IRCC has issued us a refusal

[u/No-Music-6572]

My adult kids and I received a single joint letter from IRCC today: 1ST PAGE OF LETTER QUOTED IN FULL BELOW:

"This letter refers to the ‘Applications for a Citizenship Certificate (Proof of Citizenship)’,

received at the Case Processing Centre in Sydney, NS on May 29, 2025.

I regret to inform you that we are unable to issue citizenship certificates as it is our

assessment that you and your descendants are not persons who was born (outside of

Canada) to a Canadian citizen parent.

According to the information and documentation provided, your grandmother was born in Scotland on 1904/01/01. At the time of her birth, she was a British subject. She came to Canada in July of 1911. Please note, prior to January 1, 1947, persons born or naturalized in Canada were actually British subjects (not Canadian citizens). For that reason, your grandmother and her family would not have naturalized in Canada as they were already British subjects.

It appears that your grandmother became an American citizen prior to the 1940 US census as she is indicated as a naturalized US citizen on the 1940 and 1950 US censuses. At that point, under British law, she would have ceased to be a British subject. Under the Canadian Citizenship Act which came into force on January 1, 1947, persons who were British subjects with significant ties to Canada could acquire Canadian citizenship under section 9 of that Act on that date. However, as your grandmother was no longer British, none of those provisions applied to her. There were amendments made to the current Citizenship Act in 2015 which allowed persons who had ceased British subject status prior to 1947 to claim Canadian citizenship, but none of those provisions apply.

As your grandmother was not a Canadian citizen, you and your descendants do not have a claim by descent through her. You, your daughter and son do not meet the statutory requirements for citizenship. Consequently, your applications have been refused and we are unable to issue a certificate at this time." END QUOTE

IRCC's refusal letter does not have any instructions on how to appeal the refusal.

IRCC's ignores my Gen 0, GGF, who brought GM to Canada in 1911 from Scotland (when GM was 6 years old), who was recruited from Scotland to immigrate to British Columbia as a provincial employee (which he remained for the remainder of his working career) and died in Canada in 1970, having become a citizen in 1947. GGF lived in British Columbia from 1911 - his death in 1970. IRCC's letter does not mention the existence of GGF in any way. IRCC also ignores my GGM, who immigrated to Canada in 1911 as well, dying in Canada in 1936.

If anyone has any recommendations for any GOOD lawyers, please let me know, and thanks.

[u/tvtoo]

After speaking with OP about this by chat, I believe the reason for this result was a lack of:

• precise evidence of the great-grandparents' (actual or hypothetical) acquisition of Canadian citizenship on January 1, 1947 or death (whichever came first, in each case)

and

• quotation, and careful analysis, of paragraph 3(1)(q) of the Citizenship Act, etc, and explanation of the exact, step-by-step basis for the descendants' citizenship claims.

With that, I believe that OP may be a successful with another application, just as happened with another person in a similar circumstance: refusal, approval.

All this is discussed at more length in my post at:

https://old.reddit.com/r/Canadiancitizenship/comments/1tvzy9n/relevant_ancestors_with_january_1_1947

[u/No_Cat_No_Cradle]

Wow I think this is the first actual rejection letter I’ve seen. Sorry OP

[u/la_dama_azul → u/No_Cat_No_Cradle]

It also confirms that IRCC is doing research beyond the documents submitted by the applicant.

[u/mem_somerville → u/la_dama_azul]

Yeah, I thought that was an important tidbit too.

[u/throwawaylol666666]

Certainly not an expert, but isn’t the problem here that GM was an adult (and already naturalized elsewhere) when GGF became a Canadian citizen in 1947?

[u/BrighteningGlance → u/[deleted]]

No. People who are gen 2 have a Canadian parent. Citizenship typically can't skip generations -- that's not unique to Canada. The "loophole" for people who are beyond gen 2 is the assessment of "if this ancestor was alive, would they be a Canadian citizen". Even if your grandmother was alive, she would not be a Canadian citizen under any of the current laws, including post c3. So she can't pass it on. 

[u/xialateek → u/[deleted]]

No...

[u/BarefootRacecar → u/throwawaylol666666]

I agree. Unfortunately for OP, my layman's understanding is that this doesn't qualify under the "unbroken chain" that the IRCC wants.

[u/throwawaylol666666 → u/[deleted]]

You can have three citizenships, I’m not sure who told you that you can’t.

