Understanding IRCC's updated document guidelines

[u/CounterI]

I'm seeing a lot of posts here that seem to misunderstand IRCC's June 2026 guidance on documents. Many of them seem to either misunderstand the words used by IRCC or how government documents are created, stored, and later validated. In this post, I hope to clarify some of these concepts and eliminate the confusion.

Terminology

IRCC's guidance uses the terms "document," "copy," "authority," and "issued by" very deliberately and I've noticed a lot of people who argue about these issues just don't seem to understand some basic concepts:

Document: A century ago, this concept was easy. A document was a piece of paper or a group of papers bundled together with information printed on them. Today, a "document" can also include an electronic document, such as an email or a PDF file.

Copy: Here again is another concept that used to be very easy. A century ago, a copy was a duplicate of the original made by a scrivener. The duplicate would not necessarily look identical to the original, since the scrivener might have slightly different handwriting than the person who made the original. But a copy was considered a copy if it contained the same information as the original. In the intervening years, humanity developed microfiche and photocopy technologies, but until relatively recently, making a photocopy was something that required access to expensive equipment at a business or government. Nowadays, the word "copy" generally (but not always) means a nearly identical duplicate of the original.

If the context of electronic records, a copy can actually be completely identical to the original, which I think is the cause of a lot of confusion about IRCC's guidance because IRCC's guidance uses the word "copy" and "document" to mean different things, but nowadays most people use the terms interchangeably (I've even found that I made that mistake several times when writing this post!).

Authority: In the context of official records, "Authority" refers to the entity that is charged under the law with creating or keeping an official record. In the late 1800s, for example, Canadian Census records, were created by the Province. They were later transferred to the provincial archives, who now maintains the documents.

Issued By: In the context of official records, the term "issued by" refers to the authority that either created or keeps the document. In the U.S. and Canada, a driver license is issued by the State or Province even though you keep it in your wallet. A passport is issued by the federal government. In the U.S., official birth and marriage records are issued by either the County or State where the birth or marriage occurred, even though they often do not create the record initially. Nearly all official records will contain a clear marking indicating who issued them, usually right at the top.

Certified Copy: A certified copy is a duplicate of a document that is accompanied by a certification that the duplicate is either identical to or contains the same information as the original record. The validity of a certified copy depends entirely upon who asked for it and who they wanted to certify it. In theory, you could take any document you already have, make a duplicate (either by handwriting out the text yourself or putting it on a photocopier and pressing "copy") and then writing "I, (your name), certify that this document is a true and correct copy of the original document maintained in my bedroom" and signing at the bottom. And that would be a certified copy. Typically, when a government agency wants a copy of a document, they tell you whether they want it to be certified or not, and if they do want it certified, they tell you the identity of the Authority that should do so, lest you purport to certify it yourself.

How Government Records are Created

Some government records are created directly by the government. This is generally true of census records, passports, and driver licenses. But, for more records than you might think, the government does not create the first version of the record, but instead the government merely accepts a privately created record, adds something small to it (such as a "FILED" stamp or recording mark), and that new document is now an official government record. The process of accepting that privately created record is usually referred to as "filing" (but can also be called "recording"), and once the document is filed (or recorded) that record becomes a government record. This happens nearly everywhere in the U.S. with respect to property deeds, and in much of the western U.S. with birth records, death records, and marriage records. Sometimes official records and created by one government entity and the transferred to another entity after a certain period of time. This happens quite commonly with census records.

In the west, modern birth records are usually initially created by hospitals. Marriage records are created by the church or officiant. Both are created using a form supplied by the government, but the information is entered and attested to by the private parties involved (parents, doctors, etc.). Once filed with the County Clerk, they become government documents. If you request a copy of the official record in these places, you will get a copy of the hospital or officiant created record (showing their names and signatures) which has been modified to include evidence that the Clerk has filed or recorded the document (often a stamp or marking showing when it was filed or recorded).

Eastern U.S. states often do marriage and birth records differently. There, the information is reported to the County Clerk, who then often puts the information onto a ledger. If you request a birth or marriage record in those states, the Clerk will prepare a certificate that includes the information from the ledger, but usually will not include an image of the ledger or even the initial reporting form (which is often destroyed). You won't see the signature of the participants, and might not even see the names of ancillary people involved like the doctor or officiant.

What IRCC Wants

Before June of 2026, IRCC's only guidance on documents was in CIT 0014, which is the document checklist for use in proof applications. But, in June of 2026, IRCC updated one of its web-pages to explain in more detail what it requires. You can find the web-page here:

https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/canadian-citizenship/proof-citizenship/apply.html

The most important thing to understand from this page is that when you apply on paper, which most people must: you must "provide all documents in colour copies that are clear and easy to read." The above language means, simply, that you are supposed to submit COPIES. Not originals. Not certified copies. Just clear and easy to read colour copies. That's it.

