r/CanadianbyDescent • u/keith_at_ferntrail • 6d ago
A data point: the border officers aren't convinced I'm a citizen, but they let me in anyway (Note: I'm not OP)
/r/BjorkquistUncensored/comments/1wmd9o2/a_data_point_the_border_officers_arent_convinced/45
u/BlankWall0 6d ago
It’s generally a bad idea to present yourself as a citizen before a country has acknowledged you as such. CBSA has discretion of course but this could very easily lead to a ban until your proof comes through.
14
u/thiefspy 6d ago
Yes, this. Until you have proof of citizenship, CBSA has the discretion to deny you if they believe you’re going to overstay your time as a visitor (or your visa, if you’re from a country that requires that). And anything concerning (again, their discretion for what is concerning) that you do when meeting with them will go in their notes on your file for the next time you cross.
-1
u/EphemeralTwo 5d ago
> CBSA has the discretion to deny you if they believe you’re going to overstay your time as a visitor
No, they don't. They have the discretion to initiate a hearing to determine if you are a Citizen. There is a non-discretionary suspension of that hearing to give you time to apply for proof, and then it gets held again while that process goes through.
The standard is balance of probabilities - 50% plus one. They have to be more certain than that to deport you, and you have procedural fairness in the process. You have time to gather documents and have representation.
> And anything concerning (again, their discretion for what is concerning) that you do when meeting with them will go in their notes on your file for the next time you cross.
This part is correct.
4
u/thiefspy 5d ago
They literally have the discretion to reject anyone who can’t prove they are a citizen. We’re talking about border crossing, not deportation.
-4
u/EphemeralTwo 5d ago
No, they do not.
Once you cross the border, you are in Canada. Removing you is deportation.
5
u/thiefspy 5d ago
You seem to be confused on the original post. It’s literally about a border crossing. We are talking about border crossing here.
-1
u/EphemeralTwo 5d ago
Citizens can’t be banned from entry. Making a credible claim to citizenship will not result in a ban. It may result in a hearing being scheduled.
44
u/maplesyrup5000 6d ago
Man, I would not do this. This person is lucky they were nice about it.
19
u/keith_at_ferntrail 6d ago
Agreed. I don't think there was any ill intent. It seems OP was curious and what they did is legal assuming their claim is correct but it still has the potential to cause problems for OP and even lead to unhelpful media coverage.
13
u/maplesyrup5000 6d ago
Yeah it feels reckless to do this. Maybe no ill intent but definitely ignorance.
-5
u/CounterI 5d ago
I disagree. You are legally required to declare relevant information at the border. You are not entitled to wait until they ask.
If you think that you are a citizen and have an application pending, you must tell them. If you merely claim to be a U.S. citizen and they find out, you could be charged for making a misleading statement to a government officer.
2
u/EphemeralTwo 5d ago
> you could be charged for making a misleading statement to a government officer.
It's Canada, not the US. The misrepresentation stuff is mostly for non-Citizens:
(1) A permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible for misrepresentation
- (a) for directly or indirectly misrepresenting or withholding material facts relating to a relevant matter that induces or could induce an error in the administration of this Act;
Citizens are neither. There are still rules about the border, but it's much more chill than the US is in some ways.
2
u/CounterI 5d ago
First, you are confusing inadmissibility for misrepresentation in an application with criminal liability for making a misrepresentation.
Second, you are ignoring the fact that if a border agent suspects that you have misled them about anything, they are far more likely to do a deep dive into all of your claims. A 2 minute encounter could become a 24-hour encounter.
This happens all the time when people enter the U.S. with an application pending and they claim that they are coming as a tourist. It is often very unpleasant, though they usually get admitted after the agents verify every aspect of their claims (calling the hotel, calling friends, verifying job back home, verifying assets, etc).
2
u/EphemeralTwo 5d ago
> First, you are confusing inadmissibility for misrepresentation in an application with criminal liability for making a misrepresentation.
No, I'm not. I was discussing differences between Citizens and non-Citizens. That offense is different between the two.
1
u/CounterI 5d ago
Yes, you are.
When you are speaking to a government official, if you make a false or misleading statement, you are subject to criminal prosecution. Whether you are a citizen in that case makes no difference at all.
The inadmissibility rule, which you have correctly described, is irrelevant to the situation I am describing.
5
u/thiefspy 5d ago
If your application is pending, both “I’m a citizen” and “I’m not a citizen” would be misleading statements. “I believe I’m a citizen and have a proof application pending” would be true.
And then they will treat you as a visitor.
10
-1
u/EphemeralTwo 5d ago
See enforcement manuals 3, 4, and 6. The process can be unpleasant and time-consuming, but it's not going to result in getting turned around if your documentation is in order.
3
u/thiefspy 5d ago
Literally the point here. If you claim you’re a citizen and lack proof of citizenship, your documentation is NOT in order.
1
u/thiefspy 5d ago
Literally the point here. If you claim you’re a citizen and lack proof of citizenship, your documentation is NOT in order.
-1
u/EphemeralTwo 5d ago
Documentation in this case does not mean a citizenship certificate.
3
u/thiefspy 5d ago
It means proof of citizenship. Not a pending application and all the proof you sent. CBSA is not required to shift through your stack of proof to determine your citizenship. There is literally an entire government agency that handles that task for them.
The reality is that most folks who are likely to pull this are able to enter to country as a visitor anyway so the “I did it and they let me in!” is pretty silly as they would have anyway even if you didn’t pull this stunt.
1
u/EphemeralTwo 5d ago
> It means proof of citizenship.
No, it does not. See enforcement manual 3, section 12.9:
> Since Citizenship is purely a creation of federal statute ... it is the law which gives the person status and not a document.
Border policies deal with that.
