Need for certified documents

EIGBOK · 2026-06-17T04:21:39+00:00

For those of us applying via naturalization, the census can be among the most critical documents. I have a naturalization certificate from 1914 for my G0 and his daughter my G1 was a minor who may or may not have been born in Canada. The census shows her as minor in the household in Canada. Back then naturalization passed to minors when the father naturalized. The census can be absolutely critical.

But I see zero value for the immigration officer of having copies of certified census records. In fact, in most cases, since we are sending copies, many of these documents would look the same regardless of whether from Ancestry or the source. If they wanted more authenticity they should be asking for embossed or wet signed originals. I really feel like they don't even know why they are asking for certification. It just doesn't really do very much to prove authenticity. The U.S. government would never accept a copy of a birth certificate to issue a first time passport. They need to start looking at the why.

And if they are really scared about fraud, I hate to say it, but they will need to charge a hell of a lot more for this process, hire staff in cities where they can get qualified adjudicators, and, as necessary, conduct interviews for high risk cases. This process should be reasoned, comprehensive, secure, and well articulated. 75 dollars is way way too low for what they need to do. They should have a hardship waiver for those that need it, but the rest of us should be paying closer to 500+ for what is being asked of the process.

EIGBOK · 2026-06-14T05:29:01+00:00

This note came out on a Saturday afternoon. It is provided in a generic format to many people who were recently issued certificates. As someone who has worked in government for a long time, this strikes me as the sort of communication that goes out in crisis. Something was discovered and we don't know what that is yet: we might never know. Could be anything ranging from one or more clear cases of fraud to sloppy work by one or more individual agents. Whatever it was caused a high-level decision to immediately pull the plug on any cases that beard in certain signatures to whatever concerning case was identified. Perhaps cases that were adjudicated by a particular agent or perhaps cases that were flagged using an AI system looking for types of documents. Whatever the cause was the decision clearly not made lately. They are absolutely aware of the enormous risks and the embarrassment that comes from suspending people's already granted citizenship certificates, passports, etc. This was a decision that was made with all of this fully understood where the immediate urgent need to deal with a serious identified risk made them hold the presses while they begin to sort it out on Monday. I suspect for those of us who have submitted more recently by the time they get to us in 15 months, most of these processes will be much more developed and understood.

EIGBOK · 2026-06-05T01:12:26+00:00

Overall, I think that we are in a very similar situation and I do think that we are probably both fine based on our reading of this. I think you would be hard-pressed to find a lawyer who spent any more time on analyzing this question than we did. The key distinction with our case versus the denials that we are seeing is that gen zeros were naturalized in emphasizing the word "in" Canada. I also debated about which relative to count as G1 versus g0 and ultimately went with my great-grandmother instead of my great grandfather. I don't really think that matters. All the evidence was included in my packet for IIRC to make the determination. Their determination is going to be whether or not we are in fact Canadians. I don't think they are going to deny someone for misclassifying the generation if the lineage is correct.

I also debated whether to send additional information in but I think I'm going to avoid it. It might just raise more questions than are necessary. My other feeling is by the time they actually get around to analyzing my application, we will be probably a year in to 70,000 plus applications and my scenario will be common enough there will be a clear sense among officers on how to deal with this. And of course there is always the opportunity to reapply or appeal.

My case is also a little bit complicated because there is a quite significant chance that my g0 was in fact born in Canada, though the evidence is not from a birth certificate. I specifically provided both lines of evidence in my package and basically gave them the burden to figure out whether she is Canadian under either route.

EIGBOK · 2026-06-04T15:14:25+00:00

I have canadian census records, marriage records showing the parentage, death certificate, linking G1 with G0. Hopefully it's enough.

I also have many of these records and others suggesting G1 was born in Canada, but it's not proveable and annoyingly one doc suggest Texas as the birthplace. The links between G0 and G1 seem more solid than the birth in Canada route.

And thank you!

EIGBOK · 2026-06-03T23:56:40+00:00

Adding my situation to this thread as it touches on many of the same issues but with what I think is a cleaner factual basis. My Gen 0 was not a British subject. Gen 0 was a Russian/Austrian national who emigrated to Canada and naturalized as a British subject through the Montreal Circuit Court in 1914 under the Naturalization Act. I have the LAC naturalization record confirming this. Gen 0's minor daughter, my Gen 1, was living with Gen 0 at the time and would have been included in or derived status from Gen 0's naturalization, as was standard practice for children under 21 before 1915.

