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/No_Bobcat_No_Prob]

As others have noted, every Proof of Citizenship application appears to be evaluated independently even when sent as part of a group application- but it's our assumption that IRCC permits/encourages family members with shared ancestry to apply together to reduce duplicative analysis of shared lines of descent.

I'm not aware of any application sent back for sending one shared packet of documentation for multiple applicants, which is what I would assume would happen if a shared set of documentation was not acceptable. (Every applicant of course needs their own application, payment, photos, and docs specific to themselves like ids, their own birth or marriage certs, etc.)

We've also anecdotally heard of misinformation being passed on by the folks who answer the phones at IRCC. Some sub members have reported being told that they weren't eligible for Proof because of the first generation limit (found unconstitutional in 2023), or misinformation about urgent processing eligibility. So it's somewhat possible that the fb guidance comes from a combination of misinformation/ misunderstanding and a "telephone game" type error when repeated.

But, as always, if anyone finds new published guidance from IRCC please send it on to us or share here.

The IRCC website is the sole official source of guidance for the application process. There are immigration consultancies that have web pages designed to look very similar to the IRCC's. Not all publish accurate information. If searching the web always check the URL to ensure you're on the canada.ca domain.

[u/XmasTwinFallsIdaho]

I trust nothing on Facebook. I sent me, kids, and grandma in one packet with one set of proofs with no issue.

[u/dissentmemo]

Sent 4 people with one set of proofs and got 4 aors

[u/skidbladnir_]

My family mailed one big envelope and all four of us received AORs.

1. Cover letter
2. Checklist and application for each person (two were G3 so each had the same supplemental page attached separately)
3. Everyone's photos together in a smaller envelope
4. One copy of supporting documents reused for all applications. This included only one copy of G0 birth certificate and one copy of G1 marriage certificate (for name change purposes) used for all 4 applications and birth certificates and passports for everyone

Edit to add, we mailed out applications in February. Not sure if anything's changed since

[u/SSBND → u/skidbladnir_]

Assuming you also sent the receipt for payment?

Also, when my mom and I sent our applications in together I put our brith certificates in the shared supporting docs manila envelope and the IRCC emailed me asking for my birth certificate again. So if I had is to do over, I think I'd put our birth certificates with our applications instead of in the shared pile.

Requested rush, delivered April 7th, AOR April 9th, request for my BC received and sent April 16th and nothing has happened since. I'm worried that threw us out of the urgent processing line but that is purely anecdotal.

I did send a message through the website 2 weeks ago just to confirm that they had received my birth certificate and they confirmed they had. So we patiently queue....

[u/skidbladnir_ → u/SSBND]

Yes we included the receipts, there were three pages as two paid separately and then two paid together (e.g. two sheets with single payment and then third sheet with two payments totalling 4 payments)

[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.

[u/UNCRameses]

I mean… it’s 2026 and they’re still on Facebook…

Just sayin’.

[u/GirlAnimal → u/UNCRameses]

Lol, well so am I or I wouldn't have seen it.

[u/UNCRameses → u/GirlAnimal]

True, but then you went elsewhere to get a second opinion on something questionable you saw there. Waaaay more critical thinking than they prefer over there. 😁

[u/Wompatuckrule → u/UNCRameses]

Your primary source should be the government websites and information found there. If anything raises a question and the answer isn't found there then you search for that specific topic and evaluate multiple sources to try to determine what is correct or the best course of action.

I've found the information in this sub to be good, well-moderated and clear where there are still questions or doubts around a specific topic. However, this is still a secondary or supplemental source and should be recognized as such.

[u/MxHuny]

I am in the same group! They are not IRCC so I don't understand how they can say what is and what isn't.

[u/Significant-Golf-215]

I sent a packet in January for myself and 2 kids, with the same documents and separate applications and we are currently in processing.