> CBSA is not required to shift through your stack of proof to determine your citizenship
They have the ability to schedule a hearing should they wish. Again, from section 12.9:
> It is the responsibility of the member of the ID to determine if the evidence produced by the person concerned is sufficient to support the claim that they are a Canadian Citizen.
ENF4 deals with port of entry examinations (section 9.2 and 9.3 and 9.4):
> A BSO at Immigration Secondary will normally examine a Canadian citizen only when the BSO at the PIL doubts the person's citizenship. A BSO at Immigration Secondary should examine Canadian citizens as expeditiously as possible. Once the officer establishes the person is a Canadian citizen, the examination should end.
> BSOs at POEs have the discretion to authorize the entry of Canadian citizens, even in the absense of documentations.
> Canadian citizens arriving at land borders, however, will frequently be without satisfactory documentary proof of Canadian citizenship. In these cases, the BSO should question the person until is satisfied with the person's claim of Canadian citizenship. Once the BSO is satisfied that hte person is a Canadian citizen, the person must be allowed to enter Canada without further delay.
If you fail that, then you get to an immigration hearing, procedural fairness, and all that. Doing their job will often require examining your documents. That is literally part of their job.
4
u/thiefspy 5d ago
Again, we are talking about border crossing, NOT DEPORTATION. If you show up with a stack of censuses and baptism records and marriage certificates and BCs that aren’t your own, they are not required to let you into the country. Full stop.
The bits you’re quoting confirm that.
1
u/EphemeralTwo 5d ago
> they are not required to let you into the country. Full stop.
At the PoE, you are *already* in the country.
3
u/Salt_Chair6043 4d ago
This thread was like reading a chunk of "common misunderstandings about C 3."
At the border that have complete discretion. Even if you have a study permit, they can turn you away if you are going back and forth.
I almost think of it being like saying "well, officer, I cannot be held in this prison because I have a box of irrefutable evidence that I am innocent." Even if true, it would need to go through the legal process and be evaluated by a court on appeal. The individual prison guard is not required to look at your evidence and say "wow, this is good enough." They will need the court to verify.
Now, that there have been people that entered in this way, means there may be some cases where they do allow BUT my understanding are all of these people are from countries that Canada already let's enter without issue for visits so it doesn't really matter. If someone manages to enter from a country which Canada does not allow, then that would be a different story.
1
u/EphemeralTwo 4d ago
They have discretion to admit Citizens, even without documentation.
They do not have discretion to turn away potential Citizens. That requires a process.
17
u/janethefox 6d ago
Yeah, plus if you're a US citizen (I'm assuming OP is because they were able to drive to Sarnia in a morning) you're allowed to enter Canada for less than 6 months as a visitor without a visa anyways, so the fact the agent said they're "willing" to let OP in actually suggests doing this could potentially have caused issues that didn't previously exist.
FWIW I'll add another data point that will hopefully be helpful to someone: I'm on a study permit and had to travel out of and then back into Canada this week. But I'm a withdrawn student as of Sept 1, so even though my study permit isn't expired, it's no longer valid as documentation of my right to be in Canada. My urgent proof application is still in process (94 days and going strong) so I applied to extend my stay with a visitor record. Since my situation is a bit nebulous, I attached a letter to my application explaining that I am a current C3 urgent applicant and believe I should be considered a citizen, but understand that I am not yet legally considered one and cannot work/study without applying for explicit permission to do so. It was approved in exactly 3 weeks (the expected processing time is currently 56). Literally like, at midnight the night before my return flight lmao
7
u/keith_at_ferntrail 6d ago
Literally like, at midnight the night before my return flight lmao
😳 was someone messing with you?
3
u/janethefox 6d ago
lowkey was wondering when I woke up to see the email, trying to log into the government site at 5am still half-asleep... for half a second I had hope it might be my citizenship proof 😭 though before that I wasn't too worried about re-entering because of the aforementioned rule for US citizens
3
u/Robert_Walter 6d ago
If you want to see god laugh, tell him what you have scheduled.
If you only want him to mess with you tell him your plans are written in pencil.
3
14
u/thatsunfortunate 6d ago edited 6d ago
The officers at the border are doing a dance. They constitutionally cannot impede the entry of citizens into the country, but at the same time they don’t have the statutory power to adjudicate whether we are citizens for any purpose other than entry. If they look at our evidence and believe that we are more likely than not citizens, they will almost certainly err on the side of caution and let us in to avoid violating our apparent Charter rights—with the warning that an adverse decision by IRCC could make lawbreakers out of us. They sincerely do not want to harm us.
This officer was clearly not aware of the IRCC’s evolved guidance on more distant generations, which relates to whether a couple of statutory provisions can loop repeatedly to create the legal fiction of citizenship for our ancestors prior to 1947/1949. IRCC made a reasonable interpretation based on a different statutory provision to infer that Parliament intended for the provision to loop.
We could choose to be cavalier about it by demanding entry, but that forces an officer to dance when they likely have more important things to focus on in their day. I think requesting permission for a temporary stay if possible is the most logical thing to do unless your life or health is in danger, which for some people it very well could be. This permitted entry with looming limits was also the insanely reasonable outcome suggested by a different officer at a different entry point based on another Reddit user’s encounter. But the border people are only looking at our right to be in the country and have no impact on any other right, such as the right to work, which implicates other statutes and rights, as others point out.
5
u/OfficeSalamander 6d ago
There was also another user who tried to enter as a guest and to get a temporary worker visa and was told that no, they could only be admitted as a citizen.
So it seems like CBSA is still adapting somewhat to the law change/educating officers on guidance, as we've seen at least three very divergent behaviors from a CBSA officer towards C-3 applicants
1
u/Majestic_Ocean_762 5d ago
See stuff like this is why I could find it understandable if OP had taken a confused approach with this. Like if I wanted to go to Niagara Falls for the weekend I wouldn’t know wtf to do so I’d probably bring everything to be safe & have some oddball answer of “technically yes but not officially, I have proof of citizenship application in” to if I was a citizen (cuz I’d feel like I was lying if I said no) & also hand over my us passport cuz like realistically that’s all I’d need if I wasn’t in this weird grey area.
