Background
Fatemeh Samadi, an Iranian citizen, applied in June 2022 for a work permit under the Start-Up Visa Program so she could help establish the Canadian operations of Vandage Inc., a company developing technology for adhesive bandages. She was a director and chief financial officer of the company. Her two sons, then aged 17 and 15, applied for visitor visas to accompany her.
IRCC initially refused the work-permit application in November 2022. After Ms. Samadi sought judicial review, IRCC agreed to reconsider the application, and that proceeding was discontinued in February 2023. During reconsideration, IRCC requested updated materials and later sent a procedural fairness letter seeking specific information about Vandage’s operations and plans in Canada. On May 3, 2024, an officer refused the work permit because the officer was not satisfied that the employment offer was genuine or that the proposed work would create significant social, cultural, or economic benefits in Canada. The sons’ visitor-visa applications were consequently refused, and the three judicial-review applications were consolidated.
The Court’s Holding
The Federal Court dismissed the applications. It held that the process was fair because the procedural fairness letter, although somewhat generic in stating the overall concern, requested specific information that made the officer’s concern about Vandage’s limited involvement in Canada readily apparent. Ms. Samadi knew the case she had to meet and had a full and fair opportunity to respond.
The Court also held that the officer’s decision was reasonable. The officer could treat Vandage’s lack of a Canadian bank account as evidence of limited Canadian business activity and give limited weight to its retainer with UIPatent because UIPatent’s president was also a Vandage director. Vandage’s other identified Canadian relationships had not progressed beyond preliminary discussions or had not produced meaningful use of available services. The officer’s reasons were coherent, intelligible, and justified by the record and the applicable statutory and program requirements. No question of general importance was certified.
Key Takeaways
- A procedural fairness letter may adequately disclose the case to be met through its specific information requests, even when its statement of the overall concern is general.
- An officer may consider concrete indicators of Canadian operations, including a Canadian bank account and developed arm’s-length business relationships, when assessing whether a start-up is actively engaged in business and whether its proposed work would significantly benefit Canada.
- Because the sons’ visitor-visa applications depended on the principal applicant’s work permit, their judicial-review applications failed with hers.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates that incorporation, a business plan, and preliminary Canadian contacts may not be enough to establish a genuine employment offer or significant benefits under the Start-Up Visa work-permit pathway. Applicants should provide concrete evidence of active Canadian operations and explain how the proposed work will generate the required benefits.
It also confirms that procedural fairness is assessed functionally: courts examine whether the applicant understood the officer’s actual concerns and had a meaningful opportunity to answer them, rather than focusing only on the general wording of a fairness letter.