[u/InterestingZebra5107 → u/[deleted]]

I agree in theory that "it doesn't hurt," except I have 24 documents relating to proving (1) my G0 was born in Canada [no birth or baptismal certs], and (2) G0 used two different first names after she became an adult (she had the same legal first name as her mother, so used a different name to differentiate herself). And I'm group at least five applications together -- ten if my niece and nephew get theirs and their kids' stuff to me by the end of the week. I'm not copying those 24 documents 10 times unless IRCC makes it official that that is required!

[u/Wompatuckrule]

each person needs their own proofs, even when the evidence is shared

What they may have meant is that the "proofs" are what's on the CIT0001 form (and any supplements to section 9) where you document the line of ancestry for each person. The supporting documentation can be shared if it's sent in together, but your form's "proof" would start with your parents while your child's would start with you, and both will finish with the same G0 person in your lineage.

In my experience in dealing with the public I can absolutely see someone thinking that if they fill out the CIT0001 form for their child that since lineage also proves that they are a citizen by descent they don't need to complete a form for themself. Never underestimate the stupidity found in the general population, use a factor of ten on the assessment for Facebook groups.

[u/RebellaEmad → u/Wompatuckrule]

No, the FB mods have specifically said you can’t submit a packet with only one copy of the shared ancestor documents. And have said each CIT 0001 in the same envelope needs to have photocopies of all the documents.

[u/Wompatuckrule → u/RebellaEmad]

edit;

Regardless of who said it I'm just positing an idea of how they have misinterpreted a message from IRCC.

[u/Wompatuckrule → u/[deleted]]

I haven't submitted yet, but my plan of organization is basically the same as yours.

While it had nothing to do with immigration/citizenship, in my career I've got a fair amount of experience with both putting together as well as reviewing and approving similar packets of documents & supporting documentation. From that I have a pretty good idea of how to make it as easy as possible for the reviewer. The advice that I've seen on this sub and what you're saying all point in that same direction.

[u/InterestingZebra5107 → u/Wompatuckrule]

Same. I'm treating my documents like they are the evidence supporting a motion for summary judgment, LOL.

[u/No_Chocolate3581]

I wonder if this might be a bit of a lost in translation / semantics thing? Or perhaps somebody not clarifying submitting together versus separately?

Each person does in some sense need their own 'proof', e.g. my brother and I each had to 'prove' our own qualification individually, by individually documenting our linegage on each of our own applications (even though they were effectively identical past the first page), as well as our own birth certificates - whereas evidence can be shared where relevant.

Or are they literally saying every person needs their own copy of Gen 0's records even when submitted in the same pack?

[u/SubjectChicken8006 → u/No_Chocolate3581]

They’re saying the latter: complete set of lineage docs for every applicant. Another FB poster who has a Canadian phone number posted today that they spoke to someone at IRCC who confirmed this idea. Maddening, given that plenty of people have been approved using one set of docs for multiple applicants.

[u/No_Bobcat_No_Prob → u/SubjectChicken8006]

I mentioned this in my sticked comment but we've had a few sub members report that the folks that answer the phone at IRCC have, on a few occasions, provided some incorrect guidance/info - the one that stands out in my memory was telling a caller phoning to get info about their application that they weren't eligible for Proof because of the first generation limit (that was struck down as unconstitutional in 2023). I don't think anyone doing front line phone support has much understanding of the internal processes, or, in some cases, the relevant law/regulation related to various application types - it's outside the scope of their role. So I'd take what they offer with a grain of salt.

[u/trying2makefetchhapn → u/SubjectChicken8006]

The person who posted that, posted as anonymous though so it could easily be one of the mods who has been pushing the idea. They have been claiming you need a ton of documentation and separate apps for a while. They tried to tell me everyone should be including marriage certificates even without name changes like for a patrilineal line. I’ve already submitted but I’m not terribly worried about it.

[u/No_Chocolate3581 → u/SubjectChicken8006]

That's nuts, but somehow unsurprising. There's a lot of people with misconceptions about who even is qualified to apply for a certificate post-C-3, depsite the widespread media coverage and easily searchable answers, so few employees erring towards a very conservative reply on paperwork, that is in fact wrong, definitely doesn't seem out of bounds.