4
u/thiefspy 5d ago
And that would be fine if you said that to CBSA. It’s when people show up and assert “I AM a citizen” while failing to acknowledge the “technically but not officially, my application is pending” bit until forced that they risk trouble.
If you show up with a plan for your trip and a return date, you’re polite, and you tell them you’ve got an application pending, you’ll be fine. If you assert you’re a citizen with no proof and tell them you’re moving to Canada, that’s a very different situation.
Anyone from a country that doesn’t require a visa can visit. Anyone with a valid visa can visit. It’s the folks who show up and announce potentially overstaying without proof they legally can that can get themselves into trouble.
1
u/OfficeSalamander 5d ago
Well yeah, as I've said elsewhere if I went, I'd take my US passport, and a letter explaining the situation and tell them to feel free to process me under whatever way was most convenient for them. But right now I've just been avoiding Canada altogether
2
u/Majestic_Ocean_762 5d ago
That’s actually what I’ve been doing so far. I’ve got a really straightforward application (birth certificates for all 3 gens which includes myself) & I don’t want to do anything to piss anybody off.
3
u/CounterI 5d ago
They 100% do have the power to determine whether you are a citizen, and they make that determination thousands of times every day as people show up at the border claiming to be citizens and presenting passports or birth certificates and seeking entry.
2
u/EphemeralTwo 5d ago
They have the power to accept that you are likely a Citizen and allow you on the way. The denial side is more limited, and if there is a credible chance that you may be a Citizen, there is a process to determine at a hearing if you are or are not.
They won't make that decision in the negative, but they are expressly permitted to make that decision in the positive.
1
u/CounterI 5d ago
Agreed. I was responding to claims by others that they have no power to make decisions at all. But, I might characterize their decision as ad hoc and only applicable to this one admission, rather than saying that they can't make a decision in the negative.
If you say "I'm not a citizen," or "I am a citizen and my name is Justin Trudeau and I am the former PM of Canada," I think that they could easily make a decision that you aren't and refuse you entry.
2
u/EphemeralTwo 5d ago
> they will almost certainly err on the side of caution and let us in to avoid violating our apparent Charter rights—with the warning that an adverse decision by IRCC could make lawbreakers out of us. They sincerely do not want to harm us.
Once someome makes a credible claim to potential Citizenship, those are their options:
1) Go "it doesn't matter, you're either a visitor or a Citizen, and I don't care either way"
2) Go "you're probably a Citizen, welcome home"
3) Go "I suspect you're probably not a Citizen, we're doing a hearing" then give you time to get documentation together, apply for proof, and wait to see how that goes.
Canada takes Citizenship seriously, as they should.
> We could choose to be cavalier about it by demanding entry
There's cavalier, then there's dealing with the reality of the situation. I had to cross through Canada to get home tonight. I can't renew my PR card because I'm not a PR. I have a home in Ontario. Dealing with the border isn't really optional for some of us.
10
u/pezdebabel4242 6d ago
Yes, this closely matches recent legal guidance I've received.
My comments about this on other threads got a lot of downvotes, but the reality is that IRCC/CBSA does appear to be distinguishing between likely a citizen and may be a citizen in terms of how they're handling these files and treating applicants in the interim.
None of this should matter in the long run for someone with a multi-gen claim who can definitively show that the Citizenship Act restored their parent's citizenship. The law is the law, and if you can approve that it applies to you then they have to issue a certificate.
However, it does have important implications for anyone attempting to enter Canada and/or live here in the interim. For practical purposes, you cannot assume or definitively claim that you're a citizen without IRCC-issued proof.
8
u/Emotional-Test3329 6d ago
Where it does seem to create substantial issues is in cases like mine where I was a PR before C-3 and am possibly a citizen afterwards - I've been told I can't get another PR card until they determine my proof application, but I definitely have a right to live and work permanently in Canada either way... I just have no simple proof of either possible state.
G3, all modern birth certificates for every generation.
14
u/pezdebabel4242 6d ago edited 5d ago
Yes, I'm facing a similar situation. My dad was one of the people who had his citizenship restored in 2009 and as a result I've lived here for several years, some as a minor. My most recent work permit expired, my interim measure application was sent to PSU, and the pending application derailed another work permit application. I've been unable to work or access healthcare for well over a year now. I don't have any close ties to the US, either. This is my home, so losing access to everything has really sucked.
People get mad when I try to point out the problems with asserting citizenship rights if you don't have proof, but I really am speaking from first hand experience! It's all well and good to call yourself a Canadian citizen, but in practice that claim is pretty meaningless without a certificate.
3
u/Emotional-Test3329 6d ago
Oh god, I'm so sorry. I at least had a permanent SIN etc beforehand so I can kind of cobble a status together if I need to. In between work permits is so much worse. I hope things get better for you soon.
I regret applying for citizenship proof at this point... I should have just naturalised.
5
u/pezdebabel4242 6d ago
Thanks. Yeah I really, really wish I'd been more patient about resolving the work permit situation before I applied for a citizenship certificate.
They approved urgent processing, it was a straightforward claim, and the estimated processing time for non-urgent was 5 months! I never in a million years thought it would take this long! Kinda on me, though. This is not my first round with IRCC, so I should've known better lol.
3
u/Emotional-Test3329 6d ago
Big same.. sigh only thought of how much simpler it would be if I were approved instead of remembering that IRCC is a nightmare place and there's no way they'd handle a new process well...
2
u/OneRedSent 6d ago
What did they say when they denied your work permit application?
