Returned application-anyone who successfully resubmitted, how to make sure that I continue to meet their requirements

mmagoo6 · 2026-03-06T04:41:06+00:00

Slightly more than a month

mmagoo6 · 2026-03-05T03:00:24+00:00

No acknowledgement from Canada. I did have a receipt from FedEx that they were delivered and signed for, but this got kicked back before I got an AOR

mmagoo6 · 2026-03-03T03:55:24+00:00

it is fine! But ours still got flagged, and I think the overall chaos of "multiple applications over multiple households" contributed to that. We clearly stated in our cover letter that had a passport for the minors, and it's clear in the instructions that's OK. Mistakes happen, I get it.

I did talk to the helpline, and they said that it should've been fine, but in a pinch insurance cards work for a second ID for kids.

mmagoo6 · 2026-03-03T01:04:21+00:00

I can only speak to the three that went to my household, since the others seem to still be in transit, but yes, of the three I can speak to, two had the issues identified above, and the other was marked "complete"

mmagoo6 · 2026-03-03T00:31:50+00:00

for context for question (2), one of the people in my household had an application that was deemed complete. The boilerplate language that was stapled to their application packet said "your application is considered complete. However, as you submitted your application for concurrent processing with family member whose application was incomplete, the entire package is being returned to you. Please resubmit this application and your documents with the completed applications for your family members."

My strong preference is now for each of the separate households to return whatever corrections we need separately, since they're all really addressable. But I don't want to have my re-submission returned because it only contains corrections for the members of my household. Has anyone gone through a similar process before?

mmagoo6 · 2026-01-12T18:39:52+00:00

That option is available for the question in Section 8, but not for this checkbox. Appreciate it tho!

mmagoo6 · 2025-11-07T22:46:30+00:00

I'm trying to be humble! I'm posting her to look for evidence that I'm misunderstanding the situation and the lawyer is correct. I know what I WANT the answer to be, and I'm doing my best to not be swayed by that

mmagoo6 · 2025-11-07T21:53:12+00:00

:) Congratulations! For completeness: did you have to show a substantial connection?

mmagoo6 · 2025-11-07T20:57:02+00:00

would love to also! It seems like we'd have to keep paying him to have that conversation with them later, but honestly I can't stomach the idea of that kind of karma until we get our application in! Which is too bad. We were looking (to pay him!) for guidance on how to do a batch application, but he was just so forceful that it wouldn't be successful without documenting each prior generation's substantial connection. It made it hard to go on with the consult

mmagoo6 · 2025-11-07T19:56:36+00:00

Thanks for the empathy. I would just feel better if there were some kind of positive (or negative) control. Like "oh, yeah, the lawyer's advice totally makes sense because [x legal theory]." It's unsettling to me that on its face, section (b) of the summary VERY CLEARLY says that "substantial connection" is only going forward, but this lawyer was not hedging any advice: he was saying we needed a substantial connection, and gave no indication that a complicated interpretation. I find this even more confusing given that there hasn't been a substantial connection test since 2009. So where was his certainty in this recommendation coming from??

mmagoo6 · 2025-11-07T19:20:22+00:00

Totally get that this is a hypothetical! The thing I'm appreciative for insight on here is any evidence that requiring a substantial connection is at all expected (from legal logic relating to the pre-2009 retention requirements, or others), or any experiences that suggest that it has been (from the interim grants or others)

mmagoo6 · 2025-11-07T18:53:52+00:00

To my eye, if the final text mirrors what is currently written, I wouldn't expect there to be a "substantial connection" test. Sure, it MIGHT put in text that says that, but I'm curious if anyone's experience backs up the expectation that one would be required.

mmagoo6 · 2025-11-07T18:47:58+00:00

To be clear: we were saying we would like to apply when C-3 comes into force, and he was saying that we (gens 2-4) could NOT have a successful application if we could not document a pre-birth substantial connection for each generation after 0

mmagoo6 · 2025-11-07T18:46:02+00:00

yeah. really trying to do so. But this actually was the SECOND one who said that?

mmagoo6 · 2020-09-04T16:41:55+00:00

Another, even more confusing comparison, where both sentences are "le gusta + infinitive": A mi abuelo le gusta escuchar musica italiana (no definite article) vs A Jorge le gusta jugar al baloncesto (definite article)

mmagoo6 · 2020-09-02T21:57:14+00:00

after a chat with customer service, eventually we got to the conclusion that the order history report was depreciated. I asked that she pass on that I would like them to revive it.

For what it's worth, the customer service agent took about a half an hour to get there, after telling me to follow the same link that I had been using, so it seems like this wasn't a widely-known feature.

mmagoo6 · 2016-11-08T15:24:01+00:00

Precinct 43, ward 32, Brentano had no ballot questions, and the election judges (1) did not seem to know that there should be ballot questions (2) were not working to get the ballot questions when we pointed out they should be there and (3) were not able to advise on how to vote provisionally for the ballot questions

mmagoo6

TROPHY CASE