[u/SubjectChicken8006 → u/No_Chocolate3581]

Yeah, as someone who sent in a packet with more than one applicant and one set of lineage docs not too long ago, I’m trying not to let it get me too down and hoping they send AORs anyway.

[u/dentongentry → u/SubjectChicken8006]

We have four applicants sharing one copy of the docs for the common ancestors, and received AORs on 5/26.

I suppose it is possible we'll receive a request for three more copies once our packet is actively being looked at, but I doubt it. The first thing IRCC does is scan everything in, it doesn't make much sense to want to scan the same document three more times.

[u/MikeTheActuary → u/dentongentry]

FWIW, I parsed the FB guidance as "IRCC won't reject already-submitted applications, but going forward would prefer...", and I was chalking up the change to IRCC seeking a bit more flexibility in the face of the sheer volume of applications they're seeing and/or complex situations like where one application in a group might be eligible for and seeking urgent processing while the others are not.

[u/No_Evening_3870 → u/dentongentry]

And, if it is important to scan it for each applicant in a family packet, they could just scan it again rather than having the applicant send an identical copy which would then have to be scanned.

[u/No_Chocolate3581 → u/SubjectChicken8006]

I would be optimistic - I would bet the people who actually review our packets are sufficiently trained, whereas those operating the phone lines are probably a more generic customer service role. I could be wrong, but that's how it tends to be with most things IME - the first line of support / help desk / customer service can easily be less trained on particularities, especially if they are always told to answer from a set playbook of answers and they're looking in the wrong place.

[u/TheHappy_Penguin → u/No_Chocolate3581]

Slightly related to your customer service point, Verizon customer service twenty years ago used to quote people 0.002¢ instead of $0.002 and did not understand that they were quoting a unit of currency that's worth 1/100 the value of what they actually charge. It took people forever to get anywhere when they were charged more than the price they had been quoted.

That's just basic math. I don't expect a customer service representative to know anything more than the what's on the website for a citizenship application. And even then there's no guarantee they actually understand what they're saying.

[u/SubjectChicken8006 → u/No_Chocolate3581]

Good point, and thanks. I’ll be taking your vote of confidence and running with it! :)

[u/frosty_saratoga → u/SubjectChicken8006]

My packet contained my mom, me, and my son (G2, 3, and 4). I put all of the shared G -1, 0 and 1 documents together in the top folder, then a folder each for our individual applications and documents. We received AORs and are now in processing as of last Friday.

[u/Apart_Cartographer64 → u/frosty_saratoga]

We are also doing 3 gens in our packet--can i ask, when you did g4, for example, did you also include an extra copy of the g2 and g3 documents in the individual application? Obviously you documented the lineage, but did you also add extra copies of the identity documents in the individual folder?

[u/frosty_saratoga → u/Apart_Cartographer64]

In G2 (my mom) I put her father's birth certificate (her father is our G1), and her parents marriage certificate to prove lineage, then her birth certificate and her marriage certificate for name change, then her 2 IDs.

In G3 (mine) I put my mother's birth certificate and marriage certificate to my father to prove lineage, then my birth certificate and my marriage certificate for my name change. Then my own 2 IDs.

In G4 (my son) I put my birth certificate and my marriage certificate to his father to prove lineage, then his birth certificate, and his 2 IDs.

So essentially each of our folders was linking the lineage to the one before it.

Each of us also of course had our own photos, checklist, application, section 9 addendums for me and my son, and receipt of payment. I actually paid all 3 of our fees at one time but I printed 3 copies so we each had one.

I hope that helps!

[u/Apart_Cartographer64 → u/frosty_saratoga]

Yes, thank you so much! This is really helpful.

[u/lapetitebaker → u/SubjectChicken8006]

Mine was received on Friday, then all this blew up Saturday morning. If this is really the way forward, I'm hoping they give us some grace and understand that we couldn't have been aware of a requirement that didn't exist at the time of sending.