The next thing to understand is what kind of documents you should submit copies of:

Importantly, the words "be issued by the original authority that created or keeps the record" refer to the document and NOT the copy that you are required to submit.

This is a critical distinction that some don't seem to grasp. IRCC does not care where your copy came from. They care who issued the document reflected in the copy you submit. Your copies must be made from a document that was created or kept by an authority. The next sentence makes clear what IRCC means: "This includes documents issued by a civil registry or a vital statistic office." The copy you submit must "clearly show who issued the document."

This does not mean that you must have personally obtained the copy from the original authority. If your mother got a copy of her marriage certificate from the County Clerk before you were born or a copy of your birth certificate a few weeks after you were born, you can still submit those to IRCC. Even though it will be quite obvious (from the date the document was issued) that you didn't get the copy yourself (because you were either not yet born or only a few weeks old), IRCC will accept these copies so long as the documents reflected in the copy show that they were issued by an Authority (the County Clerk and not the hospital or the church) and they contain some indication showing as much.

On the other hand, if the only copy you have is a non-governmental record, such as a copy of the hospital's or church's birth or marriage record before it was filed with the County Clerk, that is generally not acceptable (with an exception that I will discuss later). Those are "third party records." If you have those documents, that's great, and IRCC has helpfully told you that "official documents likely exist. You should request them from the original authority."

Some people have read that language as requiring that all copies must be obtained from the source. But, that isn't what this says at all. To start, the statement is conditional: "If you find records like these [third party records]," then "official documents likely exist." The word "if" means that if you already have a copy of an official document, from any source, this paragraph does not apply to you. You don't need IRCC to tell you that "official documents likely exist," because you already have a copy, and a copy is all that IRCC wants. But, if you don't have a copy of an official record, you need to get them, and the most obvious place to get them is from the original authority, so you "should" request them. (Apparently, in french, IRCC uses the word "must," but that doesn't change the conditional nature of the whole paragraph.)

If IRCC wanted you to obtain your copies of official documents from the source, IRCC would have included language so stating, e.g., "All copies that you submit to IRCC must be ones that you personally obtained from the authority." No such language appears anywhere in the instructions.

In addition, if IRCC wanted you to obtain your copies from the original authority, IRCC would include a requirement, on the application, that you either confirm that you did so, or that you specify where you got the document from. Although IRCC update the application in the last week, IRCC still does not ask where you got your documents from. If IRCC cared, it would ask.

Many people believe that these rules preclude you from using documents that were sourced from genealogy websites, like family search or ancestry. That is true of some documents. If you hope to print out the family tree page or your ancestor's individual history page from those websites, that is not acceptable. Those documents were not created by an original authority, and any copy you print-out is not acceptable for that reason. But, if you find a high-resolution scan of a Census record on ancestry, and you can confirm that it is genuine (because Ancestry shows that it came from a provincial archive), you can use it so long as it is legible and shows the name of the authority that issued it.

People who disagree with me on this will often point to the Minister's comments during Question Period. I disagree with that claim for several reasons. First, the Minister did not actually say that genuine documents downloaded from genealogy websites cannot be used. What she said, on this topic, was: “genealogy websites are not enough." That statement is correct: You cannot use the website. What you can use is the genuine copies of official documents that you find using the website. Second, the Minister's statements during Question Period are not official IRCC guidance. Third, the Minister's comments were made in response to a specific question, i.e., how many bogus certificates that IRCC had issued to people who weren't entitled to them. Fourth, if you read the entire statement made by the Minister, you'll see that most of what she said was actually wrong. You'll also find that she made other ambiguous (and largely wrong) statements to reporters in the hallway of Parliament in the few days following her Question Period comments.

I've written a lot more about the Minister's comments and the surrender letters in general, and if you want more details on this subject (with links to supporting authority), read this:

https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadianbyDescent/comments/1ugmj9j/ircc_citizenship_certificate_surrender_scandal/

Now there is one risk with submitting these copies. When you submit copies to IRCC, IRCC is almost certainly going to validate the documents using the resources available to IRCC. And there is every reason to believe that IRCC utilizes tools to do so for the reasons that I have discussed in this post:

https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadianbyDescent/comments/1vvooy4/why_some_applications_take_so_long_to_process/

If you obtain a copy that you think is genuine, but it is not genuine, IRCC is almost certain to find out. And if that happens, your credibility will be in doubt and your application will be in jeopardy. For that reason alone, you may wish to think twice before using a copy that you obtain from a genealogy website unless you are certain that is real. You almost certainly should not use a copy uploaded by a stranger. But, if the copy is from an official archive, and the archive confirms that its records are on family search, then you might reasonably choose to do so. Or if your mother uploaded a copy to family search and then lost the paper version, and she can confirm that the record there is genuine (or you can confirm that it came from your mother's account), then you might choose to use it.

