaler IMM-9326-12
221 Gamal Said M. H. Abu Daken IMM-9327-12
222 Baljit Singh IMM-9328-12
223 Gurmeet Kaur Dhillon IMM-9329-12
224 Dalbir Singh Sadiora IMM-9330-12
225 Kirandeep Singh Preet IMM-9331-12
226 Mandeep Singh Bilkhu IMM-9336-12
227 Gurdeep Singh Sekhon IMM-9337-12
228 Naveed Sarwar Rana IMM-9340-12
229 Ajaypal Singh Multani IMM-9344-12
230 Harminder Singh IMM-9345-12
231 Kaur Satpal IMM-9346-12
232 Baldev Singh Pandher IMM-9348-12
233 Gagandeep Kaur Rai IMM-9349-12
234 Stephen Baptist IMM-9350-12
235 Akshra Kumari IMM-9352-12
236 Rangaswamy Jayaprakash IMM-9353-12
237 Korba Alakhras Shafik IMM-9354-12
238 Harbans Singh Jhajj IMM-10248-12
239 Nabila Rais IMM-10249-12

240        Eman Abd El Razek Mohamed Abd El Razek
IMM-10250-12

241 Chetan Singh Bisht IMM-10251-12
242 Vinay Sharma IMM-10252-12
243 Farhana Saeed IMM-10253-12
244 Jagjit Singh Hundal IMM-10254-12
245 Sukhdeep Kaur Sekhon IMM-10255-12
246 Ashfa Saeed IMM-10256-12
247 Emmanuel Ademola Adegboye IMM-10257-12
248 Davinder Kaur Loi IMM-10258-12
249 Sameh Sizostris Mikhail IMM-10259-12
250 Sujata Mahal IMM-10260-12
251 Njoud Haddad IMM-10261-12
252 Clifford Raymond Pereira IMM-10262-12

253        Ussama Francis Kamel Rezkalla Megaly
IMM-10263-12

254 Harpal Singh IMM-10264-12
255 Parmjit Singh Kackkar IMM-10265-12
256 Abdulkader Alshaar IMM-10266-12
257 Bhangu Manjeet Kaur IMM-10267-12
258 Harminder Kaur Hallan IMM-10268-12
259 Farah Ali IMM-10269-12
260 Pardeep Dhawan IMM-10270-12
261 Singh Darshan IMM-10271-12
262 Raminderjit Singh Minhas IMM-10272-12
263 Muhammed Bilal IMM-10273-12
264 Mamdouh Louis Samaan Shenoda IMM-10274-12
265 Masoud Gaffarian Asl IMM-10275-12
266 Jujhar Singh Sagoo IMM-10276-12
267 Rajwant Kaur Bhangu IMM-10277-12
268 Jhand Surinder Singh IMM-10278-12
269 Baljit Kaur Randhawa IMM-10279-12
270 Harjit Kaur Chohan IMM-10284-12
271 Gurdit Singh Sandhu IMM-10285-12
272 Basma Khalid Maged IMM-10286-12
273 Ashwani Kumar Bakshi IMM-10287-12
274 Inderbir Kaur Randhawa IMM-10289-12
275 Ritu Attri IMM-10290-12
276 Harpal Singh Randhawa IMM-10293-12
277 Mohammad Junaid Aziz IMM-10294-12
278 Vani Saini IMM-10295-12
279 Mukhvir Singh Badesha IMM-10296-12
280 Manjit Kaur Gill IMM-10298-12
281 Khaled Abdulfattah M. Al-Alusi IMM-10299-12
282 Titus Terhemba Agbecha IMM-10300-12
283 Jasbir Singh Khangura IMM-10301-12
284 Jagjit Singh Kainth IMM-10303-12
285 Wilson Lo Uy IMM-10304-12
286 Jokotade Catherine Agbonyin IMM-10305-12
287 Santokh Singh Sehmbi IMM-10308-12
288 Sher Singh Toorey [Sher Singh(2)] IMM-10310-12
289 Athman Salim Mwinyi IMM-10311-12
290 Naomi Eileen Garcia Tejero IMM-10312-12
291 Ranjeet Kaur IMM-10313-12
292 Chowdhury Shakurul (Sohel) Islam IMM-10314-12
293 Saeed Ahmed IMM-10316-12
294 Gulnaz Cyrus Mondegarian IMM-10317-12
295 Elizabeth Legaspi IMM-10318-12
296 Riaz Ahmed IMM-10319-12
297 Thaer Yousif Naom IMM-10320-12
298 Hameeduddin Ali IMM-10321-12
299 Jesus F. Dutong IMM-10323-12
300 Syed Muhammad Naved Ali IMM-10324-12
301 Rami Ahmed Fathalla Moustafa IMM-10327-12
302 Lin Zheng IMM-10328-12
303 Ng Siew Kuan IMM-10329-12
304 Godson Chukwuemeka Okokkwo IMM-10331-12
305 Harjap Singh IMM-10332-12

