u/Lonely-Sun-1050

An update to my continuing series on my attempts to escape the bureaucratic black hole that is the Program Support Unit (PSU).

See part 1 here: https://www.reddit.com/r/stuckcanadians/s/R3lY7j1Kth

And part 2 here: https://www.reddit.com/r/stuckcanadians/comments/1u0b2eh/update_to_gloves_off_elbows_up_a_psu_tale/

Yesterday, I received a response to my Formal Escalation Letter from Minister Lena Diab's office...

https://preview.redd.it/tfwua07q499h1.png?width=1060&format=png&auto=webp&s=ea2ef95f8393c0c02ae1b843fb64e4cf10ee3c17

Please make it make sense.

An update to my continuing series on my attempts to escape the bureaucratic black hole that is the Program Support Unit (PSU).

See part 1 here: https://www.reddit.com/r/stuckcanadians/s/R3lY7j1Kth

And part 2 here: https://www.reddit.com/r/stuckcanadians/comments/1u0b2eh/update_to_gloves_off_elbows_up_a_psu_tale/

I received a response to my Formal Escalation Letter from Minister Lena Diab's office...

https://preview.redd.it/tldii9cq939h1.png?width=1060&format=png&auto=webp&s=4627df7b8facbf831124712c3c7c22bcc3c08373

Please make it make sense.

I recently contacted journalist Shilpashree Jagannathan, u/shilpa_jn, about my proof-of-citizenship application, which has now been sitting in IRCC’s Program Support Unit for more than a year with basically no explanation or visible activity.

I’m speaking with her today, and she is interested in looking at PSU as a potential separate story for New Canadian Media. She has asked whether other people affected by PSU would be willing to speak with her.

She is particularly interested in hearing from:

• Canadian-born applicants whose files were sent to PSU
• anyone who has been stuck in PSU for a year or longer
• applicants whose children’s or relatives’ applications are tied to theirs
• anyone with GCMS/ATIP notes showing the referral reason, an internal due date, or any activity inside PSU

I know of at least two Canadian-born applicants who have been stuck in PSU as long as I have or longer, so this clearly isn’t limited to complicated citizenship-by-descent cases.

If you’re comfortable speaking with her, you can contact her directly through Reddit at u/shilpa_jn or by email at shilpashree.pds@gmail.com. Please don’t send me anyone else’s personal information. She has specifically asked that people contact her themselves and only share what they are comfortable sharing.

If you send documents, make sure you redact application numbers, UCIs, passport information, addresses, dates of birth, and anything sensitive involving children.

I can’t promise where the reporting will go or whether a story will ultimately be published. But if PSU has become an internal black hole where normal processing times no longer apply, the best way to demonstrate that is through multiple applicants with timelines and documents showing the same pattern.

ETA: as u/No_Bobcat_No_Prob points out in the comments, Shilpashree previously reached out to this community to write about the Surrender Letters here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Canadiancitizenship/comments/1ua78pf/journalist_seeking_people_who_received_ircc/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

I recently contacted journalist Shilpashree Jagannathan, u/shilpa_jn, about my proof-of-citizenship application, which has now been sitting in IRCC’s Program Support Unit for more than a year with basically no explanation or visible activity.

I’m speaking with her today, and she is interested in looking at PSU as a potential separate story for New Canadian Media. She has asked whether other people affected by PSU would be willing to speak with her.

She is particularly interested in hearing from:

• Canadian-born applicants whose files were sent to PSU
• anyone who has been stuck in PSU for a year or longer
• applicants whose children’s or relatives’ applications are tied to theirs
• anyone with GCMS/ATIP notes showing the referral reason, an internal due date, or any activity inside PSU

I know of at least two Canadian-born applicants who have been stuck in PSU as long as I have or longer, so this clearly isn’t limited to complicated citizenship-by-descent cases.