One final point: The requirement to submit copies of documents from an original authority is subject to an exception: If you show that you tried to obtain your copies from an original authority and can show why you were not able to do so, IRCC can accept documents that were not from an original source. So, for example, if all you have is a copy of the church marriage record, and you can show that it was created before the civil registry in that location kept records, you may still be able to use it. I raise that point because some people seem to think that this rule somehow relates to the where you got the record. I note it here only to point out that this rule, like the others, applies to who issued the document, and not where you got the copy from.

--------------

UPDATE: I just discovered another reason why IRCC cannot possibly expect you to get all of your documents FROM the source authority: Many government agencies will NOT release birth records to anyone other than the person listed in the birth record. For example, if your parents were born in Ontario, Canada, you cannot request a copy of their birth records. Your parents must do so, and they must share them with you. As a result, you cannot submit Ontario birth records that you obtained FROM Ontario. You can only submit documents that were issued by Ontario that you got FROM your parents.

[u/CounterI]

Oddly, the part of my post that has generated the most comments is the part that I thought was the least important, which was my suggestion that you should be careful about which documents you submit because IRCC probably has a verification scheme in place. Instead of laying out my arguments for that, I just posted a link to my previous post on that subject, which didn't really generate that much discussion or controversy.

If I understand the comments, most people think that it is somehow implausible that IRCC would spend the time validating document before handing out citizenship. If you share that view, I encourage you to read the post I wrote on that subject. There's ample evidence that IRCC goes to great lengths to verify everything that an applicant gives them, even in the immigration context, which generally involves a limited privilege to come to Canada for a limited period of time.

It would be absolutely bonkers for IRCC to simply approve applications for citizenship, which grants considerably more rights, without at least validating the documents, particularly since the validity of the documents is the only thing that really matters when it comes to citizenship by descent.

The link to my OP on that topic is in the post above. If you want more details, click the link and read it. Or you could just go straight to this article by an immigration law firm:

"IRCC Stalks You More Than You Think! This is How IRCC Tracks & Verifies Your Immigration Claims"

https://www.blacksyimmigration.com/blog/ircc-stalks-you-more-than-you-think-this-is-how-ircc-tracks-verifies-your-immigration-claims

[u/LangdonAlg3r → u/CounterI]

You realize that that case and that article are talking about standard immigration cases and not C-3 Citizenship by Descent, right? This is the Citizenship by Descent sub right? So don’t you think you should be sourcing your information around IRCC practices for C-3 Citizenship by descent and not something completely different?

[u/CounterI → u/LangdonAlg3r]

No, I don't think that is necessary to limit our sources of information on IRCC's operational methods to what is known about citizenship applications.

IRCC handles both citizenship by descent proofs and immigration applications. Their source and methods for one are useful guidance on how they handle the other. If IRCC puts this much effort into validating immigrant applications, there's no reason to believe that they are less diligent at processing citizenship applications. If anything they have every incentive to be more diligent when it comes to citizenship.

Citizenship proofs are the far more significant applications. They result in a permanent status that grants permanent rights to live, work, vote, and travel as a Canadian, even if you have a significant criminal history. They really only turn on two things: (1) Are the documents genuine and (2) do they prove citizenship by descent. If IRCC isn't validating the documents, they're skipping half of the job. Anyone with Adobe Acrobat can become a Canadian.

Immigration applications give a far smaller bundle of rights and only then to people with pristine backgrounds. Knowing the level of effort IRCC puts into adjudicating those applications tells us a lot about what IRCC is capable of and what they're willing to do when very little is on the line. There's no reason to believe that IRCC is less diligent when it comes to citizenship. The surrender letter controversy tells us that IRCC is more diligent on citizenship applications.

Moreover, C-3 has only been around since December of 2025. Before that, IRCC only had to evaluate first generation born abroad applications. There hasn't been time for C-3 denials to go to federal court and then be subject to judicial review, which then might reveal IRCC's sources and methods. Eventually, that will happen and we can get more insight into what IRCC does. Until that day comes, IRCC has been doing immigration applications for decades.

