Federal Court: Designated Entity Support No Guarantee for Start-Up Visa Work Permit
- Citation
- 2025 FC 1933
- Decided
- Court file
- IMM-21200-24
- Full judgment
- Read the decision
Case Law Overview
Mohammed v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1933
The applicants, a family from India, sought judicial review of a refusal of a work permit under the Start-up Business Class program. The officer was not satisfied that there were urgent business reasons for the applicant's presence in Canada or that the venture would provide a significant benefit, despite support from a designated incubator.
Court Ruling
The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding the officer's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that an officer is not bound by a designated entity's assessment and must be independently satisfied that the requirements for the exceptional work permit are met.
Key Quote from the Court
It is well recognized that the onus is on permit and visa applicants to put together applications that are convincing, to anticipate adverse inferences contained in their evidence and address them, and to demonstrate that they have a right to enter Canada (Salkhan at para 31). This was not done here. (at para 41)
Expert Takeaways
-
Commitment Certificate is Not a Guarantee Support from a designated incubator or venture capital fund is necessary but not sufficient. The IRCC officer retains final authority and must be independently convinced of the project's viability and the urgent need for your presence in Canada.
-
Demonstrate Tangible Progress and Operations Your application must be backed by concrete evidence of business activity. Officers will scrutinize for operational details, corporate bank statements, a functional website, and evidence of collaboration between team members, even in a pilot phase.
-
Clearly Justify 'Urgent' Need for Presence in Canada An A77 work permit is exceptional. You must clearly explain why your physical presence is urgently required before your permanent residence application is finalized. General statements about overseeing activities or opening a bank account are often deemed insufficient.
-
The Burden of Proof is on the Applicant The court reinforces that it is the applicant's responsibility to submit a complete and convincing application. Do not expect the officer to overlook missing evidence or connect dots on your behalf. Every claim must be substantiated.
There is a deadline on this
That is the window to file an Application for Leave and for Judicial Review at the Federal Court, counted from the day you were notified of the decision. An extension can be requested, but it is granted at the Court's discretion - it is not automatic.
Check my deadlineDoes this ruling apply to your situation?
Tick whatever is true for you. Nothing is sent anywhere - this stays in your browser.
That combination is worth a proper look. It does not mean you have a case - only a lawyer reading your actual documents can say that - but it does mean the question is worth asking before your filing window closes.
Disclaimer
The information provided in this article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Immigration law is complex and subject to change. For advice specific to your situation, please schedule a consultation with a qualified legal professional.
Spousal or PR application refused?
Federal Court judicial review may be your path to overturn an unreasonable IRCC decision.
No obligation - we review your documents and tell you if a Federal Court application is realistic.
Questions people ask after reading a case like this
Does this mean my own case will succeed?
No. Every application is decided on its own record. A reported decision shows how the Federal Court has reasoned about a particular kind of error - it does not predict the result of a different file. What it can tell you is whether the problem in your refusal is the kind of problem the Court has been willing to intervene on.
How long do I have to challenge a refusal?
Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act you generally have 15 days to file an Application for Leave and for Judicial Review if the decision was made inside Canada, and 60 days if it was made outside Canada, counted from when you were notified. The Court can extend that period, but an extension is discretionary - it is not automatic.
What actually happens at the Federal Court?
Judicial review has two stages. You file the application and a written record, and a judge decides on paper whether to grant leave - permission for the case to proceed. If leave is granted, there is a hearing. The Court does not re-decide your immigration application; it decides whether the officer's decision was reasonable and procedurally fair. If you succeed, the file is normally sent back to be decided again by a different officer.
Do I have to be in Canada to bring an application?
No. Applicants outside Canada regularly bring judicial review applications, which is why the longer 60-day deadline exists for decisions made abroad. Applicants are not normally required to attend in person.
What happens in the free 15-minute review?
You explain what was refused or delayed and when you were notified. We tell you whether your filing window is still open, which issues in the decision look arguable, and what the realistic options are - including reapplying instead of litigating, where that is the better route. There is no obligation to retain us afterwards.
More Start-Up Visa / Business Class rulings
Federal Court Upholds Misrepresentation Finding for Undeclared Representative
Federal Court: Digital Start-Up Visa Applicants Must Justify Early Entry to Canada
Federal Court: Vague Plans & Last-Minute Efforts Doom Quebec Investor PR Application
Federal Court: Ministerial Instructions Can Justify Start-Up Visa Processing Delays
Written by
Ali Dadkhah
Ali Dadkhah is a litigator whose practice is dedicated to challenging government decisions at the Federal Court of Canada. He specializes in judicial review, providing a crucial avenue for recourse for individuals and businesses who have faced unfair or unreasonable administrative outcomes. Bilingual legal support in English and Persian (Farsi)