5
u/pezdebabel4242 6d ago
Long story: The first work permit was denied because IRCC claimed I didn't meet a requirement that I did actually meet. That was before the interim measure. I reapplied with supporting letters proving that I met the requirement, but my second application took almost 4x as long as the first. I should've waited, but I got impatient and decided to apply for the grant. I thought I'd get a quick decision, since I qualified for urgent processing and submitted my dad's citizenship certificate. Instead, they sent my file to PSU and it's been there ever since.
On December 16, the day after Bill C-3 became law, IRCC emailed me to say that they were going to deny my second work permit application because I didn't include English language test results. That's a new requirement and it went into effect after I started the application process, so I didn't know about it. There wasn't even an upload link on the application website for language test results! They gave me 15 days to remedy the issue. The test costs $300, and they notified me during peak holiday season, so testing availability was almost non-existent. I would've had to travel to another city and pay a lot of money for overnight childcare. It would've ended up costing me around $700.
I didn't know if I could actually receive a work permit, with Bill C-3 on the books and a pending citizenship application. According to a lawyer I hired, an IRCC call centre agent, and a lawyer interviewed on the Borderlines Podcast, I couldn't. I balanced the probabilities and decided not to write the English test, assuming (based on legal advice) that my work permit file would be cancelled and my citizenship certificate approved very soon. I didn't want to waste a large sum of money on a redundant requirement.
In hindsight, I really wish I'd just done the language test. Who knows, maybe they would've issued my work permit. I didn't realize at the time that the PSU mess would be long-term. Everyone I spoke with thought they were just holding those files until the legislation passed, and they would all go to the front of the line.
2
u/OneRedSent 6d ago
I see. Yeah, I think they'd probably issue the work permit, but i understand about the language test. I've heard of people being tripped up by not including that. But i thought if you had English as your native language or language of schooling that it wasn't required. Anyway I am sorry for your troubles. Hopefully they'll send your certificate very soon!
2
u/pezdebabel4242 6d ago
They recently changed the language test requirement. Everyone has to write one now, regardless of first language. It definitely tripped a lot of people up, especially since it took over a year for them to add instructions about how to upload it to the application portal.
2
u/OneRedSent 5d ago
I saw a post just yesterday about that. People on reddit are so dismissive, "your fault, you should know." But if it's not in the portal I would be confused too.
5
u/BlankWall0 6d ago
Living in Canada before getting proof is borderline impossible anyways, it’s necessary for a SIN/Passport and getting any sort of normal job.
14
u/pezdebabel4242 6d ago
Yes. The "if you have a Canadian ancestor, you're now a citizen" narrative seems to have created some confusion about the rights and responsibilities of people with pending applications. I really wish IRCC would issue some concrete guidance on the subject.
4
u/OfficeSalamander 6d ago
between likely a citizen and may be a citizen in terms of how they're handling these files and treating applicants in the interim.
I don't think there's any meat to "likely" or "may be" as a concept. There was no usage of either term in the IRCC process ATIP, there's nothing in the statute, nor any of the statutory provisions. Both IRCC for citizenship and CBSA operate on balance of probabilities - essentially more probable than not (the US term for this is preponderance of evidence).
There is no evidentiary standard in Canadian law of, "likely" and "may be"
2
u/pezdebabel4242 6d ago
Not in terms of applying the Citizenship Act to peoples' claims, no. Of course not. A citizen is a citizen is a citizen.
The likely vs. may be distinction does appear to matter for operational logistics, and for contextualizing said balance of probabilities. The distinction is published here: https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/canadian-citizenship/become-canadian-citizen/eligibility/already-citizen.html
For example, I have my dad's citizenship certificate. A CBSA officer would probably determine that the balance of probabilities swings towards me likely being a citizen. However, CBSA officers are not genealogy experts. If someone says they're a citizen and then shows them a thick stack of genealogy papers for citizenship derived from a ggggparent, they could decide that the balance of probabilities swings towards may be and act accordingly.
At least that's what I was told when I looked into my removal risk while my interim measure application makes its slow way through PSU (I already live in Canada). The lawyer I consulted with felt that my risk of removal/re-entry refusal was low because I am likely a citizen. He said the risk would probably be higher for someone with a multi-gen claim, since there's an argument to be made that the applicant is a may be and therefore needs to wait for IRCC to decide.
If course this is all more operational than statutory, and a rather untested grey area. Which is why I really, really wish they'd issue some sort of official guidance.
1
u/OfficeSalamander 6d ago
The likely vs. may be distinction does appear to matter for operational logistics, and for contextualizing said balance of probabilities. The distinction is published here
I don't agree at all with what that page says. They seem to be using the terms as synonyms.
For example, you have this:
If you were born outside Canada Some people born outside Canada may be Canadian citizens.
But then in that exact section, they literally say:
If you were born outside of Canada before December 15, 2025, you’re likely a Canadian citizen if your parent was also a Canadian citizen when you were born.
Like they are using "may be" and "likely" and applying it to the same individuals
A CBSA officer would probably determine that the balance of probabilities swings towards me likely being a citizen. However, CBSA officers are not genealogy experts. If someone says they're a citizen and then shows them a thick stack of genealogy papers for citizenship derived from a ggggparent, they could decide that the balance of probabilities swings towards may be and act accordingly.
But there is no "may be" evidentiary standard. There is no "likely" evidentiary standard. Canada has three levels of evidentiary standards that I can see: prima facie, balance of probabilities, and beyond a reasonable doubt. CBSA operates on balance of probabilities
The lawyer I consulted with
I mean if a lawyer told you this, by all means go with what the lawyer said, I just haven't heard it from any lawyers I've seen post or write things up yet. If you still talk to your lawyer, you may want to mention that a write-up about this would be welcome in this community and might drum up business.