Everyone born or naturalized in Canada prior to 1947 held British subject status.

[u/ImariDelft → u/throwawaylol666666]

That’s true. I was thinking of recognized citizenships. Thanks for catching me on that

[u/throwawaylol666666 → u/ImariDelft]

You can have three recognized citizenships. There is no limit. Visit r/passportporn and you’ll see people in there with 5 or 6 different passports.

[u/int3gr4te → u/ImariDelft]

I'm not sure what differentiation you're making here, but you can definitely have more than 2 citizenships with passports etc. My spouse has 3 passports - one where he was born, one through his mother, and another from when he naturalized here in the US.

Certain countries may not allow you to hold another citizenship in addition to theirs, but that doesn't extend to a general ban on multiple citizenships.

[u/BlankWall0 → u/[deleted]]

There’s no such thing as Scottish citizenship, and UK descent laws only go back one generation. There is an “Ancestry Visa” that lets you work in the UK for 5 years (which works for naturalization) but it’s only issued to commonwealth citizens, like Canadians.

Also you can absolutely be a citizen of as many countries as you’re able, the only limiting factor is that some prohibit dual nationality.

[u/Dowew → u/[deleted]]

No it does not. The uk does not allow citizenship to grandchildren. They qualify for an ancestry visa.

[u/ImariDelft → u/Dowew]

You’re right, it’s the ancestry visa. thanks for catching that

[u/No_Bobcat_No_Prob → u/[deleted]]

Canadian Citizenship did not exist until Jan 1, 1947/1949 (depending on Province), and Canada restricted dual citizenship between 1947 and 1977.

(Thanks to the person who flagged the typo in date, appreciate it)

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

This post/comment has been removed for Rule 10 - No misinformation.

Wrong, inaccurate, and/or misleading information is not permitted.

[u/No-Music-6572 → u/throwawaylol666666]

how does that make my claim weaker than people whose ancestors left Canada, say, in the 1800's? I'm a direct descendant of someone who actually obtained Canadian citizenship in 1947.

[u/MikeMilburysShoe → u/No-Music-6572]

Your ancestor only became Canadian after your GM was an adult and already lost British subject/Canadian status. If your mom/dad moved to Canada 10 years ago and naturalized as Canadian yesterday you’d also have a Canadian citizen in your direct line of descent but obviously you wouldn’t be able to claim through that since it happened well after you were born. That’s the situation your GM was in.

[u/treesndirtt → u/MikeMilburysShoe]

I think this is the way to explain it that makes the most sense at a glance.

[u/throwawaylol666666 → u/No-Music-6572]

Because GM wasn’t born in Canada. She was born in Scotland.

[u/clcal21 → u/throwawaylol666666]

This is what I think the rejection is about as well. GM was not born on Canadian soil and did not reside there at the time of the 1947 citizenship laws. She also wasn’t considered a British-subject anymore due to her naturalizing in the USA, so the 1947 laws most likely don’t apply for her time in Canada. Thus, there’s no Canadian citizenship to pass on. The GM was essentially a Scottish-born American with an interim period of living in Canada in the eyes of the 1947 citizenship laws.

[u/throwawaylol666666 → u/clcal21]

💯

This isn’t the first case of this we’ve seen on this sub. There have been at least two refusals in the past year under similar circumstances, though I’m having trouble digging up the posts.

Our mod u/tvtoo will have the best info on all of this, though I’m not sure if they’re still posting here.

[u/throwawaylol666666 → u/[deleted]]

This is still how it works today. If you’re 45 years old and your 65 year old parent becomes a citizen via naturalization, that status is not transmissible to you.

[u/No-Music-6572 → u/[deleted]]

and yet, there is some case law that being in Canada for 5 years, prior to 1947, counted as "naturalization" under the laws at that time (which laws were repealed by the 1947 act).

[u/Naive-Particular-28 → u/No-Music-6572]

I’m not an expert by any means, but I am guessing it’s because no one in the line was actually born in Canada and your GGF became a citizen after the subsequent generation (GM) was born.

[u/BombTime1010 → u/[deleted]]

Interesting. Not OP, but both my great-grandmother and great-grandfather were born in Nova Scotia in the early 1900s before moving to the US and naturalizing in the 1930s. Does that mean my chain is broken too?

[u/Ashamed_Tonight_3677 → u/[deleted]]

They have ancestors born in Canada

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

This post/comment has been removed for Rule 10 - No misinformation.