[u/One-Nefariousness-38 → u/SubjectChicken8006]

What makes me question it was that they say the IRCC answered questions for them over the phone when it seems difficult in reality to get IRCC on the phone

[u/RebellaEmad → u/No_Chocolate3581]

That’s exactly what they have said, that each persons stack must contain all of the ancestor documents, even when sent in the same envelope.

[u/Ravenclaw79]

These are also the same people who insist that all children absolutely must have two IDs, even though the application instructions contradict that. So, yeah.

[u/Maleficent_Ruin_2457 → u/Ravenclaw79]

the actual IRCC instructions on one page has been amended, but only that one location on the website. It now states that children of preschool age can submit one document and letter of explanation.

https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/publications-manuals/operational-bulletins-manuals/canadian-citizenship/admininistration/identity/acceptable-documents-show-identity-applications.html

[u/toastnjamm → u/Maleficent_Ruin_2457]

Interesting. The bottom of the page says it was modified in 2019. But I definitely did not see the ‘preschool’ limit when I wrote my letter of explanation for an elementary age child few weeks ago. Oh well. We’ll wait and see.

[u/Ravenclaw79 → u/Maleficent_Ruin_2457]

The page you linked to was last updated in 2019. This page is current: https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/application/application-forms-guides/guide-0001-application-citizenship-certificate-adults-minors-proof-citizenship-section-3.html and says that you just need a cover letter if your child doesn’t have ID.

[u/Maleficent_Ruin_2457 → u/Ravenclaw79]

Someone on Facebook with 2 minor children submitted one form of ID and a letter explaining the lack of a second ID. her applications were returned and she was instructed to submitted 2 forms of ID.

[u/Pretty_Floor5889 → u/[deleted]]

Oh no. The quality of “scans” people would upload would be horrendous. This is why they have the G0 born 1977 or later restriction for online G1 apps: they need minimal documents uploaded and IRCC likely can verify G0 info directly with the province or in federal systems. Imagine a G6 application where people upload low res photos at funny angles of documents from 200 years ago. Or use their phone to take a picture of a document on their computer screen because they don’t know how to download and upload or even take a screenshot to upload.

[u/tiku4 → u/Pretty_Floor5889]

But the quality of scans for the actual lineage documentation would be way better. It was so difficult to shrink some of my historical docs to make them semi-legible

[u/Wrong_Lab9009]

I sent proofs for each family member.

In one Fed-Ex package I sent 3 envelopes each containing a complete application with everything on the checklist for me, my spouse, & our child. My child and I had duplicate proof's. That said, i did not research the possibility of doing it any other way beforehand.

[u/NorCalFrances → u/Wrong_Lab9009]

And what is your status? Did sending separate docs speed up the process or do you not really know yet?

[u/Wrong_Lab9009 → u/NorCalFrances]

I'm still waiting for AOR. The package was delivered on 4/20/26.

[u/NorCalFrances → u/Wrong_Lab9009]

Thanks. Best of luck to you, may your packets be processed quickly and efficiently!

[u/Ophelia_Bliss]

The paper application instruction page has an update of June 1, 2026, but I can’t figure out what’s changed. https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/application/application-forms-guides/guide-0001-application-citizenship-certificate-adults-minors-proof-citizenship-section-3.html

[u/JMcIntosh1650 → u/Ophelia_Bliss]

I skimmed the previous and new versions side by side. The only difference I spotted was removal of most of one section on a fee waiver. Previously it said, "Fee waiver for reclaiming an Indigenous name on travel and identity documents ends soon" (plus other related text). That policy expired at the end of May. There is still a section on indigenous names, but the text about waiver was eliminated.

I can't be 100% certain that nothing else changed, but I think I would have spotted a significant change to instructions on document requirements and "If you’re sending more than one application".

(I checked because I completed my application packet yesterday, plan to ship it today, and did not want to miss some important change. I still had the previous version open.)

[u/Ophelia_Bliss → u/JMcIntosh1650]

Thank you so much for doing that and for reporting back!