If you’re comfortable speaking with her, you can contact her directly through Reddit at u/shilpa_jn or by email at shilpashree.pds@gmail.com. Please don’t send me anyone else’s personal information. She has specifically asked that people contact her themselves and only share what they are comfortable sharing.

If you send documents, make sure you redact application numbers, UCIs, passport information, addresses, dates of birth, and anything sensitive involving children.

I can’t promise where the reporting will go or whether a story will ultimately be published. But if PSU has become an internal black hole where normal processing times no longer apply, the best way to demonstrate that is through multiple applicants with timelines and documents showing the same pattern.

In order to dispel speculation and give us all much clearer information as to what is going on at IRCC I want to ask if anyone within the following 2 groups would be willing to submit ATIP requests for their GCMS notes:

1. Anyone that has successfully received their certificates (especially if they have escaped PSU).
2. Anyone that has received a Surrender Letter

Here is the link: https://atip-aiprp.apps.gc.ca/atip/privacyTerms.do?requestflow=ircc

First, let me say that I know several people worry that excessive ATIP requests slow down processing of applications. This isn't true. I can confirm, with certainty, that IRCC had dedicated ATIP request officers that handle this. They are separate processing streams. Also, generating GCMS notes is a simple process of entering things like UCI and application number, then clicking a "send notes" button. It's not labor intensive.

The reason I am asking is that we are lacking information about what processing steps are taken with completed applications. I haven't seen anyone that has requested notes after-the-fact, only when things have stalled beyond expectations. There are theories that the surrender letters are due to 1 or 2 agents not fully verifying documents. It was my unconfirmed understanding that to finalize an application it requires sign-off from a senior agent after they verify all proper steps were taken to prevent the scenario above. We could confirm this with completed application notes.

In the same respect, we can also rule out that scenario by reviewing notes from those that received surrender letters. Each agent at IRCC has a specific code that identifies them in GCMS notes. If there are 1 or 2 agent codes common amongst a sample of cases, then we'll have a better idea. I could also give us valuable insight into what might be going on and what might have triggered this whole mess. On the flip side, if the notes don't reflect the actions taken by IRCC, then that gives those affected ammunition for personal or legal defense.

Note: I didn't clear this with mods ahead of time, sorry about that. I do think it's important and useful overall. I tried to find another request in the sub, but couldn't, so I apologize if this is duplication. It might not be a bad reminder, though.

ETA: If anyone has submitted an ATIP request that has exceeded 30 days (legal statutory limit) without notice of delay, I encourage them to submit a complaint to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner (OPC). https://services.priv.gc.ca/plainte-complaint/en/triage

In order to dispel speculation and give us all much clearer information as to what is going on at IRCC I want to ask if anyone within the following 2 groups would be willing to submit ATIP requests for their GCMS notes:

1. Anyone that has successfully received their certificates (especially if they have escaped PSU).
2. Anyone that has received a Surrender Letter

Here is the link: https://atip-aiprp.apps.gc.ca/atip/privacyTerms.do?requestflow=ircc

First, let me say that I know several people worry that excessive ATIP requests slow down processing of applications. This isn't true. I can confirm, with certainty, that IRCC had dedicated ATIP request officers that handle this. They are separate processing streams. Also, generating GCMS notes is a simple process of entering things like UCI and application number, then clicking a "send notes" button. It's not labor intensive.

The reason I am asking is that we are lacking information about what processing steps are taken with completed applications. I haven't seen anyone that has requested notes after-the-fact, only when things have stalled beyond expectations. There are theories that the surrender letters are due to 1 or 2 agents not fully verifying documents. It was my unconfirmed understanding that to finalize an application it requires sign-off from a senior agent after they verify all proper steps were taken to prevent the scenario above. We could confirm this with completed application notes.

