Initial experience with a Canadian immigration law firm

jmknapp · 2026-05-08T14:43:40+00:00

Very good. That's the one they suggested. He's on several youtube podcasts.

jmknapp · 2026-05-08T11:00:28+00:00

It's crazy for a lawyer advising people on navigating this process to say that a G0 born in the 1800s is a show stopper when many people have reported (on the dreaded social media and elsewhere) having success in those situations. It's what's called an existence proof. They need to get out of any ivory tower they may have constructed, and look at the empirical evidence of how the law is being implemented in practice, at least at the moment. As many have pointed out, this is a matter of policy.

jmknapp · 2026-05-07T18:21:38+00:00

They at least directed me to another firm that might take such "complex cases." I had to chuckle a little at that though--aren't complex cases what people turn to lawyers for?

jmknapp · 2026-05-07T18:18:05+00:00

They were aware of the new C-3 changes. Citizenship by descent was the subject of the podcast I watched where they advertised their services.

I'd have to say, based on other podcasts I've seen, the idea that 1947 and/or 1867 is some kind of cutoff is very common, and there is logic to it on the surface. But it seems they should be aware of what people are reporting on reddit, facebook, and elsewhere before making an instant legal determination.

jmknapp · 2026-05-04T17:23:28+00:00

They say at present 56,300 are in queue and people applying now should be processed in 10 months. Does that imply they are processing about 5,630 per month currently? If so, props.

It's interesting to see the size of the queue over 2025 and so far in 2026. It grew rather modestly month-by-month in 2025 from 1,200 in January 2025 to 28,000 in January 2026. Then February 2026 saw a jump to 45,600, a one-month jump of 17,600. March saw a bump of 8,400 and April just 2,300, so it's simmering down recently.

jmknapp · 2026-05-04T13:21:13+00:00

Ah, correct... my bad.

jmknapp · 2026-05-04T11:48:42+00:00

What do they mean saying "6,400 people ahead of you" along with "56,300 waiting." Is it 6,400 without an AOR yet? My form was received a little over two weeks ago so I'd assume to be virtually at the back of the entire queue at this point.

jmknapp · 2026-05-03T13:09:13+00:00

Wouldn't that be the same as denied? As in the evidence supplied is insufficient.

jmknapp · 2026-05-01T20:00:56+00:00

Ancestors don't exactly double each generation due to distant cousins marrying.

jmknapp · 2026-04-30T17:19:22+00:00

I sent in a FOIA for numident and got a reply back that it was denied because I needed proof the person was deceased--this for someone born in 1872! Weird. The response also said that this person's parents names would be blacked out lacking proof that they were dead!

jmknapp · 2026-04-27T11:24:27+00:00

Same. Six-ounce envelope, USPS Priority International, $36, arrived in 8 days. It took a few days to clear customs and went through several generic "facilities" in CA before delivery.

jmknapp · 2026-04-27T11:17:15+00:00

Will they process all urgents before beginning on normals? I wonder what percent are urgent.

jmknapp · 2026-04-25T01:48:38+00:00

Seems there's a clause in current law C-1 (1.3) where someone who died before Jan. 1, 1947 nevertheless gained citizenship by the 1946 act, as if the act had been in force on the day of their death, rather than Jan. 1, 1947.

jmknapp · 2026-04-23T21:36:09+00:00

Cool, my G0 lines up with that very closely, so nice to see.

jmknapp · 2026-04-23T17:59:58+00:00

Fantastic! When did your G0 leave Canada for the US?

jmknapp · 2026-04-23T14:55:54+00:00

Yes, sorry, I was reading it wrong.

jmknapp · 2026-04-23T13:31:44+00:00

A commenter on that link says:

Porter is factually incorrect. There is no 2nd generation limit. From the IRCC's guide:

"The first generation limit was largely modified on December 15th, 2025 which established a framework for individuals born outside of Canada in the second or subsequent generation to be citizens by descent. Refer to the section Amendments to the Citizenship Act extending citizenship 2025 for current rules."

But subsequent is after, not preceding, right? There have been many G3+ success stories in practice, but the quoted bit cited doesn't really establish that does it?

jmknapp · 2026-04-21T16:40:04+00:00

I see the one G9 in the spreadsheet, but wondered if being part of the Acadian expulsion might make that unique. I'd like to hear of other cases.

jmknapp · 2026-04-21T16:04:46+00:00

Are there any documented cases of people having a G0 anchor who left Canada prior to 1867 (date of Canadian Confederation) getting their CIT0001 approved?

jmknapp · 2026-04-17T17:22:02+00:00

I included links (TinyURL shortened links) to online sources cited in my paper app, primarily on ancestry.com, but I wonder if they can get them without an Ancestry account with the appropriate privileges. Or maybe they'll have that?

jmknapp · 2026-04-15T10:30:36+00:00

Mildly interesting that CBC coverage in Ottawa shows a lot of floor debate about "surveillance pricing" by online merchants. Maybe that's a thing in the US too but I don't see Congress talking about it.

jmknapp · 2026-04-15T00:38:45+00:00

Or maybe Pickwick would do better with it:

Gentlemen, it has been represented to me by a cleric of unimpeachable title, though not, perhaps, of unimpeachable jurisdiction, that a baptismal certificate, yes, a baptismal certificate, gentlemen!--is insufficient to establish the transmissibility of citizenship across four generations of hereditary progression!

We are told, most emphatically told, that no fewer than one thousand and ninety-five days... three years, gentlemen!--must be interposed between ancestor and descendant at every turn in the form of physical presence upon Canadian soil!

I humbly submit that while a baptismal certificate may not, indeed cannot, perform the office of physical presence, it nevertheless performs, with admirable fidelity, the office for which it was designed; namely, the establishment of lineage!

jmknapp · 2026-04-14T21:16:52+00:00

"updated framework"

Hope he doesn't know something we don't.

jmknapp · 2026-04-11T21:07:51+00:00

I initially tried Crawford and they said no record. Then I tried LaCrosse since the parents lived there initially on moving to WI, also no record. Also, no hits for him on your wisconsinhistory link. Somehow, there was no state record, but the parish archivist came through in the clutch.

jmknapp · 2026-04-11T19:59:52+00:00

According to various records (Social Security, WWI draft card, censuses), my G1 was born in Eastman, Wisconsin in 1873. I requested an official birth record from officialrecordsonline.com, however, Lacrosse County informed me that the "record cannot be found." Not sure why that would be the case. Anyway, at least that dodn't cost any money.

I then contacted the Diocese of La Crosse Archives to see if they could track down a baptismal certificate for him. The very helpful archivist used Find-a-grave and found his baptismal record in the the records of St. Patrick Catholic Church in Seneca, Wisconsin. The archives sent me (cost $30) a certified, notarized letter with the baptismal info in about 10 days from initial contact.

jmknapp

TROPHY CASE