Stuck in Limbo: When a Start-Up Visa Application Grinds to a Halt

The Start-Up Visa (SUV) program is designed for innovators and entrepreneurs with big ideas. It promises a path to permanent residence in Canada by building a business that can create jobs and compete on a global scale. But what happens when that promise is stalled by years of silence and unexplained delays? For many applicants, the answer lies in the Federal Court of Canada.

Waiting is a part of any immigration journey, but when months turn into years, it can jeopardize business plans, strain finances, and leave families in limbo. Several recent court decisions tell the story of SUV applicants who turned to a powerful legal tool called a 'writ of mandamus' to compel Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) to simply make a decision. These stories reveal a crucial tension between administrative process and the human cost of delay.

The Weight of a 62-Month Wait

Imagine launching a business venture and then waiting over five years for your permanent residence application to be processed. That was the reality for the applicants in Tousi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 671. Their applications, which included a minor child, were delayed for 62 months because of a security review for one of their business partners. Frustrated by the silence, they sought a mandamus order.

The Federal Court sided with them, finding the delay unreasonable and ordering IRCC to make a decision within 90 days. The judge's message was clear: if a delay is caused by a related application, IRCC has a duty to explain it. As the Court noted, “it was incumbent on the Respondent to explain that delay in this mandamus application. The third Conille requirement makes this clear 'the authority responsible for the delay has not provided a satisfactory justification'.”

Expert insight: This case confirms that applicants don't have to prove they've been harmed or 'prejudiced' to win a mandamus for unreasonable delay. The focus is on IRCC's failure to act in a reasonable timeframe and provide a good reason for the wait.

When a Co-Applicant's Problem Becomes Your Problem

In another SUV case, an applicant's wait stretched on for years due to a security screening for a family member of a co-applicant. In AMIRHOSSEIN MAJIDI v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION, 2025 FC 680, the Court again granted a mandamus order.

IRCC tried to justify the delay by stating that security screening was ongoing, but the Court dismissed this as a vague “blanket statement.” The judge pointed out that such an explanation “deprives the Court of its ability to assess whether the length of the security review is reasonable.” IRCC was ordered to finalize the application within 90 days.

Expert insight: For programs like the Start-Up Visa where applications are linked, the Court sees them as one large application. IRCC cannot use a problem in one part of the file as an indefinite excuse to stall the entire group without a solid, specific explanation.

But Mandamus Isn't Always the Answer: The Co-Applicant Trap

While the above cases show success, not every story ends with a court order. The case of Seyed Mostafa Salehi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1590, provides a critical counterpoint. Here, an applicant also faced a 51-month delay because an essential member of his business group was undergoing a security screening.

However, this time, the Court dismissed the mandamus application. The judge explained that the SUV program's regulations tie the fate of all essential members together. A decision simply cannot be made on one applicant until the admissibility of all co-applicants is resolved. The Court stated, “If ultimately one of the essential applicants is found not to meet all the regulatory requirements, the Applicant's PR application will be refused.” Because the delay was rooted in a necessary, legislated part of the process, it was considered justified, even if painfully long.

Expert insight: This ruling is a stark reminder of the risks involved in the SUV program. Your application is only as strong as the weakest link in your business group. A security issue with a co-applicant can halt your own dreams indefinitely, and a mandamus order can't sever that connection.

Key Lessons for Start-Up Visa Applicants

These stories from the Federal Court offer crucial lessons for entrepreneurs navigating the SUV program:

• Unreasonable delay has a limit: Courts recognize that indefinite waiting is unacceptable. Delays stretching for years without a solid, specific justification from IRCC can often be successfully challenged.
• IRCC must explain itself: Vague reasons like “security checks pending” are not enough to justify multi-year delays. The burden is on IRCC to provide a satisfactory explanation.
• Your partners matter immensely: The SUV program is a team sport. The eligibility, admissibility, and security status of every essential member directly impacts your own application. Choose your partners wisely.
• Mandamus is powerful but not guaranteed: While a mandamus order can break a logjam, it is not a magic wand. If the delay is justified by the program's own rules-like the need to assess all co-applicants-the court may rule that you simply have to wait.

For innovators who have put their lives and businesses on hold, these legal battles underscore the importance of understanding not just the opportunities of the Start-Up Visa program, but its potential pitfalls as well.