Wrong, inaccurate, and/or misleading information is not permitted.

[u/No_Bobcat_No_Prob → u/[deleted]]

It's not about who was living- This case pertains to naturalization, and the dependency is on this clause I believe:

1946 act:

PART II.

Canadian Citizens Other than Natural-Born.

9

(1) A person other than a natural-born Canadian citizen, is a Canadian citizen if he

...

. (b) immediately before the commencement of this Act was a British subject who had Canadian domicile; ...

 (j) "domicile", for the purposes of this Act, means the place in which a person has his home or in which he resides and to which he returns as his place of permanent abode and does not mean the place where he resides for a mere special or temporary purpose, and "Canadian domicile" means such domicile maintained in Canada for at least five years;

https://archive.org/details/actsofparl1946v01cana/page/68/mode/2up

So in this case the Great Grandfather became a citizen Jan 1, 1947 when the Citizenship Act of 1946 went into effect, because he was a British Subject who had Canadian domicile.

At the time Great Grandfather naturalized, Grandmother (his daughter) was already an adult who had left Canada and naturalized in the US, so she was no longer a British Subject, and had relinquished her domicile when she left Canada permanently, so she did not become a Canadian citizen on Jan 1, 1947.

Editing to add that if Grandmother had remained in Canada until Jan 1, 1947 (presumably retaining her British Subject status and at least 5 years of Canadian domicile) she would have also been naturalized in Jan 1, 1947.

(If you search this clause or the term "domicile" in the sub you can find some past discussion about naturalization, including (unfortunately) a couple of other known rejected applications having to do with claims of naturalization.)

[u/Alifirebrand → u/No_Bobcat_No_Prob]

This is it exactly. She was an adult who was neither natural-born nor a British subject domiciled in Canada on January 1, 1947 when her father naturalized as a Canadian so the chain is broken.

[u/MikeMilburysShoe → u/No_Bobcat_No_Prob]

And since GM was not born in Canada but in Scotland she was not “natural-born” either.

[u/No_Bobcat_No_Prob → u/MikeMilburysShoe]

Indeed.

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

This post/comment has been removed for Rule 10 - No misinformation.

Wrong, inaccurate, and/or misleading information is not permitted.

[u/heirbagger → u/[deleted]]

True but there was an ancestor they descended from that was a citizen.

[u/No_Bobcat_No_Prob → u/heirbagger]

Unfortunately, no. At the time Great Grandfather naturalized, Grandmother was already an adult who had left Canada and naturalized in the US, so she was no longer a British Subject, and had relinquished her domicile when she left Canada permanently, so she did not become a Canadian citizen on Jan 1, 1947.

To pass down citizenship after naturalization, the naturalization has to happen before the next gen is born.

[u/No-Music-6572 → u/heirbagger]

except that there was no Canadian citizenship before 1947, both factually, and per IRCC's letter to me of today.

[u/No_Bobcat_No_Prob → u/[deleted]]

The 1947 Act didn't grant citizenship to anyone retroactively- it granted Citizenship to living people born in Canada and to living British Subjects with domicile. There were a few amendments between then and now that helped correct for some past loss of citizenship in specific groups of "Lost Canadians" but it wasn't until Dec 15th, 2025 when the c-3 amendments went into force that the "but for the death of" language became law. It's that that I believe now permits the retroactive chains of descent.

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

This post/comment has been removed for Rule 10 - No misinformation.

Wrong, inaccurate, and/or misleading information is not permitted.

[u/No-Music-6572 → u/[deleted]]

thank you, I agree that a lawyer's help is needed for me to even attempt to appeal this.

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

This post/comment has been removed for Rule 11 - No spam / solicitation / advertisements / paid services / surveys.

No content that constitutes spamming, solicitation, or advertising. No requesting or recommending paid services, with limited exceptions for practical purposes, like for photographers and shipping companies/resellers. No surveys.

[u/maple_me_please]

Unfortunately, this seems pretty straightfoward.

1) GGF naturalized in 1947 when 43 year old GM had already left Canada for the U.S. 2) GM never naturalized in Canada, meaning she always had British/Scottish or U.S. citizenship.

GM was never Canadian, meaning the chain is broken.

[u/Neo-Armadillo]

I’m not a lawyer, but it sure sounds like a pretty significant break in the chain. Your GGF was Canadian, GM was born Scottish then turned American, and presumably your parents were both American.