306        Dina Nour El Din Abdel Aziz Abdel Rahman
IMM-10333-12

307 Amandeep Kaur IMM-10334-12
308 Ibrahim El Hajj IMM-10335-12
309 Hassan Yousif Hamid IMM-10336-12
310 Youland Chamas IMM-10337-12
311 Claudine Stephenson IMM-10338-12
312 Ahmad A. H. Mah IMM-10342-12
313 Krithika Manoharan Devanand IMM-10346-12
314 Ogareet Khoury IMM-10348-12
315 Muthukumar Sudhakar IMM-10350-12
316 Mayaz Al Dalal IMM-10351-12
317 Cheong Yuen Foong IMM-10353-12
318 Lada Yzgiaev IMM-10356-12
319 Le Quoc Cuong IMM-10358-12
320 Josan Arvinder Jeet Kaur IMM-10360-12
321 Gurjinder Kaur Dang IMM-10361-12
322 Arvinder Kumar Gumber IMM-10362-12
323 Parminderjit Kaur Bains IMM-10363-12
324 Kanwaljit Kaur Chahal IMM-10364-12
325 Geoffrey Ezepue IMM-10368-12
326 Mukarram Bhagat IMM-10369-12
327 Baljeet Kaur Aujla IMM-10370-12
328 Vikram Karthick Ragupathy IMM-10373-12
329 Jagraj Singh Kaul IMM-10374-12
330 Bajwa Harjeet Kaur IMM-10375-12
331 Sarbjit Kaur Toor IMM-10378-12
332 Avtar Dingh Khaira IMM-10381-12
333 Parminder Singh Mangat IMM-10382-12
334 Tejpreet Singh Pannu IMM-10386-12
335 Gurvinder Kaur IMM-10389-12
336 Arvinder Kaur Soray IMM-10392-12

337        RIZALINA VILLAFUERTE ROSALES v. MCI
IMM-10516-12

338 REMONDA YOUSSEF RAFLA YASSA IMM-10761-12
339 FAZELI HOKMABAD IMM-10762-12
340 Bansal Monika IMM-11024-12
341 Surinder Kaur Saini IMM-11025-12
342 Harpreet Kaur Bhullar IMM-11026-12
343 Paramjit Kaur Purewal IMM-11029-12
344 Parmjit Kaur Sandhu IMM-11030-12
345 Nasir Raza Khan IMM-11031-12
346 Rakesh Kumar Garg IMM-11032-12
347 Narinder Singh Lobana IMM-11033-12
348 Harpal Kaur Bath IMM-11034-12
349 Chahal Bhupinder Singh IMM-11035-12
350 Narinder Kaur Aulakh IMM-11036-12
351 Shakti Suman IMM-11037-12
352 Malkit Singh Bajwa IMM-11038-12
353 Satinderjit Singh Daroch IMM-11040-12
354 Reena Chugh IMM-11041-12
355 Sukhwinder Singh Kaul IMM-11042-12
356 Narinderjit Kaur Sahi IMM-11043-12
357 Mandeep Singh Mann IMM-11044-12
358 Jaspreet Kaur Randhawa IMM-11046-12
359 Kamaljit Kaur Somal IMM-11047-12
360 Darbara Singh Sidhu IMM-11048-12
361 Bhardwaj Prem Sagar IMM-11049-12
362 Harbans Singh IMM-11050-12
363 Jaswinder Kaur Badesha IMM-11053-12
364 Kiran (Sharma) Rajpal IMM-11054-12
365 Savita Sidhu IMM-11055-12
366 Rimple Kaur Bath IMM-11057-12
367 Kanwaldeep Singh Gosal IMM-11058-12
368 Choudhary Kamaljeet Kaur IMM-11059-12
369 Ajit Kaur IMM-11060-12
370 Amandeep Dhillon IMM-11061-12
