Overview
[1]
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 S.C.R. 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 S.C.R. 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 S.C.R. 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 S.C.R. 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 S.C.R. 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 S.C.R. 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 S.C.R. 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 S.C.R. 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 S.C.R. 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 S.C.R. 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 S.C.R. 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 S.C.R. 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 S.C.R. 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 S.C.R. 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 S.C.R. 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 S.C.R. 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 S.C.R. 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.
"Donald J.
Rennie"
Annex A
|
Immigration
and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27
|
Loi sur l’immigration et la
protection des réfugiés (LC 2001, ch 27)
|
|
Section
87.4
|
article 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).
|
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
|
Déclaration
canadienne des droits (SC 1960, ch 44)
|
|
subsection 1(a)
|
paragraphe 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;
|
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;
|
|
|
|
|
subsection 2(e)
|
paragraphe
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;
|
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
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-5586-12
|
|
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
|
MOSHIRI
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-11239-12
|
|
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
|
KULWANT
KAUR SANDHU
|
IMM-2576-13
|
|
626
|
HENRY
TOBY
|
IMM-5365-12
|
|
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
|
ZHAOSAN
YIN
|
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
|
CHUN CHENG WANG
|
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
|
Email this Content