Start-Up Visa Work Permit: Is Designated Entity Support a Guarantee?

For entrepreneurs dreaming of launching their venture in Canada, the Start-Up Visa (SUV) program feels like the perfect runway. A key milestone is securing a Commitment Certificate and a Letter of Support from a government-designated entity-be it a venture capital fund, an angel investor group, or a business incubator. With this prized document in hand, many applicants believe their accompanying work permit is a sure thing. But is it? A journey through recent Federal Court cases tells a more complex story.

These real-life legal battles, many of them Federal Court Judicial Review applications, reveal that while a designated entity's support is essential, it’s the starting line, not the finish line. Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) officers retain the final say, and their decisions are often put to the test in court, teaching valuable lessons to future applicants.

The 'Urgency' Hurdle: Why Your Presence in Canada Needs Justification

One of the most common stumbling blocks for SUV work permit applicants is failing to convince an officer of the “urgent business reasons” for their early entry into Canada. Two recent cases highlight this perfectly.

In Khan v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1742, a co-founder of a hydrogen technology company argued that her physical presence was critical for marketing before the work even began. The officer wasn't convinced, and the Federal Court agreed. The judge pointed out that such claims, “even if true, are not supported by any evidence in the record.” Simply stating that start-ups need a physical presence isn’t enough; the burden is on the applicant to provide concrete evidence explaining exactly why.

Similarly, in Mohammed v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1933, an officer refused a work permit despite support from a designated incubator, citing a lack of urgent business reasons. The Court upheld the decision, noting that the officer must be independently satisfied that the requirements are met. The Court's message was clear: “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.”

Relevant Policy: Start-up business class permanent residence applicants – open work permits [R205(a) – A77]

This policy outlines the criteria for the SUV work permit, which falls under the A77 LMIA-exemption code. While it was updated to allow for open work permits as of October 3, 2024, the underlying principle remains: the officer must be satisfied that the applicant meets all requirements, and for older employer-specific applications, this included demonstrating an urgent need to be in Canada.

Read the official policy

Why this matters: These cases and the related policy show that a letter of support doesn't replace the need for a well-documented work permit application. Applicants must build a separate, compelling case for why their physical presence is indispensable before their permanent residence is finalized.

Misunderstanding the Program's Intent: When Officers Get It Wrong

While applicants bear a heavy burden of proof, sometimes the refusal stems from an officer’s misunderstanding of the SUV program itself. The most common error is misapplying the concept of “dual intent.”

The SUV program is inherently a pathway to permanent residence. Applicants are expected to want to stay in Canada long-term. Yet, in several cases, officers have illogically used this long-term goal as a reason to deny a temporary work permit, citing concerns that the applicant won't leave Canada.

In Karimi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 411, an officer denied work permits to three applicants and their families, partly because their desire for permanent residence cast doubt on their intent to leave. The Federal Court overturned the decision, calling it unreasonable. The judge stated plainly that in the context of a program designed as a path to permanent residence, “the Officer’s finding that the Applicants would not leave Canada at the end of their authorized stay is contrary to the very purpose of the Program.”

This same logic was applied in Serimbetov v. Canada (Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship), 2022 FC 1130, where the Court found the officer's refusal based on family ties and intent to stay was “illogical” and inconsistent with the program's purpose.

Relevant Policy: Temporary residents: Dual intent

This policy confirms that having two intents-one temporary (to work) and one permanent (to immigrate)-is legitimate under Canadian immigration law (A22(2)). It clarifies that an application for permanent residence does not, by itself, justify a refusal of a temporary permit.

Read the official policy

Why this matters: These rulings are a powerful reminder that officers must assess applications within the specific context of the program. For SUV applicants, having a long-term plan to settle in Canada is an expected part of the journey, not a reason for refusal.

The Devil is in the Details: Documentation and Accuracy Matter

Even with a strong business case and a legitimate intent, simple administrative errors or missing documents can derail a work permit application. The Federal Court shows little sympathy for applicants who fail to provide complete and accurate information.

• In Rezaie v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 2025 FC 662, a work permit extension was refused because the applicant’s Commitment Certificate had expired. The Court upheld the refusal, confirming that applicants must meet all current requirements, even for extensions.
• In Yousuf v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 2025 FC 588, an applicant’s failure to provide verifiable proof of her freelance work experience led to a refusal that the Court found reasonable.

However, the reverse is also true: when an officer makes a clear factual error, the Court will intervene. In Shoaie v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 2025 FC 12, a work permit was refused partly because the officer claimed the applicant's IELTS language test results were not included. The results were, in fact, in the file and met the requirements. The Federal Court found this conclusion unreasonable and overturned the decision.

Key Lessons for SUV Applicants

These stories from the Federal Court offer a clear roadmap for Start-Up Visa applicants seeking a work permit:

1. Designated Entity Support is Not a Blank Cheque: Your letter of support is your ticket to apply, not a guarantee of approval. You must still build a convincing, standalone case for your work permit.
2. Prove Your Urgency: Don't just state that you need to be in Canada. Provide concrete evidence detailing what specific, urgent business tasks can only be performed on Canadian soil and why they cannot wait for your permanent residence to be finalized.
3. Document Everything: Ensure all certificates are valid, all work experience is verifiable, and all required documents are included. An officer is not obligated to search through old files for missing information.
4. Understand Dual Intent: Your plan to immigrate permanently is a feature of the SUV program, not a flaw in your temporary application. If a refusal seems to misunderstand this, it may be challengeable.

Ultimately, the journey of an SUV entrepreneur is one of meticulous preparation. While a designated entity's endorsement opens the door, it is the strength, clarity, and completeness of your own application that will determine whether you can walk through it to begin your Canadian venture.