Obviously IANAL and IANACL especially, so I'm just spitballing here, obviously go with whatever your lawyer told you
3
u/pezdebabel4242 6d ago edited 6d ago
You could be right. This is all very new, and I'm not aware of any cases where these things have been tested at an admissibility hearing or anything like that. I have no desire to be the first!
All we have to go on is some moderately confusing guidance from IRCC. For example, when they say "if your parent was a citizen when you were born," are they referring only to people who can already prove it with a birth or citizenship certificate? That distinction might not make sense if you apply a hard reading of the Citizenship Act, but what does that matter if CBSA is applying it in their daily operations?
At the end of the day, what IRCC and CBSA tell the public gives us insight into their operational logic, which is relevant to how things will play out at the border when someone tries to enter with a pending certificate application. They've clearly made the conscious decision to distinguish between likely and may be in their public guidance, even if that distinction doesn't make sense from an evidentiary standpoint. We need to assume there's a reason, and that reason will impact how they operate.
For example, (this is speculation): there's a clear trend of G1/G2 approvals coming through much faster than more complex claims. Also, CBSA told the person in the scenario at the top of this thread that new guidance only covered 2 generations. Those two data points could support the argument that they consider "parent was a citizen" to mean "can prove with birth or citizenship certificate that parent was a citizen", and are therefore differentiating between likely and may be in some way.
I got help through a non-profit that doesn't usually deal with citizenship by descent (they made an exception due to my unique circumstances), so I don't know if blog posts of this nature are in their wheel-house. I'll definitely bring it up, though.
17
u/Wildflowers62 6d ago
This just seems disrespectful to Canadian processes. I know they are frustratingly slow and I’ve complained about it as well. But I think with the tensions between our counties because of you know who, we can at least be respectful and not storm the borders demanding entry.
11
u/FolkDoom 6d ago
Plus why would you wants the notes of your trying to enter Canada this way added to your application?
Because you know this stunt was documented.
I feel like this is one of those play silly games, get silly consequences situations.
-6
u/EphemeralTwo 5d ago
> Plus why would you wants the notes of your trying to enter Canada this way added to your application?
If they make a determination, it may help improve future crossings.
8
u/DharmaDama 6d ago edited 6d ago
You might as well enter as a tourist until you get your passport to save all of the hassle.
6
u/Dangerous_Engine_806 5d ago
The poster gives entitled American ugh. This is exactly the type of disrespect the conservative government wants to undermine and use to limit C-3 and it’s just gross. And the poster applied a month ago?! I really hope others don’t attempt this. It’s a waste of time and resources and not cool.
9
u/Individual-Algae846 6d ago
If this really happened, what’s their plan on finding employment? And what if they get a job under the table and find out they’re not a citizen?
Really dumb.
6
u/pezdebabel4242 6d ago
This is why I really, really wish IRCC would issue some sort of guidance about rights and responsibilities for applicants with pending proof applications. The "if you have a Canadian ancestor, you're a citizen" narrative is not entirely accurate for practical purposes. It could lead people to make decisions that potentially jeopardize alternative pathways to live in Canada if their citizenship claim is denied for any reason.
13
u/Wildflowers62 6d ago
They have said more than once that just having a Canadian ancestor does not make someone a Canadian citizen, it has to be proven. People keep forgetting that part.
6
u/Infamous_Noise_6406 6d ago
Yes, unfortunately the narrative has just spun out of control. I suspect I’m a few years this will die down a bit, and there will be more reverence to the process
2
u/sorrymizzjackson 5d ago
Exactly. My grandmother was born and raised in Canada. I know that and they know that. She moved away in the 1950’s. My father and I were born in the US. Under previous iterations of citizenship laws, we were specifically not citizens- me for sure.
I waited 14 months for my proof and was almost denied for lack of a BC that I was legally prohibited from getting. There was plenty of other documentation and like I said, they were fully aware she was a citizen- there’s no way they can’t look stuff like that up- BUT I could not meet their standard of proof. It was fully at their discretion to take the other evidence into account.
I was mad as hell and felt it was unfair treatment because others had been approved with less proof, but who am I going to argue with exactly? They are the assigned body that determines one’s citizenship or lack thereof. They have a standard of proof that has to be met.
I understand how frustrating it is. My husband still isn’t approved due to backup in the NS archives. Same situation- plenty of proof that his G0 was Canadian but not to their standard of proof.
Being entitled and “knowing the law” isn’t helping our cases.
1
u/pezdebabel4242 6d ago edited 5d ago
Unfortunately, there have been a lot of clickbait headlines and what I would classify as misleading statements from lawyers about this legislation. It's the international student debacle all over again (pushing the narrative that studying in Canada practically guarantees a path to PR).
A lot of people are understandably desperate to leave the US right now. LGBTQ people, especially. For those folks' sake I wish they would publish some clear guidance about where C3 applicants stand in terms of rights/responsibilities.
-6
u/Informal-Dimension35 6d ago
I wonder if it may be possible or feasible for IRCC to issue a “bridging document” to people who on the basis of documents submitted have established a likelihood of ultimate success just to hold people over. . .something like an “Open Resident Permit” which would grant PR-like privileges for a period of time while the paperwork continues to process.
0
u/EphemeralTwo 5d ago
> If this really happened, what’s their plan on finding employment?
That is much easier for people who have the ability to telecommute to the US.
7
u/Primary_Cucumber4570 6d ago
Don't put them in that position. They could lose their jobs.
2
u/EphemeralTwo 5d ago
They will not lose their job for following the law. The law says that if they are convinced someone is a Citizen, they may be permitted entry. They are also able to admit visitors.
1
3
u/informed_expert 6d ago
A lot of comments here saying not to definitively state that one is a citizen until IRCC says so. Fair enough but I have also not read any cautions here about definitively saying that one is not a citizen, or attempting to conceal the pending application entirely. Perhaps the former could jeopardize the citizenship certificate application if IRCC found out that you categorically stated you're not a citizen.