371 Harbinder Singh Gill IMM-11062-12
372 Gagandeep Kaur Bal IMM-11064-12
373 Parampal Kaur Sidhu IMM-11065-12
374 Balwinder Singh Verka IMM-11066-12
375 Aprajita Kapoor IMM-11068-12
376 Amrit Pal Singh Dhamrait IMM-11069-12
377 Davinder Kaur Bains IMM-11070-12
378 Dhillon Kulwinder Kaur IMM-11071-12
379 Sarabijit Kaur IMM-11072-12
380 Raminder Jit Kaur IMM-11077-12
381 Makkena Suresh IMM-11164-12
382 Vanita Arora IMM-11166-12
383 Sarbjit Kaur Birdi IMM-11169-12
384 Yuvrajbir Singh IMM-11170-12
385 Paramjit Singh Manes IMM-11171-12
386 Aabroo Mahal IMM-11172-12
387 Nokinka Kalhan IMM-11173-12
388 Neeta Singh IMM-11174-12
389 Simeon Ng Tan IMM-11175-12
390 Amarjit Singh Garha IMM-11176-12
391 Frederick Tan IMM-11177-12
392 Naginder Singh Bansal IMM-11178-12
393 Chi Wi Welfred Chan IMM-11179-12
394 Alayo Adebisi Saheed IMM-11180-12
395 Akinwumi Temitope Toyin IMM-11181-12
396 Khemraj Maharaj IMM-11183-12
397 Shams Ul Haq Khan Zai IMM-11184-12
398 Surinder Kumar Kakkkar IMM-11186-12
399 Harbinder Singh Thind IMM-11187-12
400 Tarsem Singh Gill IMM-11188-12
401 Surinder Kaur Saini IMM-11203-12
402 Paramjit Kaur Sandhu IMM-11204-12
403 Sarbjit Singh Randhawa IMM-11205-12
404 Poonam Sharma IMM-11206-12
405 Gurpreet Singh Sadhu IMM-11207-12
406 Rajni Sharma IMM-11210-12
407 Amrit Pal Singh Dhillon IMM-11211-12
408 Devgan Gagadeepkaur IMM-11212-12
409 Nirmal Singh Gill IMM-11213-12
410 Dilbagh Singh Bal IMM-11214-12
411 Rajwinder Kaur IMM-11215-12
412 Harjinder Singh Brar IMM-11227-12
413 Kanwaljit Kaur IMM-11228-12
414 Gill Sukpreet Singh IMM-11231-12
415 Satwinder Singh IMM-11233-12
416 Kuljeet Kaur Arora IMM-11234-12
417 Jojanpreet Kaur IMM-11236-12
418 Tarsem Singh Brar IMM-11237-12
419 Sukhwinder Singh IMM-11238-12
420 Rajwant Kaur Saran IMM-11239-23
421 Rajesh Kumar Banga IMM-11240-12
422 Patel Umeshkumar Manubhai IMM-11241-12
423 Tarsem Singh Kambo IMM-11242-12
424 Kashmir Singh Sandhu IMM-11243-12
425 Jamil Ammar IMM-11248-12
426 Abdul Karim Rustoum IMM-11250-12
427 Mohammed Hilili IMM-11253-12
428 Gurmeet Kaur Toor IMM-11257-12
429 Kanwalijit Singh Ahluwalia IMM-11258-12
430 Gurpreet Singh Gill IMM-11270-12
431 Naresh Kumar Arora IMM-11271-12
432 Mandeep Kaur Grewal IMM-11272-12
433 Sundeep Kaur Sidhu IMM-11273-12
434 Anoopjit Kaur Puar IMM-11274-12
435 Sangha Sukhwinderjit IMM-11275-12
436 Rajan Gupta IMM-11276-12
437 Ushvinder Kaur Popli IMM-11280-12
438 Harpreet Kaur Thind IMM-11282-12