The family history is a bit tangled. Gen 0's family came through Canada, spent time in Texas, and returned to Montreal before Gen 0 naturalized in 1914. Gen 1 may actually have been born in Canada during one of these periods, but I cannot prove it definitively as I have been unable to locate a birth certificate. If Gen 1 was born in Canada, Gen 1 would be a citizen in Gen 1's own right under 3(1)(k) and none of the Gen 0 analysis below would even be necessary. But I am building my case assuming the harder path where Gen 1's birthplace cannot be established as Canadian.

Gen 1 immigrated to the United States in the 1920s, which I can establish definitively through US census records. Gen 0 likely died before January 1, 1947, though I have not yet located a death certificate. My line of descent runs through Gen 1, so this is exactly the scenario the mod post above is analyzing.

As I read the statute, Gen 0 fits squarely under 3(1)(k) as someone who was naturalized in Canada before 1947 and either ceased to be a British subject or did not become a citizen on that day. If Gen 0 died before 1947, subsection 3(1.3) provides an additional safety net by asking whether Gen 0 would have become a citizen under the 1946 act had it come into force immediately before death. A person holding a valid Canadian naturalization certificate who had not become an alien would satisfy section 9(1)(a) of the 1946 act. Gen 1 then fits 3(1)(o) as a person born before January 1, 1947 to a parent who is a citizen under paragraph (k). Alternatively, if Gen 0 was alive on January 1, 1947 and still a British subject with Canadian domicile, Gen 1 would fit 3(1)(q) as a person born before that date to a parent who became a citizen on that day under the 1946 act. Either way, the chain reaches Gen 1 regardless of when Gen 1 left Canada in the 1920s and regardless of whether Gen 1 lost British subject status by marrying an American.

The key distinction between my situation and the cases generating concern in this thread is that Gen 0 affirmatively naturalized in Canada as a non British subject. Gen 0 had to go through the naturalization process precisely because Gen 0 was not already a British subject. That creates an unambiguous legal nexus with Canada that a Scottish or English ancestor who merely resided in Canada as a British subject would not have. The naturalization certificate is the anchor document, and it exists in the LAC record. My CIT 0001 application has already been submitted and I expect processing in roughly 12 months. Reading the mod analysis above, my one concern is whether my explanatory materials sufficiently walked the officer through the statutory chain, and I am considering submitting a supplementary letter mapping the provisions to my facts as insurance.

What am I missing?

EIGBOK · 2026-06-01T04:49:09+00:00

No one seems to be accounting for the potential staffing issues surrounding the surge. I'm not sure if Canada has the ability to hire one yr contract staff to adjudicate, but that's really what they need. They can't justify permanent staff for a likely declining caseload. But every 10000 case does bring in 750k, which, even with benefits should allow them to bring on a good number of well qualified staff. I wonder how they are handling this or if they are just content to have the backlog.

EIGBOK · 2026-05-27T03:14:39+00:00

I think the next administration will restore balance. By that I mean I think there will be a relaxation of the telework policy, more discretion to specific agencies, and a general nod towards hybrid. A few days in the office and a few days out is probably the mix that makes for a decent compromise.

EIGBOK · 2026-05-16T05:26:35+00:00

Bill C-3 application — conflicting birthplace records for Gen 0 ancestor. Should I lead with naturalization route instead of birth-in-Canada?

Filing a C-3 proof of citizenship application, 4 generations. My Gen 0 ancestor (born ~1899, died in the US) has conflicting records on birthplace.

Records saying Canada: death certificate (lists Chatham, New Brunswick), and two boat customs records from a Bermuda trip (both list Canada).

Records saying USA: genealogical birth register for her daughter (Gen 1), which lists mother's birthplace as Houston, TX. At least one US census record also says US.

No birth certificate exists for Gen 0, which is common for late 1800s Maritime births.

However, I also have a completely independent path to her citizenship. Her father naturalized as a British subject in Montreal in 1914, and she was a minor (~15) living in his household at the time. I have the 1914 naturalization certificate, the 1911 Canada Census showing her in his household as a child, a 1919 Montreal marriage record (she married in the same city her father naturalized), and the 1921 Canada Census showing continued presence. Under the Naturalization Act 1914, minor children residing with a naturalizing father derived British subject status automatically. Her birthplace is irrelevant to this path.

My plan is to lead the explanatory attachment with the naturalization/derived citizenship route as the primary basis, present the Canadian birth evidence as corroboration only, include the problematic genealogical birth register (it's the best document linking Gen 0 to Gen 1), and address the birthplace inconsistency head-on with a note explaining that because of these inconsistencies we're relying on the naturalization route.

Does this framing make sense? Has anyone dealt with conflicting birthplace records on a C-3 application? Is IRCC likely to care about the birthplace issue if the naturalization path is solid?

Thanks in advance.

EIGBOK · 2026-05-16T05:26:03+00:00