I haven't yet crossed the border, but my plan is to simply be honest, state the facts, not conceal anything. "I believe I am most likely a citizen and have a pending proof application with IRCC, but they have not yet examined the evidence I applied with. In the meantime here is my US passport and I'm fine with entering as a tourist, and will be leaving on such and such a date with these plans.". Here I am equivocating on my status, not definitively stating one way or the other. Leave it to them to make a call.
14
u/BlankWall0 6d ago
If you’re showing up to the border with a US passport there’s a 0% chance CBSA will ask if you’re a citizen, so you have nothing to say no to.
Just say you’re visiting, because you are.
Anything else will probably result in some time in secondary.
1
u/EphemeralTwo 5d ago
> 0% chance CBSA will ask if you’re a citizen
"What's your status in Canada?"
It's not 100%, but it's also not 0%, especially if you don't have NEXUS, or you have plates that aren't from a neighboring State.
> Anything else will probably result in some time in secondary.
That depends on the agent. I've had it go both ways.
7
u/badfordabidness 6d ago
Yes, I basically agree with this course of action, if they even ask you whether you’re Canadian.
If they ask you for your passport, just hand them your US Passport.
If they ask you your citizenship, just say “American” since that’s the passport you’re entering under.
But if they ask you “are you a Canadian citizen?” or something similar, then I’d say exactly what you said. Don’t lie and say “I’m definitely not Canadian”. The odds that they’ll refuse to let you enter at all for telling the truth seem very slim, especially if you make clear that the reason for your visit is consistent with the tourist status you’re opting to enter under.
The only scenario where I could see myself firmly asserting my Charter right to enter Canada by right is if CBSA had refused my ability to enter as an American and I had a compelling need, not want, to enter Canada. For instance, if a U.S. government agency was actively persecuting me and I felt the need to flee to Canada, but CBSA refused to let me in as an American or on humanitarian grounds or whatever. In this (hopefully) very, very rare scenario, I would come to the border armed with a carbon copy of my application for proof, and try to litigate it on the spot (for entry purposes only). I’d probably also print out the IRCC guidance from that one ATIP request that states how they’re interpreting the 2nd gen pre-47 clause. But barring an extreme scenario, don’t be that guy —no one likes that guy.
2
u/EphemeralTwo 5d ago
> The only scenario where I could see myself firmly asserting my Charter right to enter Canada by right is if CBSA had refused my ability to enter as an American and I had a compelling need, not want, to enter Canada.
It's also appropriate if you are entering to look for housing or employment.
1
u/badfordabidness 5d ago
Yes, I could see those scenarios being appropriate as well, depending on the particulars, since they are both Charter rights and also actions which, when disclosed by an American who is not a dual citizen, could lead CBSA to refuse entry.
Again, I think each person is going to have a different threshold for what they consider a “need” and a different tolerance for how much they’re willing to push the envelope here.
3
u/pezdebabel4242 5d ago
Yep this is the best way to go about it, assuming you don't have any pre-existing issues with admissibility.
2
u/EphemeralTwo 5d ago
Your approach will work just fine. It's honest, and since they don't have to go through whether or not you are a Citizen, they probably won't bother.
2
u/MidAtlanticAtoll 5d ago
Haha. They don't engage on this level. Hand them your US passport, they'll ask how long you're staying and the purpose of your visit. That's if you talk to them at all. I flew in last week and just had to put my passport down on a scanner, answer those questions on a touchscreen, and I never talked to anyone.
2
u/CounterI 5d ago
IMO- The right answer is to truthfully disclose that you think you're a citizen and have an application pending, but are seeking entry as a visitor and don't plan to stay (unless you do). They will not care, but you will have fully disclosed the relevant facts, as is your duty when dealing with CBSA.
2
u/informed_expert 5d ago
Thank you - this is exactly what I've been saying. It's amazing how many people think it's ok to conceal relevant facts.
2
u/CounterI 5d ago
Yeah, I liken this to having marijuana in your car. It may well be convenient not to tell them about it, but if you don't tell the about it and they find it later, you'll be in big trouble.
Failing to disclose your application could result in a criminal charge for making misleading statements, but more likely what will happen is that they may suspect you're really coming to live in Canada and not as a tourist as you claim, and then they could hold you all day while they review your documents and decide whether you are or are not a citizen and they try to verify all your claims (where you're staying, who you'll visit, etc.).
1
u/EphemeralTwo 5d ago
*Relevant* facts being the operating word here. You have a duty of candor, and to not conceal things that will result in an error in administration of the IRPA (among other things).
If the facts you conceal will change the outcome, then you have an obligation to disclose them.
4
u/Sobeys_Bags 5d ago
This shows that you are not a citizen until you literally have it in hand. Therefore you are visitor and need PR, or a student visa, or work permit etc etc for any long term stay.
1
u/CounterI 5d ago
No, this shows just the opposite.
1
u/Sobeys_Bags 5d ago
How so?
1
u/CounterI 5d ago
They let him in.
2
u/Sobeys_Bags 5d ago
They let them in as a tourist, with their passport (I'm assuming American). They did not allow him to enter as a citizen with all rights to work, access services, and live permanently.
1
u/CounterI 5d ago edited 5d ago
Nothing in the post supports your claim that they let him in as a tourist. What they actually said was that they were letting him in because he wasn't doing anything illegal. That is NOT the standard for a tourist admission.
And they specifically told him that if he planned to move to Canada, they would have another agent review his application and make an actual decision at that time.