In the same respect, we can also rule out that scenario by reviewing notes from those that received surrender letters. Each agent at IRCC has a specific code that identifies them in GCMS notes. If there are 1 or 2 agent codes common amongst a sample of cases, then we'll have a better idea. I could also give us valuable insight into what might be going on and what might have triggered this whole mess. On the flip side, if the notes don't reflect the actions taken by IRCC, then that gives those affected ammunition for personal or legal defense.

Note: I didn't clear this with mods ahead of time, sorry about that. I do think it's important and useful overall. I tried to find another request in the sub, but couldn't, so I apologize if this is duplication. It might not be a bad reminder, though.

ETA: If anyone has submitted an ATIP request that has exceeded 30 days (legal statutory limit) without notice of delay, I encourage them to submit a complaint to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner (OPC). https://services.priv.gc.ca/plainte-complaint/en/triage

Just a reminder that the FB Group founder and I will be having a Zoom meeting for anyone interested in the IRCC Citizenship Letter Suspension Scandal.

I have confirmed that Amandeep Hayer will be attending, and Don Chapman has indicated that he hopes to be there as well.

Details are here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadianbyDescent/comments/1u6zq30/suspension_letter_zoom_meeting_on_saturday_noon/

Please share this message with all concerned.

I've hit my breaking point. I received my most recent GCMS notes Friday. The only thing that's happened on my file is they have noted all the times my MP has inquired about my case and they flipped the status of my PSU delay notice from "queued" to "sent" without actually sending it. So I've decided to escalate. This is not something I take lightly and am fully prepared for any blowback I may receive from the redditsphere.

**This is the formal escalation letter I sent regarding my proof of citizenship application, with personal identifiers removed:**

Dear Minister Diab, Parliamentary Secretary Fragiskatos, Prime Minister Carney, the Office of the Honourable Julie Dabrusin, and IRCC officials,

I am writing to formally escalate the unreasonable delay in my proof of Canadian citizenship application, \[APPLICATION NUMBER\], and to request immediate substantive action on my file.

This is not a request for ordinary status information. I have already sought status information and resolution through official channels many times, including IRCC webforms, MP escalation, and ATIP/GCMS requests. Those efforts have not resulted in a substantive explanation, a request for missing evidence, completion of the referred issue, or finalization of my application. They have largely resulted in generic statements that the file remains “in progress.”

That is no longer adequate.

My application was received on March 20, 2025. When I submitted, the public processing estimate displayed for this type of application was approximately three months. My application has now been pending for more than fourteen months.

My most recent GCMS notes, generated June 2, 2026, show that my file was referred to Program Support on or about April 3, 2025, under referral reason PS-31B, with the visible note: “Parentage - Please verify PTC.” The notes still show the eligibility status as referred to Program Support. They do not show that IRCC has requested additional documents from me, identified a specific factual concern, recorded refusal grounds, recorded a misrepresentation concern, completed the Program Support review, or made a final determination.

IRCC may characterize my application as complex because it was referred to Program Support. However, additional time for verification implies that verification work is actually being initiated and pursued. Based on the disclosed GCMS notes, that does not appear to be what has happened. A referral is not processing. A queue is not adjudication. A pending status is not evidence of active review.

My application also should not be treated as legally novel or uncertain. This is not an application under the previous interim measures. It is not dependent on Bill C-3. It is not a second-generation case requiring analysis under the recent changes to the first-generation limit. My application is based on the long-established 2009 Lost Canadians framework under Bill C-37, which has been in force for approximately seventeen years.

My mother was born in \[CANADIAN PROVINCE\] and was a Canadian citizen from birth. She later naturalized in the United States with her parents as a minor during the pre-1977 period when Canada did not generally recognize dual citizenship. The 2009 amendments were enacted to remedy precisely this type of involuntary citizenship loss. My claim follows the same basic legal framework that IRCC has applied for years to first-generation children born abroad to Canadian parents whose citizenship was restored or recognized under those amendments.

