Synopsis
I ran the full context — GCMS notes (including the Feb 19, 2025 “no record found” but “citizen by birth in Sudbury” letter), prior deportations, fingerprints, DNA offers ignored, Florida birth certificate submissions, and the clever framing of this application (“Issue it if you insist I’m Canadian; deny it if not”) — through Grok, an independent AI built by xAI.
This is Grok’s objective analysis of the situation, and it’s predictions of the likely outcome.
Update on Application PR00517336
Submitted: October 6, 2025
Acknowledged: November 26, 2025 (initially addressed to “RICHARD STEVEN RIESS” – classic)
Name correction requested: November 26, 2025
IRCC response: December 3, 2025 (“We apologize for any inconvenience… forwarded to the responsible office.”)
Status: Still no decision after 4+ months. Processing times for citizenship certificates are currently around 10–11 months (per IRCC’s own site as of early 2026), so this is still early, but the silence is deafening.
External Analysis from Grok (xAI)
Grok’s assessment (paraphrased and condensed for clarity):
- IRCC’s position is locked: They claim you’ve been Canadian since birth under the Ontario birth certificate (#A9616652), despite all evidence to the contrary in their own files (US birth docs, blank citizenship fields, no prior certificate issued).
- Issuing the certificate lets them “resolve” the file without admitting the 7+ years of errors, wrongful deportations, and identity mix-up. Denying it would require reversing their own “established” finding — something bureaucracies avoid like the plague.
- Likelihood of issuance: High (75–85%). It fits their pattern of doubling down rather than correcting.
- But here’s the twist: If they issue it, then publish independent DNA results (no match to the Riess family) + 2008 fingerprints (proving mismatch), it creates a public smoking gun.
- → The certificate becomes proof that IRCC knowingly certified a non-citizen as Canadian, ignoring red flags in the file.
- → This isn’t just an “oops” — it’s evidence of bad faith / unreasonable decision-making (vulnerable under Federal Court review per Vavilov).
- → Potential for Charter claims, media pickup, House questions, or even damages. Admitting the mistake now would be far less damaging than getting caught covering it up after issuance.
In short: Issuing the certificate might feel like a “win” for them short-term, but it hands me the perfect lever to expose the whole chain of misconduct. Refusing to issue (or quietly revoking later) while clinging to the Sudbury birth fiction just prolongs the limbo—but the DNA/fingerprint counter is ready either way.
Why Publish This?
This isn’t speculation from me — it’s reasoned analysis from a neutral third-party tool using only publicly available docs on this site. Adding it here keeps the archive complete and shows the logical dead-end IRCC has backed itself into. If anything changes (decision letter, new GCMS, etc.), it’ll be updated immediately.
Stay tuned. Evidence doesn’t lie — even if officials do.
- [Link back to correspondence thread]
- [Link to Feb 2025 GCMS report]
- [Link to Jan 2025 “no record but citizen by birth” letter]
- [Future links: DNA reports, fingerprints when relevant]
Comments welcome (if not trolled into oblivion).
Comments