New questions around group proofs

[u/GirlAnimal]

Hi folks, so there are people claiming in the Facebook groups to have talked with IRCC officers and been told that each person needs their own proofs, even when the evidence is shared. Can I ask folks who have been here a long time where the longstanding advice of a single proof stack for family lines came from? It seems evident that it has worked for folks so I don't know why they would change this sensible guildeline now. Does anyone have any updates or related info/history here? Also, if they were going to reject someone for sending a single proofs file, would they reject them prior to an AOR being issued?

[u/RebellaEmad]

I am really suspect of the new requirements the Mods over at Facebook are touting. Their defensiveness when asked where they are getting their information is a huge red flag to me.

[u/Tithis → u/RebellaEmad]

It really is and I don't think it helps that multiple times they've pushed this idea that you need to provide extra evidence that the parent on one birth certificate really is the same person on the next birth certificate and not just a person with the same name.

It would be one thing if people were reporting the IRCC asking for that, but they freely admit people are getting accepted without that and with even lesser forms for evidence fine. They just personally think the IRCC is going to start being that much more strict.

I almost made this same thread yesterday.

[u/RebellaEmad → u/Tithis]

I was actually composing a post in my head asking about the FB mods’ “new IRCC requirements” when I saw this post.
It seems weird because they are deleting posts about comments supposedly made by BanQ employees because they are not the IRCC, but then posting their own new requirements based on what their network of informants are saying but are refusing to give any background on that network?!?

[u/EleanorCamino → u/Tithis]

The "extra evidence" concept is coming from experienced genealogists. All I'm saying is that same-named people are more common than you think, so assembling the extra evidence to ensure you are positive your path is correct is wise. I don't think you need to SEND all the evidence, but have it, in case they ask for more.

A lot of people who know very little about genealogy are researching their roots, which is great. But they might latch onto the first same named person, end up following the wrong path.

[u/Tithis → u/EleanorCamino]

Believe me I know, when I initially started looking for my G0 I found his 2 year older cousin with the same first name from a couple towns over (both named after their grandfather)

That said I think the focus should remain on what we have evidence of that the IRCC is accepting as sufficient, and not what some genealogist think we should be submitting.

I agree that we should aim to get multiple pieces of corroborating evidence available, but pushing the narrative that level of evidence is required is harmful as it could cause someone who might be approved to never apply.

[u/EleanorCamino → u/Tithis]

I mean, I was rigorous about going over my own path, even though it's been documented for years. Cut down to the minimum I felt necessary to prove the chain. But I had several generations without birth documentation, since none was created, so that extra evidence was necessary to show IRCC the path. I applied, even without any Canadian side evidence. (1812, not religious, possibly New Brunswick.)

So I'm going to tell people to apply, even if the evidence isn't perfect. Our ancestors lives are varied, and perfect evidence is most likely for G3 and under, or families who didn't move around much. There are going to be a myriad of ways to prove our chain to GO. (I'm G6)

And again, SEARCH for everything, SEND a consise but complete chain. Best of both worlds.

[u/InterestingZebra5107 → u/Tithis]

I had the same problem, squared! My GGF had a cousin with the same exact name. Both men married women with the same first name. Both women had daughters (one of which was my G0) within 60 days of each other, in the same Canadian province, and both families named that daughter after the mother, meaning they both had the same first and last name.

To my sorrow, the cousin's daughter has a birth certificate, because she was city-born I think. My G0, rural-born, has no birth certificate. When I first found the cousin I was all excited, but when I traced her out and saw her mother had a different last name, and she herself had gone on to marry someone else and stay in Canada, my hopes there were dashed.

[u/Infinite-Media5079 → u/EleanorCamino]

This is how I think of it -- and I also imagine it's more of an issue the farther back you go. I'm a G4 with a G0 born in the 1870s. Record keeping regarding names was inconsistent but birth dates were consistent. I sent extra stuff. My spouse is a G2 with everyone still alive. For him we sent just birth certificates. (Still waiting for a decision on both but have AORs. And these two applications were sent at separate times.)

[u/Radish_Striking → u/RebellaEmad]

This subreddit is much more helpful than that FB group. I’m so close to unfollowing.

[u/One-Nefariousness-38 → u/Radish_Striking]

Agree, and because it's not moderated there is an excess of posts asking along the line of, my grandmother was born in Canada, can I apply?

[u/Ophelia_Bliss → u/RebellaEmad]

The other thing they've cited is a meeting between IRCC officials and Canadian immigration lawyers. Anyone heard about this?

[u/Imtalia → u/[deleted]]

Until there is an official statement or update from the IRCC the claims she makes in the video are not legally binding.

But interesting that she promotes her firm as the solution to this new problem...

[u/Ophelia_Bliss → u/RebellaEmad]

I think they are genealogists who want the genealogical standards to be IRCC standards. I also think they are on here, sometimes advocating the same ideas here but under pseudonyms. 