The legal and factual test in my case is straightforward:

1. Was my mother born in Canada and therefore a Canadian citizen from birth?

2. Did my mother ever formally renounce Canadian citizenship?

3. Am I the first-generation child born abroad of that Canadian citizen parent?

The answers are yes, no, and yes.

If IRCC believes there is a specific issue with parentage, identity continuity, PTC, document authenticity, or any other part of the documentary chain, then IRCC should identify that issue and request whatever evidence is required from me. I am ready and willing to provide any additional documentation immediately. But IRCC cannot fairly convert a routine proof of citizenship application into an indefinite “complex” file merely by referring it to Program Support and then taking no visible substantive action for over a year.

I am also deeply concerned by the handling of the “Notice of Delay” referenced in my GCMS notes. My notes indicate that a Notice of Delay was associated with the file on April 3, 2025, and that later activity occurred on May 14, 2026 following an MP inquiry. However, I never received any Notice of Delay. I checked my inbox, spam, blocked senders, archived mail, and all-mail folders. I have received other IRCC communications at the same email address without issue, including my acknowledgement of receipt. There is no apparent reason this notice would have failed while other IRCC communications were received.

This raises a serious procedural concern: the file appears to have been internally marked as delayed, but the notice was never actually received by me. If the notice was not sent, or if IRCC’s system marked it as sent when it was not successfully delivered, then I was deprived of even the limited transparency IRCC’s own process appears to contemplate.

This delay is not merely inconvenient. I am not applying for a discretionary benefit. I am seeking evidence of citizenship to which I am entitled if the statutory criteria are met. The continued failure to complete this determination prevents me from obtaining usable proof of Canadian citizenship and from reliably exercising the rights and practical incidents of citizenship that depend on that proof.

I am also concerned that this is not an isolated issue. I am in communication with other applicants whose proof of citizenship applications have been issued in weeks or months despite appearing to involve more complex factual circumstances than mine. I am also in contact with several other first-generation applicants whose files, like mine, have been stalled in Program Support for more than a year. I am not asking IRCC to disclose or discuss anyone else’s personal information. I am raising this because the pattern suggests a broader systemic failure in the handling, triage, monitoring, communication, and escalation of Program Support referrals for proof of citizenship applications.

This requires investigation and correction. A Program Support referral cannot become an administrative dead end. If there are no service standards, internal deadlines, or meaningful escalation mechanisms for these referrals, then applicants are left in an indefinite state where IRCC can say the file is “in progress” while no actual determination is being made. That is not reasonable processing. It is administrative limbo.

I am therefore requesting the following:

1. Immediate substantive review of my application by an officer with authority to resolve the Program Support referral;

2. Written identification of any specific outstanding factual or legal issue preventing finalization;

3. Immediate request for any additional document or evidence IRCC requires from me;

4. Finalization of my proof of citizenship application if no specific outstanding issue exists;

5. Review of why my file remained in Program Support for more than a year without visible substantive action;

6. Review of why the Notice of Delay was never received despite being referenced in my GCMS notes;

7. Review of whether similar first-generation proof of citizenship files are being improperly stalled in Program Support without meaningful oversight or escalation.

Please do not respond only with a generic statement that the application is “in progress” or that complex files may take longer. I am asking for confirmation that substantive action has been taken or will now be taken on the specific Program Support issue identified in my GCMS notes.

If IRCC requires anything from me, please request it immediately. If nothing further is required from me, please finalize the application.

I respectfully request a substantive response within 15 business days. If this matter is not resolved or meaningfully addressed, I will consider all available next steps, including further parliamentary escalation, complaints to appropriate oversight bodies, media attention, and legal remedies relating to unreasonable delay and failure to perform a statutory duty.

I have attached my most recent GCMS notes and can provide supporting identity and parentage documentation immediately upon request.

Sincerely,

\[NAME\]

Application: \[APPLICATION NUMBER\]

UCI: \[UCI\]

Proof of Citizenship Application

Email: \[EMAIL\]

Phone: \[PHONE\]