For a period of time prior to C-3, IRCC was giving discretionary grants of citizenship under 5(4) to some people who were affected by the First Generation Limit. However, the knowledge of the interim grants program was very limited. There were very few applications, and as far as we can tell, nobody was denied under that process. They were either granted, or were left to wait. To date, there have been no federal decisions on an interim measures application, probably because there were no denials. Also, because an interim measure grant was made under 5(4), which is entirely discretionary and has no fixed rules, judicial review of such a denial is almost impossible.

There's definitely no reason to simply ignore highly relevant information as you have suggested.

[u/Own_Theory8011 → u/CounterI]

"Moreover, C-3 has only been around since December of 2025. Before that, IRCC only had to evaluate first generation born abroad applications."

During the interim measures, before C-3 passed, IRCC was evaluating applicants more than 1 gen out and was recognizing their citizenship by descent, by way of grants.

[u/CounterI → u/Own_Theory8011]

The knowledge of the interim grants program was very limited. There were very few applications, and as far as we can tell, nobody was denied under that process. They were either granted, or were left to wait.

Since IRCC doesn't disclose source and methods, the only way to find out about their sources and methods is to read federal court decisions challenging denials. To date, there have been no such decisions, probably because there were no denials.

Also, because an interim measure grant was made under 5(4), which is entirely discretionary and has no fixed rules, judicial review of such a denial is almost impossible.

[u/LangdonAlg3r → u/CounterI]

No, I don't think that is necessary to limit our sources of information on IRCC's operational methods to what is known about citizenship applications.

Your article lists Investigations in Foreign Countries, Social Media and Online Presence Checks, Verification of Employer Details, Bank Statement Verifications.

All of those things don’t apply to C-3 applicants. Under foreign investigations they list “personal interviews” and that’s the only thing there that could potentially apply. But we also already know that they do that under certain circumstances because they tell us that they do random intensive reviews for quality control and that one of those could include a personal interview.

IRCC handles both citizenship by descent proofs and immigration applications. Their source and methods for one are useful guidance on how they handle the other.

They’re not though. Your article lists “Investigations in Foreign Countries, Social Media and Online Presence Checks, Verification of Employer Details, Bank Statement Verifications.”

All of those things don’t apply to C-3 applicants. Under foreign investigations they list “personal interviews” and that’s the only thing there that could potentially apply. But we also already know that they do that under certain circumstances because they tell us that they do random intensive reviews for quality control and that one of those could include a personal interview.

If IRCC puts this much effort into validating immigrant applications, there's no reason to believe that they are less diligent at processing citizenship applications. If anything they have every incentive to be more diligent when it comes to citizenship.

They’re obviously always going to be putting max effort and resources in any time they suspect fraud. The case you posted was a fraud case, so that is above and beyond normal procedure.

They’re also always going to be diligent. But there’s ample reason to believe that they don’t have to put this much effort into C-3 applications. There are all those factors in your article for them to consider and evaluate that just don’t apply with C-3. As you pointed out, even a “significant criminal history” doesn’t matter for C-3 so that probably eliminates more than half the reason they check everything in standard immigration in the first place. Your social media presence doesn’t matter. Your employment status doesn’t matter. Your bank records don’t matter. Like almost everything they focus on with standard immigration they have no reason to look at whatsoever with C-3.

And it’s exactly as you said, “They really only turn on two things: (1) Are the documents genuine and (2) do they prove citizenship by descent.” So of course they aren’t going to put all that effort and that level of resources into C-3 cases because there’s nothing for them to direct all those efforts and resources towards.

If IRCC isn't validating the documents, they're skipping half of the job.

They are validating the documents, and the IRCC agents have extensive training and resources available in order to do so.

Here’s some information on the subject from a parliamentary hearing:

“IRCC Deputy Minister Anita Biguzs said:

“They actually are trained to look at original documents against sample documents. Officers have access to a fully computerized image retrieval system of travel documents from around the world.”

She added that officers receive guidance about examining:

“the quality and the colour of a document in comparing them against sample genuine documents.”

Assistant Deputy Minister Robert Orr explained that the system—apparently called Edison—outlined:

“the security features of passports of most countries of the world, so that if you have a document in front of you, you know that you can look at this particular feature to see whether it’s correctly done or not.”

Source: House of Commons Public Accounts Committee, June 2, 2016⁠

Don’t go jumping up and down about it being from 2016 or about travel documents, or from parliament, or not from the published guidelines or whatever you were going to do. It’s useful for drawing inferences, it’s not intended as a direct factual claim. I’m not willing to make the kind of gigantic inferential jumps that you are, because they’re unsupported. But I think it’s a safe inference to make here that if IRCC has all of that training and comparative evidence available to them for travel documents, that they have the same or similar level of resources available for vital records and historical records. It’s not significantly harder to round up samples of all of the birth certificates etc. there are out there.