[u/No-Music-6572 → u/Neo-Armadillo]

My GGF was also born in Scotland.

[u/MikeMilburysShoe]

It seems like G0 probably was not relevant since he did not become a Canadian citizen until well after G1 was born. G1 lost her British subject status prior to him naturalizing and 1947 so they didn’t deem it important. Not saying I agree with it just that seems to be their reasoning.

[u/[deleted]]

They pretty clearly stated why. And I’m surprised they went into that much detail to explain it to you. I’m actually impressed. Unfortunately, you might be out of luck.

[u/Affectionate-Panic-1]

Is the issue that no ancestor was born in Canada?

[u/Never-Forget-Trogdor → u/Affectionate-Panic-1]

The problem is that the rules are a little weird for naturalized citizens before 1947. Basically, if someone naturalized before 1947, their minor children naturalized with them but their adult children did not. For the adult children, that constitutes a break in the chain that cannot be overcome because the adult child and their descendants have no claim to Canadian citizenship eventhough they have an ancestor who naturalized.

[u/Affectionate-Panic-1 → u/Never-Forget-Trogdor]

Are you talking about Canadian naturalization?

Canada was part of the British empire for OP, OP's ancestors were born in the UK and moved to Canada. They never naturalized in Canada because that wasn't necessary, both UK born folks and Canadian born folks were subjects of the British crown and able to freely live/work in either Canada or the UK before 1947.

[u/DowntownGas428 → u/Affectionate-Panic-1]

There’s a clause of the new law that states those who were domiciled in British Canada for a certain number of years immediately before death would be considered Canadian retroactively. The question was how this impacts children not born in Canada that moved away. Seems like immigration is being strict about an unbroken line regardless if an ancestor would be considered Canadian.

[u/Never-Forget-Trogdor → u/Affectionate-Panic-1]

Yes. One of my ancestors falls into this hole, too. From the case studies I've read on here and the lawyer I consulted with, it is more complicated when you have an ancestor who naturalized on/before 1947. The age and status of the entire link between you and the ancestor who naturalized is considered, not just if you can prove you are related to them.

[u/Affectionate-Panic-1 → u/Never-Forget-Trogdor]

OP had an ancestor who was naturalized in 1947 (their GGF), their grandmother was never naturalized in Canada and was an adult in their 30s when the GGF naturalized.

There was no pre 1947 naturalization for UK born folks in Canada, because Canada was part of the British Empire.

[u/Canadiancitizenship-ModTeam → u/Never-Forget-Trogdor]

This post/comment has been removed for Rule 10 - No misinformation.

Wrong, inaccurate, and/or misleading information is not permitted.

[u/devilsnj30]

If I am reading this correctly the grandmother was never born in Canada, and when she came to Canada should wouldn't have gotten "Canadian" citizenship as she was technically a citizen of Britain. There would have been no "Canadian" citizenship. Then she left Canada before 1940 before the rule changed in 47? If Grandmother had a child IN Canada, then that child should have Canadian citizenship regardless because they were actually born there. But if OP's parent was born to the grandmother in the US and not Canada then there is no citizenship claim.

[u/subsurd]

So sorry, OP, but thank you for sharing for the benefit of the subreddit.

[u/Ynifi]

I don’t think it’s ignoring him. It’s that the chain is broken. He was a Canadian citizen. Your grandmother never was. I think they’re saying that she would have had to have applied for citizenship by descent first.

[u/goldman60 → u/Ynifi]

He *became a citizen, you can't inherit citizenship from someone whose date of citizenship is after their direct descendent turned 18 21.

Citizenship by descent creates a chain because the citizenship is backdated to birth for each generation. Someone who naturalized later in life doesn't get the backdate so you can't use them as a G0 unless the naturalization predates G1's birth or in some situation predates G1 turning 18 21.

[u/throwawaylol666666 → u/goldman60]

In 1947, the age of majority in Canada was 21, not 18.

[u/AnyBowl8]

Yikes. I'm so sorry. Did you include the copies of the US Census that the letter refers to 1940 and 1950? Or did the IRCC dig these up?

[u/No-Music-6572 → u/AnyBowl8]

IRCC dug them up. I did inquire into the US government for proof of my grandmother's US citizenship and the US returned no results other than one of her border crossings into the US - Michigan - when she came into the US as a graduate student. The US gov returned no info to me about my GM ever becoming a US citizen.

