Immigration and Refugees Law
Reading Time
9 MINUTE READ
Canada’s Start-Up Visa (SUV) program remains one of the most promising immigration pathways for innovative entrepreneurs. However, in recent months, many applicants have been shocked to receive refusals under section 89(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (IRPR). These refusals often arise from misunderstandings, inaccurate assessments, or overly restrictive interpretations by visa officers.
At Pax Law Corporation, we have seen a significant surge in these refusals — and we are helping clients challenge them through reconsideration requests, procedural fairness responses, and judicial review at the Federal Court. If you have received a refusal, you are not alone, and you do not need to handle the fallout on your own
IRPR section 89(b) allows a visa officer to refuse an SUV application if they are not satisfied that the applicant will provide “active and ongoing management” of the business from within Canada”.
This type of refusal often includes allegations such as:
Unfortunately, many of these conclusions are not based on evidence, contradict the realities of global tech entrepreneurship, or result from the officer misunderstanding the business model.
In our legal practice, we are seeing an unprecedented spike in IRPR 89(b) refusals. Common systemic issues include:
Visa officers are increasingly expecting traditional, hands-on management models, even when the business is a modern, remote-first tech startup.
Founders working in product development, strategy, or high-level executive roles are often wrongly assessed as “passive.”
Officers may refuse applications if they believe the entrepreneur might not relocate to Canada promptly—often on weak or speculative grounds.
Many refusal letters repeat generic statements with little individual analysis—making them legally vulnerable.
If your application was refused for any of these reasons, you may have strong grounds to challenge the decision.
At Pax Law Corporation, our immigration litigation team regularly takes on complex refusal cases. We assist clients worldwide with:
Sometimes, a strong letter demonstrating officer error or overlooked evidence can reverse a refusal without litigation.
If you receive a fairness letter, our lawyers craft targeted, persuasive responses supported by law, business documentation, and expert opinions.
When a refusal is unreasonable, procedurally unfair, or legally incorrect, we can take your case to the Federal Court of Canada.
We challenge errors such as:
Our team has extensive experience in Federal Court litigation, including mandamus applications and judicial reviews for business immigration programs.
If litigation is not the best option, we advise on strengthening the business plan, clarifying management roles, and rebuilding a more compelling application.
We frequently uncover the following officer mistakes:
These errors often lead to decisions that are unreasonable in law and ripe for challenge.
You may have a viable case if:
Even if you’re unsure, a consultation can help evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of your case.
We are one of the few firms with both immigration business expertise and strong Federal Court experience.
Our lawyers routinely work with founders, designated organizations, incubators, and technology companies.
We understand:
Our team works with clients across Asia, the Middle East, Europe, and North America.
Every case is unique. We customize our approach based on your business model, evidence, and long-term immigration goals.
If you receive a refusal under IRPR 89(b):
Deadlines for judicial review are tight—15 days inside Canada, 60 days outside Canada.
Timely action is critical.
A refusal under IRPR 89(b) does not mean your entrepreneurial journey in Canada is over. With skilled legal representation, many decisions can be challenged, corrected, or reversed.
Book a Consultation Today
The Canada Start-Up Visa (SUV) program is a federal immigration pathway that allows innovative entrepreneurs with the support of a designated organization (incubator, angel group, or venture capital fund) to apply for permanent residence. It is designed for founders who intend to build scalable, globally competitive businesses in Canada.
Section 89(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (IRPR) allows a visa officer to refuse a Start-Up Visa application if they are not satisfied that the applicant will perform active and ongoing management of the business from within Canada. Many recent SUV refusals rely on this provision, often focusing on how the officer views your role in the company and your intention to reside in Canada.
We are seeing a significant wave of refusals where officers question whether the founders will genuinely manage the business from Canada. Common concerns include doubts about the applicant’s involvement in daily operations, misunderstanding of remote or tech-based management models, and skepticism about the applicant’s intention to relocate and reside in Canada for management purposes.