439 Manjit Hampaul IMM-11283-12
440 Remigio Tiangco Jr. IMM-11998-12
441 Francis Jeyakumar Joseph IMM-11999-12
442 Juliet Puzon IMM-12001-12
443 Darshan Singh Mahal IMM-12898-12
444 BALJEET SINGH BAL IMM-12903-12
445 MOHINDER SINGH MAAN IMM-12904-12
446 NIRVAN SINGH GILL IMM-12905-12
447 FAROOQ KHIMANI IMM-12911-12
448 MANDEEP KAUR GOHAL IMM-12913-12
449 BHAGWINDER SINGH GILL IMM-12915-12
450 MANISH KUMAR RISHIRAJ IMM-12917-12
451 DHANJAL PARAMJEET KAUR IMM-12918-12
452 VIRPAL KAUR JOSAN IMM-12919-12
453 ARMAJIT KAUR OTHEE IMM-12963-12
454 GURVINDER SING SIDHU IMM-12964-12
455 SARABJEET KAUR DHINDSA IMM-12965-12
456 GEILAN HASSAN MOHAMED ELSEBILGY IMM-12966-12
457 PARAMJEET SINGH SAINI IMM-12967-12
458 SANJEEF KUMAR AARYAN IMM-12968-12
459 AMRIK SINGH IMM-12969-12
460 SUKHJINDER KAUR GILL IMM-12971-12
461 OSAMA SAID IMM-12972-12
462 SARTAJ SINGH KULAR IMM-12973-12
463 ARUN KUMAR ROHILLA IMM-13057-12
464 CHARN PUSHPINDER SINGH IMM-13058-12
465 RAM PHAL RUHAL IMM-13059-12
466 NARINDER SINGH BHARDWAG IMM-13060-12
467 KANU PRIYA IMM-13061-12
468 MANDEEP SINGH PUNIA IMM-13063-12
469 RAJNI MISSRA IMM-13064-12
470 SARABJEET KAUR MANGAT IMM-13065-12
471 BHAWNA SHARMA IMM-13067-12
472 BINDHU NATARAJAN IMM-13068-12
473 EMAN ESMAT MAHMOUD SABRY IMM-13069-12
474 NANNUAN JUGBADAL SINGH IMM-13070-12
475 JASPREET SINGH DHALIWAL IMM-13072-12
476 GURSHARAN KAUR NAGPAL IMM-13074-12
477 CHARANJIT KAUR BEDI IMM-13076-12
478 JAGJIT SINGH PANDEY IMM-13078-12
479 RAJ KUMAR JAMAL IMM-13079-12
480 MOHAMED SAMY ELKHATIB IMM-13080-12
481 RAJPAL KAUR BHANGU IMM-13082-12
482 HARJEET KOUR IMM-13084-12
483 BALTEJ SINGH IMM-305-13
484 JONG YEOL KIM IMM-306-13
485 MEENU BALA SHARMA IMM-307-13
486 KAINTH AMANDEEP KAUR IMM-308-13
487 BAKER BASIL ALI GHALIB AL-BAHRI IMM-309-13
488 CHUN MIN SOOK IMM-310-13
489 BALWINDER KAUR IMM-311-13
490 KHO YOUNG KYU IMM-312-13
491 JONGHWA LEE IMM-313-13
492 JAGTAR SINGH CHAUHAN IMM-314-13
493 GURMIT SINGH BOPARAI IMM-315-13
494 MI RA OH IMM-316-13
495 YOUNG JA PAEK IMM-317-13
496 IN KI PARK IMM-318-13
497 VIPIN BALI IMM-319-13
498 DILWANDER SINGH GREWAL IMM-320-13
499 ROHIT SHARMA IMM-321-13
500 NASIB CHAND IMM-322-13
501 RANGIT SINGH SIDHU IMM-324-13
502 PARMJIT SINGH BADHAN IMM-325-13
503 SONIKA SHARMA IMM-326-13
504 SURINDER LAUR SAINI IMM-327-13
505 MAN MOHAN SINGH IMM-328-13
506 PARDEEP KAUR SAINI IMM-329-13
507 SONA CHOHAN IMM-330-13
508 KARNAIL SINGH IMM-332-13
509 MAKHAN SINGH GHARU IMM-333-13
510 KULDEEP SINGH SAIN IMM-334-13
511 DEVINDER SINGH BAIDWAN IMM-335-13
512 DEVINDER SINGH BAIDWAN IMM-336-13
513 TARANJIT KAUR GREWAL IMM-338-13
514 SURINDER SINGH GREWAL IMM-341-13
515 MONA MAKARY IMM-342-13
516 NASIB KAUR SIMAK IMM-343-13
517 GAGANPAL SINGH SAHNI IMM-344-13
518 JAGJIT SINGH SANDHU IMM-345-13
519 CHOONRAK KIM IMM-346-13
520 LAKHWIND3ER SINGH RANDHAWA IMM-347-13
521 GURMAIL SINGH KOROTANIA IMM-348-13
522 RUPINDER KAUR IMM-349-13
523 KULWANT SINGH GREWAL IMM-351-13
524 SANDEEP KAUR DHALIWAL IMM-352-13
525 SUKHWINDER KAUR DHILLON IMM-353-13
526 HARDEEP SINGH SIVIA IMM-354-13
527 KAMAL CHAWLA IMM-355-13
528 JAG AMAN SINGH SHOKER IMM-356-13
529 KULWANT SINGH PATWALIA IMM-357-13