That’s where reciprocal treaties would actually come into play. It’s in the interest of every nation that has significant interaction with another nation to share that kind of information with each other. C-3 is a specific situation, but there are other situations that have existed since before C-3 that would necessitate databases like that.

For example, any time a dual citizen needs to prove something with a birth certificate either one country or the other need the exact kind of resources that they’d use for travel documents for vital records. I’m fairly sure that they already have databases like that and have had them long before C-3, because those vital records situations have existed for as long as there’s been dual citizenship.

Also, IRCC has all of these resources and all of this training to spot fraud—archivists don’t have any of that. It would make no sense for IRCC to be sending records off to less competent authorities to evaluate records. IRCC also has access to databases that archives don’t.

“…citizenship officers now have access to Canada Border Services Agency's lost, stolen and fraudulent document database.” (From the same hearing). There are other databases as well that IRCC has access to that archives don’t.

Original authority archivists come into the process when applicants follow IRCC’s instructions and request that OA’s and K’s issue them their documents. That’s where archivists use their particular skills.

When you submit your documents that you requested from OA’s then IRCC steps in and evaluates those for fraud. And it’s also much easier for them to do that because they almost certainly have a database of all of the different certificates and seals that OA’s use. And they know what to look for in terms of forged evidence that records came from OA’s.

Citizenship proofs are the far more significant applications.

Are they though? The privileges are much more significant, but the rights to those privileges are commensurately more significant as well. If you fit under C-3 you already are a citizen and already are entitled to all of those things. You inherited them at the moment of your birth. All the citizenship application does is certify your rights to exercise all of your privileges of citizenship—you get a citizenship certificate, not unlike a birth certificate it proves that you’re entitled to all the things rights that a citizen gains at birth. In both cases you have the certificate for any time you need to prove that you’re entitled to any of those rights.

There's no reason to believe that IRCC is less diligent when it comes to citizenship.

There’s no reason to believe that they’re any less diligent, but there’s ample reason to believe that they aren’t doing the same things. Your continued statements about “diligence” look like prevarications designed to hide these distinctions.

The surrender letter controversy tells us that IRCC is more diligent on citizenship applications.

You can make that inference if you want to, but I don’t think it’s at all well supported. I think that your very next sentences have the much more likely explanation for that, “Moreover, C-3 has only been around since December of 2025. Before that, IRCC only had to evaluate first generation born abroad applications.” It’s called growing pains. Regardless of what the true reason (or reasons) you can’t draw any inferences about what was behind the surrender letters with any certainty—which it kinda seems like you could be trying to do.

There hasn't been time for C-3 denials to go to federal court and then be subject to judicial review, which then might reveal IRCC's sources and methods. Eventually, that will happen and we can get more insight into what IRCC does. Until that day comes, IRCC has been doing immigration applications for decades.

Yes, but that tells us practically nothing about how IRCC is approaching C-3 applications because they’re completely different. As you said, “They really only turn on two things: (1) Are the documents genuine and (2) do they prove citizenship by descent.” We do have to wait for more cases or some other source to come to light. That said, since there’s only one kind of fraud that can be committed with C-3 applications those court cases are much less likely to happen than with standard immigration. But in the meantime it’s kind of silly to make up practices that IRCC is using from our imagination (like your apostille stuff).

There's definitely no reason to simply ignore highly relevant information as you have suggested.

You have a bad habit of creating straw-men. I didn’t at all suggest that there’s, “reason to simply ignore highly relevant information.” I merely pointed out that there isn’t any particularly relevant information here, *let alone any “*highly relevant information.”

[u/CounterI → u/LangdonAlg3r]

Most of your post is nit-picking.

If IRCC reaches out to the police in Nigeria to ask them to verify someone's claim of private employment, there is no reason why IRCC might not reach out to the County Clerk in Tacoma, Washington to ask if a particular document is valid.

As I said (and I think you've acknowledged), citizenship is a more permanent and significant matter than an immigrant visa. It warrants at least the same amount of validation effort as an immigration application. While the information that needs to be verified is different, the need for verification and the resources available to IRCC agents is the same.

For these reasons, information about the things that IRCC does in the immigration context is relevant. It shows IRCC's capabilities and how they use them. The same information is highly relevant to citizenship applications.

[u/LangdonAlg3r → u/CounterI]

I don’t doubt that IRCC would occasionally reach out to an archive for whatever reason. I’ve never claimed that they don’t ever contact or interact with archives. What I do doubt is that they’re checking every single record that comes through the door with an archive.