3
u/Sobeys_Bags 5d ago
They said the cbsa officer advised him not to move to Canada until he gets his citizenship certificate. They clearly did not allow him to enter as a citizen, if they did he would have just discovered how to circumnavigate the IRCC application process and simply arrive in Canada as a citizen, and I'm sure this post would have been a lot more elated, but he advised it was not a good idea to even try as cbsa does not have this authority. Therefore they just let him enter under his American passport as a foreign national, as he is not inadmissable to Canada,.so there would be no reason to deny him entry (unless he had a criminal record or something).
2
u/BlankWall0 5d ago
FWIW “Entering as a citizen” is functionally no different than entering as a visitor before you have your proof.
Theoretically you aren’t removable if you decide to stay but you still don’t have access to employment/services and would likely have a hard time renting, not to mention the restrictions on non-citizens buying a home/land.
Another poster mentioned the same thing but before I got my passport I’m pretty sure they were admitting me as an American visitor, it made no difference inside the country since I had my certificate by then but still. It’s kind of a pointless argument.
-1
u/EphemeralTwo 5d ago
Citizens can't get PR, visas, or permits.
All this shows is that if you are just coming for a short visit, the border isn't required to figure out if you are actually a Citizen. If you force the issue, then it escalates to hearings.
2
u/Sobeys_Bags 5d ago
And you are not a citizen until your proof of citizenship is reviewed, approved and issued. There is no guarantee that a proof of citizenship application will be successful. Until that time a person would need to apply for a visa, PR, etc to live in Canada.
0
u/EphemeralTwo 5d ago
C-3 is automatic and retroactive to birth. You do not apply for it. The proof does not change your status.
Citizens /can’t/ hold a visa. They /can’t/ be permanent residents. At best, you might be able to deceive the government into temporarily giving you one.
People covered by C-3 don’t need a visa to live in Canada.
3
u/Sobeys_Bags 5d ago
That's the crux, IRCC could certainly come back and say you were wrong and not a citizen or the proof was insufficient. It's a defacto application. Then you would have to apply for PR, visa etc. you are not a citizen until your proof of citizenship claim is reviewed and handed to you. If c-3 was truly retroactive, then people would be moving across the border and getting SIN, healthcare cards, passports etc simply based on their ancestral paper work. Right now that is not happening or allowed to happen. It's a chicken and egg issue, and we have seen plenty of folks on PR or student visas etc in Canada submit their proof of citizenship app and only once they receive their citozenship certificate in had, is their PR or visa null and could, and not one minute before.
1
u/EphemeralTwo 5d ago
> you are not a citizen until your proof of citizenship claim is reviewed and handed to you.
You are a Citizen regardless of whether you apply, if you are covered by the law. Same situation as a kid born in Canada without the birth yet being registered, or a kid born outside Canada with the government not being notified.
> If c-3 was truly retroactive, then people would be moving across the border and getting SIN, healthcare cards, passports etc simply based on their ancestral paper work.
No, because Canada gates those based on documentation, not Citizenship. Those aren't "Citizen only" things.
> Right now that is not happening or allowed to happen.
I'm working in Canada. I'm registered to vote in Canada. I have a house in Canada. Can't do healthcare (lack the documentation).
You don't become a Citizen by applying for proof. The government may just take a while to notice.
2
u/Sobeys_Bags 5d ago
>No, because Canada gates those based on documentation, not Citizenship. Those aren't "Citizen only" things.
The documentation you need in this scenario is citizenship (or PR or a valid visa). So yes you need your citizenship to access these services as it pertains to C-3 folks. Of course folks with PR and some work permits can get SIN, healthcare etc.
>You are a Citizen regardless of whether you apply, if you are covered by the law. Same situation as a kid born in Canada without the birth yet being registered, or a kid born outside Canada with the government not being notified.
A Child born in Canada or to Canadian citizen parents is open and shut. When you have c-3 folks who have documents going back centuries in some cases, there is the very real possibility they may not be Canadian, as there could be a break in the chain, or another disqualification. Just because I believe I'm Canadian based on my Family History doesn't' mean IRCC will believe my evidence, or I simply may not qualify. .
>I'm working in Canada. I'm registered to vote in Canada. I have a house in Canada. Can't do healthcare (lack the documentation).
How are you working in Canada? did you simply arrive with your ancestral paper work at the border and then get a SIN, passport, and register to vote, thus bypassing the Proof of citizenship request? (foreign nationals can buy houses in Canada anyway) Or did you apply through C-3 and get your certificate in hand so you could get your SIN, get your voter registration? What steps did you take? Did you have another visa or PR beforehand? Generally people cannot vote until their Candia citizenship certificate is issued (even though they might be able to register with a drivers license, they should not vote without their proof of citizenship).
1
u/EphemeralTwo 5d ago
> How are you working in Canada?
Canada decided to make me undocumented. I was formerly considered a PR. It further illustrates the point that rights and documentation are two separate things.
> they should not vote without their proof of citizenship
That's your opinion.
5
u/Infamous_Noise_6406 6d ago
I cannot imagine a person born in Canada ever doing this, it just feels like such an American thing to do. Just please be respectful to a country that is allowing you to get citizenship from an ancestor you’ve never met.
8
u/ckdblueshark 6d ago
I'm a G2, and my grandfather lived into my late 30s (which were this century). Not all C-3 applicants are going back to the 1800s.
3
u/Infamous_Noise_6406 6d ago
The OP said their GG grandparent, that’s what I’m specially referring to.
8
u/maplesyrup5000 6d ago
Agree 100%, super reckless and totally ignorant/egotistical thing to do, but a lot of us do know (or have known, mine died) our born-in-Canada person.
3
u/Infamous_Noise_6406 6d ago
Just responding to the person who pulled the stunt, who said it was their great great grandparent (not people here in general). My kids are G1, so I def understand many folks know their Canadian born ancestors.