530 JASPAL KAUR BHUNDAR IMM-358-13

531 KAMALJEET SINGH SAINI IMM-359-13
532 RAJINDER KAUR PAWAR IMM-360-13
533 ASWANI DATTA IMM-361-13
534 RANJIT KAUR SOHI IMM-362-13
535 HARPREET SINGH HUNDAL IMM-363-13
536 SHASHI BHUSHAN SHARMA IMM-364-13
537 JATINDER KAUR SAINI IMM-365-13
538 KIM DONG HEE IMM-366-13
539 YASER ABU SHAIP IMM-367-13
540 PARK KYUNG BAE IMM-368-13
541 LEE SONG HEE IMM-370-13
542 RITU SHARDA IMM-371-13
543 NIDHI BAJAJ IMM-387-13
544 HARDEEP SINGH DHILLON IMM-389-13
545 SHAMA KHAN IMM-390-13
546 NAGENDRA KUMAR GUPTA IMM-391-13
547 SUMANPREET KAUR IMM-392-13

548        KULVINDER KAUR ALIAS SIMRAN PARMAR
IMM-394-13

549 AMARJEET SINGH IMM-396-13
550 PARAMJIT KAUR HUNDAL IMM-397-13
551 VIPIN CHOPAL IMM-398-13
552 RAMANDEEP KAUR IMM-400-13
553 Farnoush Tarighat Manesh IMM-436-13
554 Reheana Mohammad Wasim Vakil IMM-437-13
555 Mohammad Zahidul Islam IMM-438-13
556 Noora Hassan Sami Merei IMM-439-13
557 Muhammad Rafiullah Masood IMM-440-13
558 Aaron Alexander Pinto IMM-441-13
559 Sushil Kumar Gambhir IMM-443-13
560 Kanwarjit Singh Johal IMM-444-13
561 Rupinder Toor IMM-445-13
562 Joonhoo Woo IMM-446-13
563 Jaskaran Singh Sandhu IMM-447-13
564 Harinderjit Singh Sidhu IMM-448-13
565 Daljit Singh IMM-449-13
566 Hardval Singh IMM-450-13
567 Dhuppar Mani Ram IMM-451-13
568 Vinor Kumari Sharma IMM-452-13
569 GLORIA KASIGAZI IMM-535-13
570 KULJEET SINGH SUDAN v. MCI IMM-619-13
571 SEEMA CHANDAN v. MCI IMM-621-13
572 BHUPINDER SINGH JANUA v. MCI IMM-622-13
573 GENIE M. AUSTRIA v. MCI IMM-623-13
574 SUKHJINDER SINGH BAL v. MCI IMM-812-13
575 ARORA VEETA RANI v. MCI IMM-813-13
576 Baljinder Kaùr Heer v. MCI IMM-1008-13
577 Bhajan Singh Bhanbra v. MCI IMM-1010-13
578 PARMJEET SINGH SANDHU IMM-1251-13
579 Damodaran Mangannan IMM-1349-13
580 Maha Al-Qudwa IMM-1350-13
581 Mohammad-Shadi, Rabah IMM-1783-13
582 Jagmohan Singh Bawa IMM-1784-13
583 Baljit Singh Brar IMM-1785-13
584 Umesh Dhupar IMM-2193-13
585 S.I.M.M. Elmahdy IMM-2194-13
586 Jagdeep Singh Sarai IMM-2195-13
587 Sivia Swaran IMM-2196-13
588 Sukhdev Singh Smagh IMM-2197-13
589 Jaswinder Singh IMM-2198-13
590 Sunil Ghandi IMM-2248-13
591 LITA MORAGA HERAS IMM-2370-13
592 LILY DYCHYINGCO CHUA IMM-2372-13
593 SIMON SYKIANLIN IMM-2373-13
594 BRIGIDO SANTOS III IMM-2380-13
595 AILEEN UY TAN IMM-2382-13
596 JOAN LAO LIM IMM-2391-13
597 THERESA ALVAREZ IMM-2393-13
598 NATHANIEL COO CHUA IMM-2406-13
599 CAROLYN DELEGENCIA IMM-2418-13
600 AILEEN JANE CHUAHUICO YAO LIM IMM-2421-13
601 LUIS VILLACERAN IMM-2377-13
602 RICHIE DY TAN IMM-2392-13
603 LUIS NOLASCO IMM-2390-13
604 RODNEY BRINGAIS IMM-2389-13
605 RIUO RAYMUNDO NISCE IMM-2388-13
606 ROSANNA SIY IMM-2387-13
607 RYAN JORDAN RAMOS IMM-2386-13
608 JAMES CHUAUNSU IMM-2385-13
609 GRACE THERESA ONG IMM-2383-13
610 ESTHER NG IMM-2381-13
611 JOHN LAO LIM IMM-2407-13
612 CHRISTOPHER BRIAN YU IMM-2409-13
613 RAMON ONG LIM IMM-2410-13
614 ROWENA (WINNIE) FERNANDEZ IMM-2420-13
615 Berry Lim Ongdueco IMM-2425-13
616 Greg Amanze IMM-2522-13
617 Narinder Singh Sandhu IMM-2523-13
618 Teddy Sy IMM-2524-13
619 Baljit Singh Gill IMM-2525-13
620 Jartinder Pal Singh Khosa IMM-2526-13
621 Dharminder Singh Mattu IMM-2527-13
622 MAHBOBEH TARAGHI IMM-125-13
623 NENA ADAME CACAYURIN IMM-12747-12
624 ARVINDER KAUR SAROY IMM-10392-12
625 REMONDA YOUSSEF RAFLA YASSA IMM-10761-12
626 NARINDER SINGH SANDHU IMM-2523-13

Lead: ALI RAZA JAFRI IMM-4866-12

1 MARIA THERESA REINOSO BELMONTE IMM-4865-12
2 REGINA NNENNA IGBOKO IMM-4869-12
3 LETICIA IGBOKO IMM-4868-12
4 DAVID CYRIL RILEY IMM-4870-12
5 PATRICK TOBIAS KUTEPA IMM-4871-12
6 MARCUS SAYWLU WLEH IMM-4872-12
7 RAMAN THAKUR IMM-4879-12
8 CLAUDE BANZA NTOMBE IMM-4880-12
9 JITENDER BAHADUR SINGH IMM-4882-12

10 VINOD KUMAR GUNYA IMM-4883-12
11 GURJIT KAUR IMM-4884-12
12 PHILIP DAYSON IMM-6142-12
13 AHSAN BIN ASLAM IMM-7306-12

Lead: Zafar MAHMOOD et al IMM-8302-12
Lead: Sumera SHAHID IMM-3725-12
Lead: Fang WEI IMM-6165-12