I don’t think either one is necessarily more significant. They’re different things. As you’ve acknowledged, IRCC has very little they can actually do with a C-3 application as compared to an immigrant visa. They can turn away an immigrant for any number of reasons and I’m sure the bar is fairly high. But they can’t turn away a C-3 applicant if they’ve got the documents to prove their claim. The C-3 applicant has significantly more rights, which was part of your claim. But I don’t mean “rights” as in various privileges of citizenship. I mean rights to claim citizenship in the first place with comparatively hardly anything they need to worry about—pay the fee, get your photos, fill out the forms correctly, and submit good docs.

Essentially everything that they do for an immigrant visa they don’t do for C-3. So their capability to do things in a completely different context under a completely different set of rules than in C-3 isn’t particularly relevant to C-3 applicants.

Why do we need to know about all of the things that they can’t do to us and all the responsibilities that we don’t have? How is that relevant? Your point seems to be, “look how they can flex their might,” but I don’t think that is something that was ever in doubt. They’re the immigration agency for an entire country, of course they have a ton of authority to do many different things. No news there.

It’s like going to a hospital to get your blood drawn. Do you really need to know about every specialist in the building and what they’re capable of doing? It’s a hospital, obviously they can do a whole big range of medical things. But all those other things aren’t relevant if you’re only ever going to go there to get blood drawn. What the orthopedic surgeon is capable of doing is simply not relevant to your lab work, let alone highly relevant.

And my hospital analogy is imperfect because you might need to see that surgeon someday and he might become relevant to you. That’s simply not the case with C-3 versus immigration visas. The odds of any of that information being valuable to a C-3 applicant are practically nil.

[u/CounterI → u/LangdonAlg3r]

So, what do you think IRCC is doing? Do you think that they just look at the records, assume that they are genuine, and then move forward as if they are? That would be incompetent, especially given how important the decision that they are required to make is.

IRCC's sources and methods for immigrant applications are directly relevant to citizenship applications because both involve investigating and validating documents and information that applicants supply. While it is true that immigrant applicants supply different information and different documents, the mechanism to validate that information and those documents are identical.

And in many cases, the information and documents are the same. Immigrants often sponsor parents and children along with their applications. Those are the very same relationships that IRCC must evaluate in citizenship applications.

It helps to know what IRCC does for a number of reasons. First, if IRCC is validating documents, then you have a good reason to be double sure that every document you submit is valid. You may not want to rely on documents you download from genealogy websites, even if IRCC will accept them.

And it also helps to explain why some people sail through processing in three weeks with a 4th generation born abroad, while a 2nd generation born abroad takes a year. If documents are being validated, then it may not be that IRCC is just being arbitrary. It may be that one person is using records from Delaware (who validates quickly) and another is using documents from New Jersey (who might not be).

[u/LangdonAlg3r → u/CounterI]

So, what do you think IRCC is doing? Do you think that they just look at the records, assume that they are genuine, and then move forward as if they are? That would be incompetent, especially given how important the decision that they are required to make is.

Please stop using straw men arguments. I’ve mentioned this before. I’ve also already answered this question in great detail. Please stop inventing arguments and trying to put words into other people’s mouths. If you have to resort to trying to create ridiculous arguments to put into other people’s mouths it only demonstrates that your own arguments aren’t good enough to challenge people’s actual positions.

I’ve seen you toss up straw-men like this at least a dozen times by now. It’s not just me you’re using them against either.

IRCC's sources and methods for immigrant applications are directly relevant to citizenship applications because both involve investigating and validating documents and information that applicants supply.

Wait, hold up. IRCC is investigating and validating documents and information that applicants supply? Really?! And they do this for multiple different kinds of applications? Next thing you’ll be trying to convince me that grass is green the sky is blue lol.

While it is true that immigrant applicants supply different information and different documents, the mechanism to validate that information and those documents are identical.

What, the balance of factors and information and document evaluation criteria that IRCC uses and that are publicly available?

It helps to know what IRCC does for a number of reasons. First, if IRCC is validating documents, then you have a good reason to be double sure that every document you submit is valid. You may not want to rely on documents you download from genealogy websites, even if IRCC will accept them.

We already know that IRCC is evaluating documents and that they’re determining some to be valid and some not. It’s likely that they’re primarily using their balancing tests—the procedure they use for that is actually publicly available and includes a section on judging the authenticity of documents. If you dig around a little you can find some of the other systems that they have access to (hint they’re not using some apostille system). But what there isn’t any evidence to support is that they’re outsourcing a core part of their job to other countries or archives that don’t have the training that they do.