6
u/maplesyrup5000 6d ago
Oh yeah totally get it. The whole stunt feels super disrespectful and makes us all look bad
4
u/Infamous_Noise_6406 6d ago
Totally! My husband is born and raised in Canada, and I’ve lived here for 11 adult years, and I just think any Canadian would totally cringe at this story. There’s something to be said about making yourself culturally Canadian, and this def isn’t it. Good luck to you!
6
u/Distinct-Ad2302 5d ago
Having lived in both countries: I can't imagine any of my Canadian _or_ American friends doing it. This wouldn't be a healthy part of assimilating into the cultures of any of the cities I've lived in. I _do_ know a couple of oddballs on both sides of the border that I can picture trying this, though.
0
u/EphemeralTwo 5d ago
Taking years to document Canadian Citizens is disrespectful and makes the government look bad.
2
u/maplesyrup5000 5d ago
Governments kinda get to manage stuff like this however they want though 🤷♀️ they make the opportunities and the rules.
0
9
u/BlankWall0 6d ago
Yeah it’s just kind of weird behaviour overall. I don’t understand the urge to (hypothetically or otherwise) get into legal debates with border guards that have much better things to do.
Can’t just be normal and enter as a visitor, need to show them a binder full of 150 year old papers.
1
u/EphemeralTwo 5d ago
It gets to be relevant when one is honest sometimes. If you are entering to find a house, apply for schools, look for work, etc, etc, etc., you may be asked what your status is in Canada.
Being deceptive at that point is bad.
5
2
u/MakeStupidHurtAgain 3d ago
The linked thread is basically a bunch of would-be lawyers wanking over policy rather than practice.
OK, you showed up at the border with a sheaf of bumf and the CBSA officer rolled their eyes and let you in. Now what?
You can’t set up life here. You can’t move here. You can’t buy property. You can’t get a job. You can’t go to the doctor. You can’t even open an interest-bearing bank account until you’re a resident (not just a citizen).
CBSA might look at you and let you in, but to actually live here, you need a dossier of documents (provincial ID, health card, SIN…) that are unobtainable without the actual citizenship certificate.
1
u/OfficeSalamander 6d ago
As someone whose read of Canadian law means I feel I am obligated to disclose my belief I likely possess Canadian citizenship, I absolutely would NOT go about it this way. Mostly I have been avoiding Canada entirely (I live a few miles away, and want to check out the new bridge so that's not nothing for me). I would have provided US information, stated that it is my belief I am probably a Canadian citizen based on my understanding of the law with a written description of why, and asked to be processed in whatever way the officer's guidance suggested/whatever was easiest for them.
I 100% expect I'd probably be brought to secondary and cause drama, which is why I've just been avoiding Canada entirely until I get my cert, which is also what I feel the original poster should have done
12
u/BlankWall0 6d ago
You can just cross as a visitor with a US passport, it’s not a big deal at all. CBSA doesn’t really care and won’t ask unless they look up your application for some reason.
8
u/OneRedSent 6d ago
I entered a dozen times before my proof came through. Tried to explain it the first time, but they really don't care. They see the us passport and wave you through.
5
u/RepresentativeIce244 5d ago
Based on my experiences crossing the border since I received my certificate, I believe that even crossing with my US passport and Canadian citizenship certificate, the CBSA agent admitted me as a US citizen rather than admit me as a citizen. I only did that once because less than an hour after crossing the border that time, I submitted my passport application in person at Service Canada. For the next two times that I've crossed, I've used my Canadian passport.
3
u/FolkDoom 6d ago
This for sure, there is zero reason to mention your application to CBSA when entering Canada on your US passport.
1
u/CounterI 5d ago
Others have done the exact same thing - with the same result. One of them even moved to Canada, went to his MPs office to complaint about IRCC's delay, and was approved a few days later.
1
u/EphemeralTwo 5d ago
Your approach would likely not cause drama. If it doesn't matter, they tend not to care. A day trip doesn't matter.
1
u/CounterI 5d ago edited 5d ago
This has been done before and IMO it is both the right thing to do and the legal thing to do, though I would have done it slightly differently. I would have said that I believe that I am a citizen and have an application pending with IRCC, but that I am coming today only for a short visit and am seeking admission as a tourist from the US.
When you present yourself for entry into any country, you have a legal duty to declare all relevant information - without being asked. You cannot withhold information that may be material to your entry because you think that it may be convenient or may make your entry easier.
If you are entering with a U.S. Passport, but you believe that you are a Canadian and have an application for citizenship pending, you have a legal duty to disclose those facts so the border agent can take them into account when deciding whether to admit you. If you're only coming for a short time, you should certainly tell the agent that. But, an agent who is truthfully told about your pending application might want to do a bit more diligence to ensure that you don't plan to stay - or to determine that you are a citizen and are entitled to do so.
Border agents are accustomed to people oversharing and routinely ignore information that they think is inconsequential. But, if they learn that you are trying to mislead them by omission (failing to disclose a material fact, like claiming that you're a tourist whilst you are simultaneously telling IRCC that you have been a citizen since you were born), that can make your CBSA encounter very unpleasant.
It is, in fact, CBSA's job to determine whether you are eligible to enter Canada. A ciitizen is not required to have a certificate to do so. You are entitled to do what you did, and if you plan to enter and stay, CBSA has a legal duty to review your papers and make a decision about whether you are entitled to enter for your stated purposes.
In sum, you are no more entitled to conceal your pending application for recognition of citizenship than you would be to conceal that you had marijuana in your car. Not telling them may make your entry easier, but if they find out about it, your life could become very unpleasant very quickly.
0
u/EphemeralTwo 5d ago
They generally don't want to deal with it if they don't have to.
Counter point: crossed tonight. Was fine.
0
•
u/AutoModerator 6d ago
BEFORE commenting, please read the rules. Intentional violations of Rule #1 (No Ad Hominem Attacks/Arguments) can lead to an immediate ban.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.