“Active and ongoing management” generally means that you, as a founder, will be consistently involved in making key decisions, overseeing operations, and directing the company’s activities from within Canada. This can include strategic leadership, product direction, growth planning, hiring decisions, and high-level operational oversight, not just day-to-day administrative tasks.
While modern businesses often include remote teams and global operations, IRPR 89(b) expects that active and ongoing management will be exercised from within Canada. You can still work with remote staff or international partners, but your central management role should be based in Canada. Your evidence should clearly show that you intend to reside in Canada and manage the business from here.
Common reasons include findings that:
In our experience, some refusal decisions:
These issues can make a refusal legally vulnerable and suitable for challenge.
Do not panic and do not immediately submit a new application. Keep your refusal letter, your full application package, and all supporting documents. The next step is to consult an experienced immigration lawyer who can review the decision, identify potential legal errors, and advise whether you should pursue reconsideration, respond to procedural fairness concerns, or file a judicial review at the Federal Court.
A reconsideration request is a written submission asking the visa office to review its decision. In some situations, if the officer has clearly misunderstood the facts or overlooked important evidence, a strong, organized reconsideration request may prompt the officer to set aside the refusal without going to court. Not every case is suitable for reconsideration; a lawyer can help assess your options.
A procedural fairness letter (PFL) is a notice from the officer that they have concerns that could lead to a refusal. It gives you an opportunity to respond before a final decision is made. A well-prepared response can address misunderstandings, provide additional evidence, and correct errors. At Pax Law, we regularly draft detailed PFL responses for Start-Up Visa clients to protect their applications from refusal.
A Federal Court judicial review is a legal process where a judge examines whether the refusal decision was reasonable and procedurally fair. The Court does not re-assess your application from scratch but reviews whether the officer made legal or factual errors, ignored evidence, or reached an unreasonable conclusion based on the record. If successful, the Court can set aside the decision and send it back to a different officer for re-determination.
The timeline is very strict. Generally:
You should seek legal advice as soon as possible after receiving your refusal to avoid missing these deadlines.
You may have strong grounds if:
A detailed legal review of the refusal letter and your file by an experienced lawyer is essential to assessing the strength of your case.
Reapplying may be an option in some cases, but it is not always the best strategy. If the refusal is based on clear legal or factual errors, a judicial review may be more appropriate. In other cases, a fresh application with better evidence and clearer documentation might be recommended. At Pax Law, we assess your goals, timing, and risk tolerance to advise whether reapplication, reconsideration, or litigation is the best path forward.
Helpful documents can include:
A lawyer can help you organize and present these materials effectively.
At Pax Law, we:
Our goal is to protect your rights and help you pursue your entrepreneurial immigration goals in Canada.
Pax Law combines business immigration knowledge with Federal Court litigation experience. We understand start-ups, tech companies, designated organizations, and venture ecosystems. Our lawyers are familiar with complex refusal patterns under IRPR 89(b) and regularly challenge unreasonable or unfair decisions, giving you a strategic advantage in navigating SUV refusals.
Yes. We regularly represent founders and entrepreneurs based outside Canada, including in Asia, the Middle East, Europe, and other regions. Most of our work can be done through secure online communication, making it possible to handle Start-Up Visa refusals and Federal Court cases no matter where you are located.
For a productive consultation, you should gather:
Sharing these materials allows our lawyers to provide accurate, tailored legal advice.
Getting a CBSA removal interview letter feels overwhelming, but it is not a direct ticket to Iran. Discover the legal mechanisms, case precedents, and options like stays and deferrals that can pause the process.
If a Canadian refugee officer thinks you are lying, your claim is at serious risk. Discover the exact legal strategies, statutory rights under the IRPA, and crucial Federal Court precedents you can use to defend your credibility and safeguard your future in Canada.
Navigating Canadian immigration for children under 18 involves distinct legal criteria, strict custody rules, and the vital “Best Interests of the Child” principle. Discover the available permanent and temporary pathways to bring minors to Canada safely and legally.
0 Comments