Introduction
The case of Thi Thu Hien Le, Hong Nhung Ly, Sujini Ponnusamy, and Raajes Parekh Vallabh Dos reflects the stricter review process applied to Start-Up Visa submissions. Despite holding a Letter of Support from Empowered Startups Ltd., this group of four international entrepreneurs saw their application for permanent residence rejected, a decision later upheld by the Federal Court of Canada. The outcome was based on a combination of limited business activity in Canada, weak applicant involvement, and the officer’s conclusion that the applicants’ primary objective was acquiring immigration status rather than developing a genuine business.
This case serves as a timely reminder that the Start-Up Visa program increasingly demands more than surface-level engagement or aspirational plans. Demonstrable substance, meaningful ties to the Canadian market, and clear evidence of active execution are essential components of a credible application.
This case serves as a timely reminder that the Start-Up Visa program increasingly demands more than surface-level engagement or aspirational plans. Demonstrable substance, meaningful ties to the Canadian market, and clear evidence of active execution are essential components of a credible application.
Analytical Examination
The refusal was primarily grounded in section 89(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, which is applied when an immigration officer determines that the primary purpose of a business arrangement is to obtain permanent resident status in Canada rather than to establish and operate a genuine business. In this case, while the applicants had outlined an ambitious health-tech concept, the officer found that the start-up had shown minimal development during the nearly three-year period since the application was filed.
More significantly, the applicants failed to demonstrate any meaningful integration into the Canadian business environment. Their research and development activities were based in Europe and India, and the advisory support came from a partner in Portugal. Although they indicated plans to approach Canadian stakeholders after completing product development, the officer deemed this intention insufficient. There was no evidence of contact with Canadian physicians, researchers, institutions, or potential partners — no outreach, no letters of intent, and no collaboration.
The issue at hand extended beyond geographic dispersion and pointed to a lack of substantive business rationale for establishing operations in Canada.
The applicants referred to prolonged IRCC processing times as a barrier to deeper business involvement, while the designated incubator acknowledged that investment funds had been withheld due to uncertainty surrounding the application outcome. Nevertheless, the court concluded that these circumstances did not exempt the applicants from their obligation to remain actively engaged and demonstrate consistent business development. In both the officer’s assessment and the court’s view, this level of engagement was not sufficiently demonstrated.
More significantly, the applicants failed to demonstrate any meaningful integration into the Canadian business environment. Their research and development activities were based in Europe and India, and the advisory support came from a partner in Portugal. Although they indicated plans to approach Canadian stakeholders after completing product development, the officer deemed this intention insufficient. There was no evidence of contact with Canadian physicians, researchers, institutions, or potential partners — no outreach, no letters of intent, and no collaboration.
The issue at hand extended beyond geographic dispersion and pointed to a lack of substantive business rationale for establishing operations in Canada.
The applicants referred to prolonged IRCC processing times as a barrier to deeper business involvement, while the designated incubator acknowledged that investment funds had been withheld due to uncertainty surrounding the application outcome. Nevertheless, the court concluded that these circumstances did not exempt the applicants from their obligation to remain actively engaged and demonstrate consistent business development. In both the officer’s assessment and the court’s view, this level of engagement was not sufficiently demonstrated.
Judicial Verdict
The Federal Court upheld the officer’s decision, affirming that the concerns were not speculative but supported by a clear lack of progress and Canadian integration. The judge reaffirmed that immigration officers are well within their rights to evaluate a business’s viability, including financial forecasts and operational plans, even in technically complex industries like medtech.
The applicants argued that their business plan spoke for itself. But the court reiterated that officers are not obligated to accept a plan at face value, especially when real-world actions fail to back it up.
Ultimately, the applicants were ruled ineligible for the Start-Up Business Class under IRPR section 98.01(2)(a), which outlines the criteria for qualifying applicants, including the requirement to be genuinely engaged in the business. The application was dismissed.
The applicants argued that their business plan spoke for itself. But the court reiterated that officers are not obligated to accept a plan at face value, especially when real-world actions fail to back it up.
Ultimately, the applicants were ruled ineligible for the Start-Up Business Class under IRPR section 98.01(2)(a), which outlines the criteria for qualifying applicants, including the requirement to be genuinely engaged in the business. The application was dismissed.
Resolution and Outlook
This decision illustrates a significant procedural change in how Start-Up Visa applications are reviewed. Previously, if an immigration officer had concerns about a business’s legitimacy or the applicant’s role, the case could be referred to a peer review panel — an external mechanism providing a second opinion. With the cancellation of the peer review process in April 2024, officers now conduct these evaluations independently. As a result, we are beginning to see the first wave of refusals escalating directly to Federal Court.
In this context, applicants and advisors must pay even closer attention to the strength of the evidence provided. Letters of Support, while still required, are no longer viewed as a safeguard. Immigration officers are now expected to carefully evaluate the substance of the business, its ties to the Canadian market, and the applicant’s ongoing involvement, without third-party input. Demonstrating genuine commercial activity in Canada, consistent founder engagement, and alignment with the original business proposal are now critical to a successful outcome.
In this context, applicants and advisors must pay even closer attention to the strength of the evidence provided. Letters of Support, while still required, are no longer viewed as a safeguard. Immigration officers are now expected to carefully evaluate the substance of the business, its ties to the Canadian market, and the applicant’s ongoing involvement, without third-party input. Demonstrating genuine commercial activity in Canada, consistent founder engagement, and alignment with the original business proposal are now critical to a successful outcome.