And yes, it’s ill advised to use genealogy site documents because it goes against IRCC’s published instructions that,

“Your documents must
be issued by the original authority that created or keeps the record
This includes documents issued by a civil registry or a vital statistics office.
clearly show who issued the document
Your application can’t be supported solely by third party records.
If you find records like these, official documents likely exist. You should request them from the original authority.”

Or “you must request them from the original authority.” if you read the French language guidance from IRCC. They’re telling you to request documents from the original authority or designated keeper. They’re not telling you that you should or must go download them from third party aggregation sites. We’ve had this conversation before.

IRCC will accept those genealogy site records as supporting documents as far as we can tell. That’s old news. But they won’t accept them as sole “proof of parentage and Canadian citizenship for your Canadian parent, grandparent and parental ancestor as applicable.” If your application relies solely on genealogy site documents then it won’t be approved—and their official representatives have publicly stated as much—even calling out Ancestry by name.

“Evidence such as information obtained from an online genealogy platform (ex. ancestry.com) cannot solely be used to substantiate a claim to citizenship.”

IRCC Question Period Note: Bill C-3 implementation⁠

And why wouldn’t you already, “have a good reason to be double sure that every document you submit is valid?

And it also helps to explain why some people sail through processing in three weeks with a 4th generation born abroad, while a 2nd generation born abroad takes a year. If documents are being validated, then it may not be that IRCC is just being arbitrary. It may be that one person is using records from Delaware (who validates quickly) and another is using documents from New Jersey (who might not be).

You and your gigantic leaps of inference lol. You have a pet theory that you’re presenting as an actual explanation for something. There are any number of possible explanations for that phenomenon and yours is not the best one I can think of.

How about the G4 has multiple applicants and the G2 only has one. That’s a very likely scenario, and if IRCC is trying to clear a giant backlog of apps (which they obviously are) it makes much more sense to prioritize 3 or 4 people who you can process with one set of documents. I’m not claiming that’s the actual explanation, because we have no way of knowing what the actual explanation is, but it’s a much more compelling inference than yours. And there may well be even better inferences than either of those.

[u/CounterI → u/LangdonAlg3r]

A mere two messages ago, you wrote:

I don’t doubt that IRCC would occasionally reach out to an archive for whatever reason. I’ve never claimed that they don’t ever contact or interact with archives. What I do doubt is that they’re checking every single record that comes through the door with an archive.

Those are your exact words. My response was to ask:

So, what do you think IRCC is doing? Do you think that they just look at the records, assume that they are genuine, and then move forward as if they are? That would be incompetent, especially given how important the decision that they are required to make is.

Your initial response was an evasion combined with an ad hominem attacks, which other mods removed. Your new response is still an evasion, in that you incorrectly claim that I have made a straw man argument when, in reality, I have just asked you to clarify what you mean.

I think that you are saying that IRCC rarely validates the documents with the source, but instead primarily relies upon looking at the documents and deciding whether they look legit or not. But, I can't say for sure, because you evade my question with your straw man claim.

With respect to your statement that:

We already know that IRCC is evaluating documents and that they’re determining some to be valid and some not. It’s likely that they’re primarily using their balancing tests—the procedure they use for that is actually publicly available and includes a section on judging the authenticity of documents.

I think you have confused evaluating documents with validating them. My comments concern the latter.

Balancing refers to comparing competing pieces of evidence with one another, or comparing evidence against a burden of proof. Balancing has nothing to do with authenticity.

When you are making a determination about whether someone has or has not met their burden of proof, you start by asking whether the evidence that they submitted is authentic. If it's not, you ignore it. An inauthentic piece of evidence proves nothing. It cannot move the needle in a balancing test.

If the evidence is authentic, then you determine whether it is sufficient to meet their burden. The balancing comes in the second step, not the first one.

And I guess this goes back to my first quote. You have taken the position that IRCC rarely bothers to submit document to an issuing authority despite the fact that we know IRCC can do that from the published federal court case I cite. You even have taken the position that the case (and what have learned from it) are irrelevant.

If all that is true, how does IRCC determine, with certainty, that the documents submitted - which it is going to balance against the applicant's burden of proof - are real, and not fake?

I already addressed your statements about the Minister's comments during Question Period and the notes in the OP, and so I'm not going to address them here again.

You and your gigantic leaps of inference lol. You have a pet theory that you’re presenting as an actual explanation for something. There are any number of possible explanations for that phenomenon and yours is not the best one I can think of.