1 CHUANYUE XIE IMM-4619-12
2 MAN YANG IMM-4620-12
3 JING YANG IMM-4624-12
4 SIU LAI WOO IMM-4625-12
5 HONGBING BI IMM-4626-12
6 XIANGYANG LIN IMM-4627-12
7 YING HUANG IMM-4628-12
8 XIANGNING DENG IMM-4634-12
9 SHANGSI LING IMM-4635-12

10 CHENGXIANG LIU IMM-4641-12
11 FAN ZHANG IMM-4642-12
12 YINGHONG ZHANG IMM-4644-12
13 ZIJUN LIU IMM-4645-12
14 BAOQING ZHOU IMM-4646-12
15 ZHENDONG WANG IMM-4647-12
16 HUIQIANG PENG IMM-4648-12
17 YANG TIAN IMM-4649-12
18 CHANGYING CHEN IMM-4650-12
19 XIAOMIN ZENG IMM-4651-12
20 FEI ZHU IMM-4654-12
21 QIONG ZHANG IMM-4656-12
22 TINGTING ZHAO IMM-4657-12
23 YAN TU IMM-4658-12
24 JIAN HEI IMM-4659-12
25 YAN XU IMM-4662-12
26 FUCHUAN NI IMM-4663-12
27 XUEJUN WANG IMM-4666-12
28 YUN ZHOU IMM-4668-12
29 NING LI IMM-4669-12
30 XIN LI IMM-4670-12
31 PING GUO IMM-4671-12
32 HAIJUN LU IMM-4672-12
33 TONG QI IMM-4673-12
34 SHUNHUA YE IMM-4674-12
35 HONGQI LIN IMM-4675-12
36 KAMFAI NG IMM-4676-12
37 LIANG CHEN IMM-4677-12
38 BO LIU IMM-4678-12
39 ZHENGHUI XU IMM-4679-12
40 SONG LIN IMM-4680-12
41 XUANJIN ZHU IMM-4681-12
42 ZHIQIANG GUO IMM-4682-12
43 PEIFENG HAO IMM-4683-12
44 YING BAI IMM-4684-12
45 SHUXUN CHEN IMM-4685-12
46 YUN LI IMM-4686-12
47 LING XIAO IMM-4698-12
48 LIANZHU CHAI IMM-4700-12
49 YING ZHANG IMM-4703-12
50 SHAOPING CAO IMM-4704-12
51 GUIMEI JING IMM-4706-12
52 LIN ZHANG IMM-4707-12
53 WEI CHEN IMM-4709-12
54 PAN QIN IMM-4710-12
55 JINGJING WENREN IMM-4712-12
56 YIDAN LU IMM-4713-12
57 GUI MA IMM-4714-12
58 XIAOXIAO LIU IMM-4715-12
59 YU SHEN IMM-4716-12
60 WEIJUAN WU IMM-4717-12
61 MINGYU WU IMM-4718-12
62 WENJUN XUE IMM-4719-12
63 BING ZHANG IMM-4720-12
64 KUN ZHU IMM-4721-12
65 CHUXIAO LI IMM-4722-12
66 XINYAN JIA IMM-4723-12
67 JUAN LUO IMM-4724-12
68 CHUAN HUO IMM-4725-12
69 MINGMING LUI IMM-4726-12
70 TIAN FU IMM-4728-12
71 HUIXIAN LONG IMM-4730-12
72 XIAOJIAN YAN IMM-4733-12
73 HONGWEI YANG IMM-4735-12
74 YU HE IMM-4736-12
75 GEQI WENG IMM-4738-12
76 ERLI SUN IMM-4740-12
77 QIZHI FENG IMM-4741-12
78 SHAOCHI WANG IMM-4743-12
79 JIANZHONG TANG IMM-4747-12
80 CHUN CHU IMM-4749-12
81 LI LIANG IMM-4753-12
82 JIANCUN HUANG IMM-4754-12
83 XIAOYU LIU IMM-4755-12
84 DEJIAN LI IMM-4757-12
85 XUELIAN BIAN IMM-4759-12
86 RUOCHUN LI IMM-4760-12
87 RUI ZHANG IMM-4761-12
88 YANLING LIU IMM-4762-12
89 AIPING ZHANG IMM-4764-12
90 FEI WANG IMM-4766-12
91 WEN LU IMM-4770-12
92 LIPING QIU IMM-4772-12
93 JIANG LUO IMM-4774-12
94 YILI WANG IMM-4775-12
95 JIONG ZHANG IMM-4779-12
96 SHI SUN IMM-5841-12
97 JIONG WANG IMM-5842-12
98 XILEI SONG IMM-5843-12
99 MIN QIAN IMM-5845-12