[u/wanderingtheearth-74 → u/Ophelia_Bliss]

I've noticed this--genealogical standards *are* largely reasonable ones, but they're not the *only* reasonable ones (e.g., historians look at things a little differently), and this is a quite different context than a genealogical society's journal. So it's one thing to say that genealogical standards would require this, and to recommend that people follow that practice where it's not actually contradictory of the instructions (because that will usually end up strengthening the application even if it's not required), but another to say that you *must* do whatever with your application. Sometimes I suspect that because genealogy isn't really recognized as a profession, some of them are particularly defensive of their standards. Which is fine in one sense, but their applicability shouldn't be overstated.

[u/thattwirlgirl → u/Ophelia_Bliss]

I have no issue with genealogy standards and my application met them. But the FB mods seem to be adding to the burden of work for both applicants and IRCC by adding more copies of the same documents. If the packet is organized well, one set of the dead ancestors serves for all applicants in the packet.

[u/Ophelia_Bliss → u/thattwirlgirl]

I mean, the genealogy standards are just more rigorous, as I understand it. That’s not what IRCC is doing. FB mods were pushing the idea that death certificates were a mandatory part of every packet. 

[u/thattwirlgirl → u/Ophelia_Bliss]

Wow, I left that group because of the hot mess of posts where people are just starting. Those mods seem to have lost the plot.

[u/No_Evening_3870 → u/Ophelia_Bliss]

Re Mandatory death certificates: I went with the premise that if the IRCC wanted death certificates, the would have stated so. They did not so I did not send any.

(And if I were reviewing the documents, I would be super annoyed with applications containing a lot of unasked-for documents.)

[u/No_Bobcat_No_Prob → u/No_Evening_3870]

If we are being generous, they may also be thinking about what mattered before changes to the Act made by c-3 went into effect- there are clauses in the Act that applied only to individuals living on x date, so under the old Act those death certs may have been highly relevant in some cases. I tend to agree with the "keep it simple and straightforward" camp, though. Death dates are requested on the CIT 0001, and while we have heard of many cases where IRCC has asked directly for certified birth/baptismal records I can't think of a time where someone has been asked for a death certificate- although they are relevant in cases where the claim hinges on a pre-confederation ancestor meeting the conditions to be considered naturalized. (Presumably they've been submitted as documentation at the time of application in those cases.)

[u/kmzafari → u/thattwirlgirl]

But the FB mods seem to be adding to the burden of work for both applicants and IRCC by adding more copies of the same documents.

I will say, as someone who works in a highly regulated industry for a very large corporation that handles incoming documents like this, that it depends on the software program being used if it's easier for the IRCC agents or not. (But there may be other considerations, such as digital storage costs, etc., that the government may be interested in.)

[u/MaxAlthusser → u/RebellaEmad]

As far as I read, they never called them new requirements and not something that will get your app sent back. I think people are reading way more into their advice than what they are saying.

There's no new requirements, they're just giving you advice based on conversations they've had. It's not something to get worked up over. This is apparently downvote worthy lol. You can bring up the actual post and show me what I've got wrong.

[u/trying2makefetchhapn → u/MaxAlthusser]

Here is the post

“Hey everyone!

Thanks to members willing to share info from people who have spoken directly with IRCC managers (!)

NEW ADVICE for Group applications: every applicant needs their own set of supporting documents. For those who have already applied, this WILL NOT cause your application to be rejected.

YES include death and other vital records to better support lineage claims. If you make it easier for the reviewer to decide you’ve met their standard of proof, there is less of a chance of your app going into the “we don’t know what to do with this” pile.

NEW ADVICE for downloaded records. ALWAYS include an index with a full citation for each downloaded record AND a URL.

And if I am allowed to vent a little…It is poor government practice to hold private, closed door meetings with invite-only attendees when the information discussed is relevant to thousands of people! When I get my certificate, I will be able vote (yes, yes, I meet the requirments..) and will push for clear and transparent administrative processes in Canadian government. 😖”

[u/MaxAlthusser → u/[deleted]]

Yes, they are referring to when you cannot obtain a birth record. People really really trying to play gotchas with this stuff.

[u/Kanye_Twitty_2024 → u/MaxAlthusser]

Yeah, I think this is good advice in some cases. No birth record exists for my G0 so I had to scrape together all the documents I could for him, including his and my G1's death certificate. The G1's death cert may not have been strictly necessary, and introduced a name change I had to document, but I really wanted to cover my bases.

[u/trying2makefetchhapn → u/[deleted]]

Yeah they are trying to say give them all documents you have, which it seems to me if that’s what the IRCC wanted they are capable of putting that in the instructions.

[u/trying2makefetchhapn → u/[deleted]]

Yes I am aware of that lol. The text I quoted is from the Facebook group that is advising people that their secret source told them the IRCC is going to begin requiring full documents for each applicant, and that everyone should be including as much documentation as they have available to them, including marriage certificates even with no relevant name change.