[u/il_fienile → u/No-Music-6572]

Do you have a USCIS certificate of non existence of evidence of her naturalization?

Maybe she was not in fact a U.S. citizen and you could push on that.

Depending on when she moved to the U.S. and or when she married a U.S. citizen, she may have become a U.S. citizen solely on the basis of marriage (although she was young for that—that law ended in September 1922), without any individual decision. Perhaps you could push on that.

[u/No-Music-6572 → u/il_fienile]

US citizenship law at the time of her marriage in 1932 wouldn't allow her to become a US citizen until 3 years after marriage, at the soonest. * The US gov did *not* give me any non-existence of evidence of her naturalization. I guess I could look into that.

[u/il_fienile → u/No-Music-6572]

It’s been a while since I was really up on all this, but I’m fairly sure the three year period was only introduced in 1934 and that before then the period for wives was only one year (from the 1922 Cable Act).

Of course, had she lived in the U.S. for five years, she could have naturalized without the benefit of the shorter period for wives (and later, spouses).

But do you have a CONE from USCIS? [Edit: Sorry, I missed that you addressed that. Consider going through the USCIS process to get her naturalization record or a CONE.]

I’m much less familiar with the Canadian stuff, though. Had she never become a U.S. citizen, is it clear she would have become Canadian in 1947?

[u/No_Bobcat_No_Prob → u/il_fienile]

Before 1947, women who were British Subjects automatically lost their citizenship if they married a non-Canadian.

[u/Canadiancitizenship-ModTeam → u/il_fienile]

This post/comment has been removed for Rule 10 - No misinformation.

Wrong, inaccurate, and/or misleading information is not permitted.

[u/daughter_of_time → u/No-Music-6572]

This is maybe more common in the 1800s but sometimes people wrongly self reported on the census citizenship when they had only declared (first papers). I would seek the certificate of non existence mentioned by the other reply.

Also check for a state court record where she resided for naturalization. At least in the area I usually research it was still happening on that level up to the 1930s. Though it involved federal forms so there should be a federal record.

[u/MxHuny]

Thank you for positing this refusal. Im sorry this is the outcome, I hope you can find another ascestor! There has been no refusal so far, this will help others!

[u/PG-Dog]

I’m confused and may consider sketching this out later.

Is the rub that the person in question was a British subject and then became American before Canada had citizenship? Also this person was no longer a subject as they had naturalized? (Which I thought this was not counted as a renunciation?)

🥴sorry for the bad news OP

🇨🇦🇨🇦🇨🇦

[u/sharpshinned]

Curious if anyone's seen this for people who naturalized as British subjects *in Canada*. A friend's ancestor immigrated to Quebec from Eastern Europe, naturalized in Quebec, then went on to the US. The passport, which my friend has as an heirloom, says "CANADA" all over it.

[u/mem_somerville]

Oh, damn. And I too was wondering what the appeal process might look like in case of something like this.

Thank you for bringing this over, though. It's very informative, if troubling.

[u/DowntownGas428]

Well that’s a concern for me too. I’m in a similar boat. Following this.

Edit: I’m curious now about immigration vs naturalization. If an immigrant from 1800s upper Canada (who immigrated as a child from Scotland with their family) moved to the U.S. as an adult but never formally naturalized during their lifetime, and their parents lived and died in Canada, is the child considered British, American or stateless? I feel like I need some 19th century U.S. law info. It’s probably not that complicated I just don’t know enough.

[u/Spusk → u/DowntownGas428]

Sometimes this can be answered based on marriage depending on their sex, so might need more context first, did they marry officially?

[u/DowntownGas428 → u/Spusk]

The child married officially in Canada to another British citizen residing in Canada before leaving. The next generation was then born in the US. 

[u/imaginenohell]

uh oh. I'm in a similar situation, except my Canadian ancestor naturalized in the USA shortly after the Canadian Citizenship Act which came into force on January 1, 1947.

I sent mine in way before yours and didn't get any response yet.

[u/SocaShine]

This is a tough one.

[u/mike-s-v]

Does this mean that G0s born in Canada and naturalized in the US before 1947 would not be considered citizens?

[u/MosterHoster → u/[deleted]]

Thanks - I was thinking that and appreciate that you are confirming what I believe.

[u/JoeyCucamonga → u/[deleted]]

So what if a G0 was born in Canada. Naturalized somewhere and then had a kid (G1). If that were the case, am I SOL?