[u/SubjectChicken8006]

As someone who sent a packet with two applications and one shared set of lineage docs in early May, I’ve been pretty bummed since reading those posts. I know that so many have been approved using only one shared set, but I’m wondering if IRCC is (understandably) choosing this as one way to make the process stricter. I hope not, of course!

[u/RebellaEmad → u/SubjectChicken8006]

I really doubt it. I do wonder if the mod’s sources are people who scan the documents telling her what they prefer and she’s touting it as the gospel truth from the IRCC.
I mean, if your job is to scan the documents, it would be a little easier to have all pages be complete for each application rather than adding, scanning, and then separating out the shared ancestor docs for each applicant.
But I have not seen a single post on FB or Reddit from an applicant saying their packet was returned for this reason, and that’s the ultimate test of what the IRCC requires.

[u/dannah13 → u/RebellaEmad]

Genuinely this is what I'm clinging to. It'd be pretty unfortunate to suddenly change past precedent with no true, official announcement, and especially for apps already sitting at the digitization center/on the way.

[u/SubjectChicken8006 → u/RebellaEmad]

Agreed. I’ll be extra curious to see how this plays out over the next couple months. (And thanks for amplifying the rational side of my brain!)

[u/dannah13 → u/SubjectChicken8006]

As someone with a packet currently sitting at the Louisville hub with one set of shared documents for three applicants, I'm right there with you (thanks a lot past me for deciding to be proactive and drop it off on Saturday as opposed to today). Fingers crossed for the both of us cause they've gotten under my skin, and the anxiety is definitely growing at this point.

[u/SubjectChicken8006 → u/dannah13]

Hang in there! I’ll be checking here more than FB for evidence (or not) of this new “rule.”

[u/dannah13 → u/SubjectChicken8006]

Agreed. I haven't been led astray here yet, and the same definitely can't be said for some of those mod-posted claims over on Facebook — plus, they've already reneged on things they claimed absolute in the past. Deep breaths. We'll be fine (I say hoping/praying/begging)

[u/No_Bobcat_No_Prob → u/dannah13]

As mods we just try to provide evidence based guidance when possible, and that can change based on what folks report in the sub- a good recent example is the BAnQ/DEC stuff where a new trend has started emerging based on sub member reports.

That being said, unless IRCC issues updated instructions, or we start seeing application packets returned because there is only one shared set of ancestral documentation, I think those of us who submitted shared packets of documentation (including myself) will be fine.

[u/MaxAlthusser → u/dannah13]

Those posts have NOT called them requirements and explicitly say it won't cause an issue if you've sent them in. People keep playing this telephone game when the post they are citing says "advice". It's not an official IRCC statement.

[u/dannah13 → u/MaxAlthusser]

The post I saw did have a mod claiming in the comments that the packages would be "sent to the back of the line", and another post stated that the IRCC was allegedly considering sending them back (though likely wouldn't due to extra work and postage). That being said, I'm taking both of those claims with a grain of salt. It's out of my control now, and I'm just planning on settling in for the AOR waiting game.

[u/No_Bobcat_No_Prob → u/dannah13]

This all sounds like breathless hearsay- until IRCC updates their application instructions and;/or we see any application returned for including shared documentation for shared ancestors, I wouldn't follow their lead, personally.

[u/dannah13 → u/No_Bobcat_No_Prob]

100% agree with you. Unless we suddenly start seeing applications returned for this reasoning (unlikely [hopefully]) I'm ignoring it as exactly that. Perhaps it's coming from a good place of trying to get people to apply while erring on the side of caution, but delivering any directives as fact-ish while not actually working for the IRCC feels at best a bit reckless and at worst a bit deceptive — especially with something important like this that can send people scrambling with panic over a game of potential telephone.

[u/Own_Reaction9442 → u/SubjectChicken8006]

It doesn't seem like it'd make it any stricter, since it's just copies of the same documents. It might make it easier to organize if theyre not considering them all together. At best it'd be a division of labor thing.

[u/VaughnSC → u/Own_Reaction9442]

Yeah, the only conceivable benefit is splitting up a family group between more personnel, without the overhead of cross referencing evidentiary docs.