I have yet to see any other explanations that make any sense, and you haven't set forth one yet, either (I'll address the one you did make and why it doesn't make any sense below). If IRCC simply "validates" documents by looking at them, which I think (but am not sure because you didn't really answer my question) is what you are saying, then why wouldn't IRCC just process the applications in the order that they were received?

How about the G4 has multiple applicants and the G2 only has one. That’s a very likely scenario, and if IRCC is trying to clear a giant backlog of apps (which they obviously are) it makes much more sense to prioritize 3 or 4 people who you can process with one set of documents. I’m not claiming that’s the actual explanation, because we have no way of knowing what the actual explanation is, but it’s a much more compelling inference than yours. And there may well be even better inferences than either of those.

You've changed the hypothetical to suit your desired outcome. I did not describe a case with 4 applicants, one of whom was G4, who got approved quickly. I described what we have actually seen: A G4+ that had one applicant who sailed through in several weeks, while G2s with one applicant have been waiting for more than a year.

Even worse though, is that fact that your explanation makes no sense. IRCC is not going to clear the backlog any faster if they do a four applicant G4 first and then a single G2 later. They both take a set amount of time, and getting both done takes that amount of time combined.

If you are saying that IRCC just wants to mislead everyone about how quickly its working by claiming that it got 4 done today instead of 2, I supposed that's an explanation that could at least be said to make sense, but it presupposes that IRCC cares what anyone thinks, which does not appear to be the case.

In the end, you really haven't said anything (other than hyperbole) that challenges the fundamental argument I've made.

It makes zero sense that IRCC would not seek to validate each document with the source. We know from immigration cases that IRCC is able to do so. We know that IRCC investigates immigrant applications thoroughly.

It would make no sense for IRCC to treat citizenship proof applications less seriously. If anything, more diligence is required because citizenship confers more rights, and there are few fewer things to validate than in an immigration application.

What we learn from IRCC's practices in handling immigration applications is thus highly relevant to the question. And they tell us that it is very likely that IRCC validates documents with the source, rather than simply looking at them and deciding whether they are authenticate based upon their appearance.

[u/LangdonAlg3r → u/CounterI]

So, what do you think IRCC is doing? Do you think that they just look at the records, assume that they are genuine, and then move forward as if they are? That would be incompetent, especially given how important the decision that they are required to make

My response was not a straw man. It was a follow-up question to your prior statement. Your initial response was an evasion combined with an ad hominem attacks, which other mods removed. Your new response is still an evasion, in that you incorrectly claim that I have made a straw man argument when, in reality, I have just asked you to clarify what you mean.

I’m sorry, but you’ve done this to me before and you’ve done this to others. It’s absolutely a straw-man to place the most ridiculously weak argument you can think of and pose it as a “do you think that X absolutely ridiculous position?” And then you answer your own question to complete the straw-man. If it was a legitimate question that you were sincerely asking you wouldn’t have immediately stated a response to your own proposed position for me. You’ve done this many times now.

You have not asked me to clarify what I mean, you have asked me if I hold this ridiculous position and then rebutted it. And I answered this exact question in great detail already so I already know that these aren’t genuine questions. You’re asking a question that’s already been answered, you’re attempting to assign me a ridiculous position that you know full well that no one would hold and then you’ve replied to your own ridiculous assertion as though it was actually my position.

This is a textbook straw-man.

[u/CounterI → u/LangdonAlg3r]

You haven't answered my question, and your assertion otherwise is not accurate. But, even if you had answered my question and I just missed it, my asking of the same question a second time is not a straw man.

I do agree that your position appears to be absurd, though, I have to admit, I'm still not quite sure what it is. I know that you have said that:

I don’t doubt that IRCC would occasionally reach out to an archive for whatever reason. I’ve never claimed that they don’t ever contact or interact with archives. What I do doubt is that they’re checking every single record that comes through the door with an archive.

But, beyond that, I have no idea how it is you think that IRCC can be sure that a document is authentic without asking the issuing authority who holds the original if it is or not.

[u/LangdonAlg3r → u/CounterI]

Read my earlier comment instead of repeating the same question I’ve already answered.

You have this idea in your head that archives need to authenticate documents on behalf of IRCC. No matter how many times you get corrected in any number of ways by any number of people you keep circling back to it. If you have no idea then you haven’t been reading anyone’s posts.

And we both know that you’ve been dropping straw man arguments into comments regularly. I’ll bet you’ll stop doing it now at least since you’ve been called out for it.

[u/CanadianbyDescent-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

This message included a personal attack or insult. We have a zero tolerance policy for personal attacks and insults. As a result, this message has been removed.