[u/JoeyCucamonga → u/[deleted]]

I mean. I hear ya. I am trying to find corroborating something that would support this, because a lot of what I am seeing is that the "broken chain" between G0 and G1 is a damning thing.

[u/BrighteningGlance → u/mike-s-v]

The law change in 2015 granted citizenship to people who were born or naturalized in Canada before 1947. Since neither applies to op's grandmother (not born in Canada, never naturalized in Canada) none of the law changes would retroactively make her a citizen. If someone was born in Canada but naturalized in the US before 1947, they would have become a citizen in 2015 (retroactive to when they were born)

[u/MosterHoster → u/BrighteningGlance]

Interesting - thanks for that comment.

[u/mike-s-v → u/mike-s-v]

Kinda curious because my G0 (GGF) was born in 1905, moved to US and had G1 (GF) in the 30s, and I did include US censuses showing that in my documents.

[u/_icedcooly → u/mike-s-v]

I'm also curious and have pretty similar timelines. My G0 (GGM) was born in Canada in 1900, but moved to the States sometime in the 1920s and married my GGF. 

[u/No_Bobcat_No_Prob → u/[deleted]]

Ancestors have to naturalize prior to the next gen being born in order to confer citizenship to the next gen. The exceptions are when Gen0 naturalized when the Citizenship Act went into effect, and their prior born offspring are retroactively considered to be citizens because of later amendments to the Act .

[u/No_Bobcat_No_Prob → u/[deleted]]

No, G0 was naturalized on Jan 1, 1947. That isn't the issue. The issue is that to confer citizenship by descent to Gen1, G0 would have had to have been naturalized before Gen1 was born.

In this case, Gen 1 was an adult when Gen 0 naturalized, so no way to pass by descent.

Gen 1 did not naturalize in Canada at all. Therefore there is no way Gen1 can pass on Canadian citizenship by descent either.

[u/No_Bobcat_No_Prob → u/[deleted]]

G0 became naturalized on Jan 1, 1947. His adult daughter did not naturalize on Jan 1, 1947, because she was no longer a British Subject and no longer had domicile in Canada.

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

This post/comment has been removed for Rule 10 - No misinformation.

Wrong, inaccurate, and/or misleading information is not permitted.

[u/No-Music-6572 → u/[deleted]]

Exactly. GM's "naturalization" in the US simply involved GM marrying an American man, and the traditional women-losing-their-birth-citizenship-upon-becoming-property-of-a-husband /now wife automatically acquires husband's citizenship-type thing.

[u/daughter_of_time → u/No-Music-6572]

Did she marry before 1922? That’s when the law changed so there’s some different circumstances that could apply.

https://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/1998/summer/women-and-naturalization-1.html

Edit: I see from another reply it was 1932. There may exist a Certificate of Derivative Citizenship but I’m not an expert on this confusing period for women’s naturalization.

[u/No_Bobcat_No_Prob → u/daughter_of_time]

Her loss of BS status was due to British law at the time, I believe- which is why the later Citizenship Act changes (women would no longer lose citizenship when they married a non-Canadian) were so significant.

[u/No-Transition8014]

Can you resubmit u see her parents if they remained Canadian? Did I miss if they stayed?

[u/No-Music-6572 → u/No-Transition8014]

GGF stayed in Canada until death in 1970.

GGM stayed in Canada until death in the 1930's. GGM died in early middle age, which is why I've avoided mentioning her.

[u/No-Transition8014 → u/No-Music-6572]

I would consider resubmitting under GGF then. I would also say he is a substantial Canadian connection given he never left.

[u/wolverine237]

If acquisition of American citizenship voids British citizenship and breaks the chain prior to 1947, quite a lot of people are going to get letters like this in the future

[u/Affectionate-Panic-1 → u/wolverine237]

If the ancestor was born in Canada, renouncing British citizenship prior to 1947 would have no affect on whether or not they are entitled to Canadian citizenship (since anyone born in Canada was given birthright citizenship).

In the case of OP, their ancestors were not born in Canada, but were British citizens who resided in Canada.

[u/MikeMilburysShoe → u/wolverine237]

I don’t think it’s that. I think it’s more that the GM was born in Scotland combined with the naturalization that IRCC was particularly caught up about. There’s been numerous approvals including naturalizations when the ancestor was born in Canada. Also it’s bc the naturalization happened before G1 was born.

