If they were actually accepting all applications that meet the criteria, that would make first come first serve more fair, but there are quotas so they have to reject N-1 applications regardless of their application.
Lottery systems are generally considered fairer than first come first serve because they don't advantage people who apply early. Especially in an immigration-related process where circumstances are likely to dictate when you can apply, not everyone will have an opportunity to 'get in early'.
If you have a way to make the process simultaneously non-random, fair, and not have a cap (which I personally would probably be fine with eliminating but is presumably a non-starter for various political reasons), I'm sure some people would love to hear about it.
The other options are to let everybody in or to suppose you already know the right criteria for who'd be the "best" immigrants. Hint: you don't.
Genuinely random selection averts loads of really nasty problems in a system where you need to pick things even though humans tend to be sure some other approach would work better.
No. If the information is not about the individual, then it isn't useful in evaluating the individual. I know that sounds tautological, but it seems that obvious.
While it does seem wrong and silly, isn't a completely random lottery explicitly fair? No one involved is privileged by any metric (unless you believe in supernatural luck).
"The Liberals introduced a lottery in 2017 in an effort to make the system fairer – previously, applications were accepted on a first-come, first-served basis. The program receives roughly 100,000 applications each year and selects 10,000"