100 JIANGPING LU IMM-5847-12
101 JIONG GU IMM-5848-12
102 GUOYIN WANG IMM-5972-12
103 LIJING XIAN IMM-5975-12
104 YUAN XU IMM-5986-12
105 YINZI GUAN IMM-5988-12
106 JIN LIU IMM-5995-12
107 LEI WU IMM-5996-12
108 ZHAOHUI SUN IMM-5997-12
109 XIAODONG HUANG IMM-5998-12
110 PING YU IMM-5999-12
111 YANGCHUN YANG IMM-6000-12
112 HUIMING HU IMM-6001-12
113 JIEMIN XIA IMM-6002-12
114 YAPING WANG IMM-6003-12
115 QUTING ZHANG IMM-6004-12
116 JIAWEI WANG IMM-6005-12
117 XIN LIU IMM-6006-12
118 JIE AN IMM-6009-12
119 PENG XU IMM-6011-12
120 MENG LUO IMM-6012-12
121 SHUNHONG YAN IMM-6013-12
122 CAIHUA YU IMM-6014-12
123 WUSAN DA IMM-6015-12
124 QIFENG HOU IMM-6016-12
125 DAYU LIU IMM-6040-12
126 HONGWEN TIAN IMM-6042-12
127 JIAJIA CHEN IMM-6044-12
128 CHENGGANG HUANG IMM-6045-12
129 YURONG BIAN IMM-6048-12
130 CHUNYANG HUA IMM-6049-12
131 CHAO LI IMM-6051-12
132 JIE YI TIAN IMM-6052-12
133 YONG QIANG WU IMM-6054-12
134 SHAO RU HE IMM-6056-12
135 MING MING YANG IMM-6058-12
136 SHUN PING LI IMM-6060-12
137 YAN JIANG IMM-6061-12
138 PEIDE FU IMM-6062-12
139 YI HAI ZHONG IMM-6064-12
140 XINGFEN FANG IMM-6065-12
141 JIAN ZHOU IMM-6066-12
142 ZIEN LI IMM-6067-12
143 WEI NIU IMM-6069-12
144 YUTAO HE IMM-6070-12
145 RAN ZHOU IMM-6072-12
146 WEI FENG IMM-6073-12
147 YING WU ZHANG IMM-6074-12
148 XIAOLEI CHEN IMM-6076-12
149 XIAO LONG RAN IMM-6077-12
150 YONG LU ZUO IMM-6080-12
151 HAI TAO LAN IMM-6083-12
152 XIAOZHONG HE IMM-6084-12
153 BIN MA IMM-6085-12
154 GUIPING RAN IMM-6087-12
155 HUAN LIU IMM-6091-12
156 JIE CAO IMM-6092-12
157 GUANGYING XIAO IMM-6098-12
158 MING CHEN IMM-6100-12
159 LIXIA SHAO IMM-6103-12
160 YUCHUN YU IMM-6104-12
161 BO HUANG IMM-6105-12
162 HUI YING HUAN IMM-6106-12
163 CHUN TING LI IMM-6107-12
164 XIANGXIAN LI IMM-6108-12
165 YAPING YANG IMM-6109-12
166 BING CHEN IMM-6110-12
167 FEI KONG IMM-6112-12
168 LI ZHANG IMM-6113-12
169 XIAO XIA LIU IMM-6121-12
170 PING DENG IMM-6157-12
171 JIAN XU IMM-6162-12
172 TING GAO IMM-6167-12
173 XIPING LUO IMM-6168-12
174 SONGMIN WANG IMM-6169-12
175 YIBO WANG IMM-6170-12
176 SHUMEI WANG IMM-6171-12
177 ZHI YI LI IMM-6172-12
178 SHIMIN DAI IMM-6173-12
179 JING LI IMM-6174-12
180 CHENXI ZHAO IMM-6175-12
181 YANG LIU IMM-6176-12
182 MEI ZHANG IMM-6177-12
183 MAN YI MICHELLE TANG IMM-6178-12
184 XUELIN ZHANG IMM-6179-12
185 YANLI WEI IMM-6180-12
186 JIN LIU IMM-6181-12
187 YUANYUAN DONG IMM-6182-12
188 ENNIAN JIN IMM-6183-12
189 ZHI LI IMM-6203-12

Lead: Yanjun YIN IMM-8747-12

1 Jiandong Yao IMM-3779-12
2 Yinhua Zhong IMM-3783-12
3 Qianqi Li IMM-3784-12
4 Gang Sun IMM-3785-12
5 Xinyu Bai IMM-3786-12
6 Jinzhong Ma IMM-3787-12
7 Kai Zhang IMM-3788-12
8 Yang Shen IMM-3792-12
9 Xiaoyou Xu IMM-3796-12