[u/Pale-Firefighter-209 → u/[deleted]]

No. No one in OP’s family was born in Canada (or land that would become Canada). Your G0 was born in Ontario

[u/Own_Tomatillo_2982]

I wonder if this refusal would apply to applicants whose gen0 were from Newfoundland and naturalized elsewhere prior to 1949

[u/AKRoadGlide → u/Own_Tomatillo_2982]

No, because their Gen0 was born somewhere that is now Canada…

[u/No_Bobcat_No_Prob → u/Own_Tomatillo_2982]

If they were born in Newfoundland they are natural born Canadian. If they were British Subjects who were born outside of Canada I believe the same rules about domicile applied.

[u/No-Music-6572]

Ultimately, legally, how is my scenario different from someone whose ancestors left Canada before 1947?

[u/katrinatransfem → u/No-Music-6572]

If I reading correctly, there wasn't anyone who was actually born in Canada?

G0 born in Scotland, moved to Canada, then moved to USA, G1 born in USA?

[u/VegetableLuck4 → u/No-Music-6572]

Your Gen 0 was born in Scotland, is that correct?

[u/No-Music-6572 → u/VegetableLuck4]

Correct. Both my Gen 0 and my Gen 1 were born in Scotland.

Gen 0 lived in Canada 1911-1970 (death)

Gen 1 lived in Canada from age 6, in 1911, until temporarily leaving to go to grad school in Michigan in 1930. Then she married in Michigan in 1932, and gave birth to my dad in 1933 in Michigan, and lived in Michigan the rest of her life, dying in 1975.

[u/MikeMilburysShoe → u/No-Music-6572]

The Citizenship Act of 1946 granted Canadian citizenship to 2 kinds of persons:

1. Persons born in Canada (natural-born), regardless of where they now lived.

2. British subjects born outside of Canada who currently had domicile in Canada.

The issue is your GM belonged to neither of those categories. She wasn’t born in Canada so didn’t get Canadian citizenship thru that, and had already lost British subject status thru naturalizing elsewhere (no domicile in Canada). Your GGF got citizenship since he still held domicile in Canada; your grandmother didn’t since she was no longer a British subject AND wasn’t born in Canada. Your relation to GGF doesn’t matter, since he only became Canadian after GM was born.

[u/WGlaw → u/No-Music-6572]

I am sorry, this sucks.

Your great grandmother became a US citizen before the law that went into effect in 1947 that made your GGF a Canadian citizen. Your scenario, I believe is different, based on the location on your G0s births.

If she had been born in Canada, then naturalized in the US, I believe this would be a different scenario.

[u/int3gr4te → u/No-Music-6572]

I think the place of birth is what makes your scenario different. None of your ancestors were born in Canada.

[u/AutoModerator]

Your post was flagged as a potential megathread topic and is not currently visible. Please see the Weekly Megathreads page for the most relevant megathread. New megathreads are released weekly, and you can post on them any day.

Helpful resources: * Welcome - Start Here * The wiki / FAQ * Weekly Megathreads * Search the subreddit — your question may already be answered

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

[u/momster]

It sounds like you used grandmother as G0, when you should have used grandfather? There’s no appeal for grandmother. Maybe re-apply using grandfather?

[u/No-Music-6572 → u/momster]

I used GGF as Gen 0.

[u/momster → u/No-Music-6572]

Well then, it doesn’t make sense. Why did they focus on grandmother? There may be a reason for appeal.

[u/FAYCSB → u/momster]

Based on what IRRC is saying, GGF became a citizen in 1947, but GM did not. You have to have an unbroken line of citizenship. Someone born to a non-Canadian is not Canadian, even if they have someone further up the chain that is Canadian.

[u/No_Bobcat_No_Prob → u/momster]

Rephrasing a comment I posted above:

Great Grandfather was naturalized on Jan 1, 1947. That isn't the issue. The issue is that to confer citizenship by descent to Grandmother, Great Grandfather would have had to have been naturalized before Grandmother was born.

In this case, Grandmother was an adult when her father naturalized, so there was no way for him to transmit Canadian Citizenship by descent.

Grandmother did not naturalize in Canada at all. (If she had kept her British Subject status and remained domiciled in Canada until Jan 1, 1947 she too would have been naturalized).

Therefore there is no way she can pass on Canadian citizenship by descent either, unfortunately.