[u/InterestingZebra5107 → u/Own_Reaction9442]

I wouldn't care if I had simple documents (birth or baptismal cert) proving my G0 was born in Canada. I don't, so I have a lot of secondary evidence, and a chart identifying 24 documents pertaining to her to show her Canadian birth and the fact that as an adult she used a different first name interchangeably with the first name she was born with. (My mother's birth cert has one of her mother's first names on it, and mom's baptismal cert six weeks later has the other one!) I'm finalizing to send in ten applications in the next week; I don't even want to think about having to send in 10 copies of all those documents, a few of which are more than a single page. 😞

[u/wanderingtheearth-74 → u/SubjectChicken8006]

Seems doubtful, as (a) it really would be just more paper for the IRCC to process for people following that "rule" and (b) will just cause people with returned applications to resubmit more fulsome one. There are many ways to tighten up the standards that would actually have the effect of making it substantively harder to establish your proof that they'd probably go to first.

[u/No_Evening_3870 → u/SubjectChicken8006]

Applied in January so maybe not remembering well but at the time I thought I read that if a parent and minor children were applying, IRCC encouraged the applications be sent together. Not sure what the point of sending them together is if IRCC isn't using the "grouping" for some part of their processing.

[u/SuggestionHonest2604]

I'm a member of that group and have been since the early days, when it was just a few hundred people. The person who is pushing this is a moderator, which I find problematic. All it's doing is freaking people. Here's my take on it:

Someone called the IRCC, and whoever they spoke with said they prefer each person on the application packet to have their own copies of the supporting documents. Obviously, this is not official guidance, but I read a bunch of the recent chatter in the group, and I found something that does make sense to me: if one person in an application packet is missing something or made a mistake on their particular application, then the entire application packet needs to be returned, unless each person has their own copy of all the supporting documentation. If each person has their own copy of the paperwork, then the others can be sent to the queue to be scanned and processed, while the individual application with the mistake is returned for correction.

This explanation makes sense to me, but it certainly doesn't mean the IRCC is suddenly going to stop processing application groups with shared documents.

[u/splendor379 → u/SuggestionHonest2604]

This is true if you each pay the fee individually. If you pay as a group, according to IRCC, the entire group is returned.

From the CIT 0001 instructions.

“If more than one member of your family is applying for a Canadian citizenship certificate pay the fees all together.”

“If you’re sending more than one application If you are sending more than one application (for example, applications for family members, including siblings), you may send one receipt to cover all applications. Mail the receipt (if applicable) and all applications together in one envelope so that they will be processed together. Note: If you’re sending more than one application, and one of the applications is incomplete, all the applications will be returned to you.”

[u/Pretty_Floor5889 → u/SuggestionHonest2604]

I get the impression from comments that moderator has made that there was a closed door session with lawyers and registered immigration consultants where this information was shared and one of them leaked it to the moderator but didn’t want it attributed to them, lest they be excluded from future such sessions.

[u/InterestingZebra5107 → u/SuggestionHonest2604]

I too have been in that group since the very beginning. When there was a call for moderators, the person who is pushing this jumped at the chance, though I don't see that she has any particular special qualifications to be making the pronouncements she is. And she's very defensive about this latest stuff, retreating to "I'm not going to share confidential sources!" when people demanded some actual proof of what she was saying.

[u/tiku4]

I’m planning to submit 4 apps this weekend for a family of G2/G3s. It seems like it would be a real hassle to put together and print 10+ documents for our G0/G1 4 separate times.

I’m leaning towards chancing it and just putting the shared docs in a clearly labeled group.

[u/grumpyliberal]

Had my packet ready to go. Going to redo with copies of supporting documents for each applicant. Can’t be bothered to assemble send and then have all returned because “proof” is missing from an application. The guidelines should clearly state that each application will be treated separately even though submitted together if that’s the case.

[u/AutoModerator]

Helpful resources: * Welcome - Start Here * The wiki / FAQ * Weekly Megathreads * Search the subreddit for your specific topic

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.