10 Jianyi Chen IMM-3800-12
11 Yanjun Yin IMM-3801-12
12 Kefei Li IMM-3802-12
13 Jie Shen IMM-3804-12
14 Wenling Liu IMM-3807-12
15 Xi Long Cheng IMM-3838-12
16 Yang Liu IMM-3841-12
17 Wenqian Zhang IMM-3846-12
18 Wei Zhang IMM-3847-12
19 Pei Chen IMM-3848-12
20 Yanbin Zhang IMM-3850-12
21 Kun Chen IMM-3852-12
22 Xin Yu IMM-3855-12
23 Tao Jiang IMM-3856-12
24 Shengxue Song IMM-6606-12
25 Lei Ma IMM-6610-12
26 Shengquan Duan IMM-6612-12
27 Dong Li IMM-6617-12
28 SEYED MAJID MOHAMMADIAN ABKENAR IMM-7335-12
29 Jiao Jiang IMM-7337-12
30 Xiao Hua Su IMM-7338-12
31 Neeru Mittal IMM-7342-12
32 Jawed Akhter IMM-7343-12
33 Waqar Ahmed IMM-7347-12
34 AAMIR NAWAZ ALI KARIM IMM-7351-12
35 Allah Dino Khowaja IMM-7392-12
36 Rohinton Daruwalla et al. IMM-7397-12
37 Syed Mohammad Ali IMM-7398-12
38 Lubna Imran IMM-7401-12
39 Muhammad Sajjad Hassan IMM-7402-12
40 Mehdi Hasan IMM-7405-12
41 Imran Khalid IMM-7406-12
42 MANASKUMAR PAL IMM-7432-12
43 ANDREA PERES IMM-7437-12
44 ASIF IQBAL BHATTI IMM-7438-12
45 YANRONG LIANG IMM-7491-12
46 YANRONG LIANG IMM-7492-12
47 LAI LING RITA SO IMM-7494-12
48 ZIHAN QUI IMM-7504-12
49 WEI WANG IMM-7506-12
50 YING JIANG IMM-7507-12
51 Fei Chen IMM-7531-12
52 Ying Zhao IMM-7532-12
53 Ailing Chen IMM-7534-12
54 Haijun Deng IMM-7535-12
55 Di Hou IMM-7536-12
56 Shuang Song IMM-7537-12
57 John Rizvi IMM-7582-12
58 Grace Hipona IMM-7586-12
59 Muhammad Tayyab IMM-7590-12
60 Li Xu IMM-7593-12
61 Ejaz Ahmed Ahmed IMM-7594-12
62 Jia Liu IMM-7597-12
63 Chuanxiang Jiao IMM-7598-12
64 HASEEN ABDULRAHIMAN PADIYATH IMM-7601-12
65 NAEEM AHMAD IMM-8211-12
66 TINU BAJWA IMM-8893-12
67 F. MARK ORKIN ET AL IMM-9389-12
68 PRIYA KUNAN IMM-9483-12
69 Dawei Deng IMM-9574-12
70 Jin Zhang IMM-10132-12
71 Gurvinder Singh Bhatti IMM-10133-12
72 Parkash Kaur Hallan IMM-10202-12
73 DILPREET SINGH HOTHI IMM-10204-12
74 VIDA MODARRES NEJAD IMM-10464-12
75 Nathalia Elizabeth Jones IMM-10504-12
76 Shannon Joseph Jones IMM-10505-12
77 Shivan Raj Ayyanathan IMM-10506-12
78 Vivek Meenakshi Sundaram IMM-10507-12
79 Ramprasad Balasubramaniam IMM-10561-12
80 Samuel Moses Nelson IMM-10563-12

81         Ravi Shankar Kollengode Ramachandran
IMM-10564-12

82 Kamini Neville Bilimoria IMM-10566-12
83 CHRISTABEL MCPHERSON IMM-10599-12
84 DEVA MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN IMM-10601-12
85 LIU XIANGZHI IMM-10717-12
86 Melville Brooks IMM-10924-12
87 Ivan Alfonso Lozano IMM-10925-12
88 Reem Basheer Hassan Mahdi IMM-11365-12
89 Larson Manickam Lawrence IMM-11608-12
90 Joe Joseph IMM-11613-12
91 Helene Burger IMM-11620-12
92 Sudhir Anand IMM-11632-12
93 Paul Vijayan Basker IMM-11635-12
94 Robert Prathip Singh Michael IMM-11639-12
95 Lixia Shao IMM-11915-12
96 HARSHAD VIJAYKUMAR DEWALIA IMM-12509-12
97 Cyrus Latifi IMM-139-13
98 Bahareh Deyed-Aghazadeh IMM-140-13
99 Ghasem Fallahi IMM-167-13

100 Alireza Rashid-Beigi IMM-168-13
101 Sarah Vahidi IMM-169-13
102 Behrad Agah IMM-170-13
103 Namavar IMM-256-13
104 Fallah-Asharzadeh IMM-257-13
105 Pour-Jafar IMM-258-13
106 Zamanifard IMM-259-13
107 SABAH KETAN IMM-487-13

108        MERIE SAAD TAWFIK TAWDROUS ELRAHEB
IMM-742-13

109 CHU-HUA IMM-745-13
110 Jaspreet Kaur IMM-878-13
111 Muhammad M. S. A. Y. Mosli IMM-879-13
112 BANAFSHEH GERANMAYEH IMM-1384-13
113 DIVYA GUPTA IMM-1457-13
114 MOHAMMAD TANVIR QURESHI IMM-1607-13

cp/e/ln/qlecl

Top

Martindale-Hubbell Canadian Law Directory LexisNexis Whats New Download Quickfind
Legal Disclaimer | Privacy Policy | Copyright 2004 LexisNexis Canada Inc. All rights reserved.