Mohammed concerned an
application for an “A77” work permit under the Start-up Business Class. The
applicant argued that the officer unreasonably assessed the business venture,
failed to give sufficient weight to the designated entity’s commitment
certificate and letter of support, and improperly expected evidence of Canadian
industry connections. The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review, finding
that the officer reasonably concluded that the evidence did not establish the
applicant’s eligibility for the exceptional work permit.
Key Principle
A commitment certificate or
letter of support from a designated Start-up Business Class entity does not
determine whether an applicant should receive an A77 work permit. The
designated entity’s assessment is evidence for the officer to consider, but the
Minister retains the ultimate authority to decide whether the work permit
requirements are met. Applicants must independently demonstrate the necessity
and urgency of their presence in Canada and the significant Canadian benefits
expected from the proposed business.
Background
Mr. Mohammed resided in India
with his spouse and four children and was developing Equi-Coop Inc., an
Ontario-incorporated technology start-up supported by Pycap Inc., a designated
business incubator. He held 20% of the company and served as Chief Information
Officer. Following an earlier refusal that was sent back for redetermination,
he submitted additional written submissions, an updated business plan and bank
documents.
The officer nevertheless found
insufficient information to establish that the proposed venture met the
Start-up Business Class requirements. The concerns included the team members
being located in different parts of India, insufficient evidence concerning the
company’s existing operations, non-functional or illegible website material,
and a lack of evidence demonstrating how operating in Canada would benefit the
venture.
Court Findings
• Commitment Certificate Not
Determinative: The Court rejected the argument that the designated entity’s
conclusion that Mr. Mohammed was “essential” required IRCC to issue the work
permit. Under Maghami, the commitment certificate and letter of support
are expressions of opinion that the officer must consider but are not binding.
The Minister retains authority to issue the work permit.
• Peer Review Not Mandatory: The Court also rejected the argument that the officer was required to use the
peer-review mechanism under IRPR s 98.09. Following Maghami, the
peer-review process was not mandatory and, in any event, related to Start-up
Business Class permanent residence applications rather than A77 work permit
applications.
• Urgent Need for Presence in
Canada Not Established: Although the commitment certificate stated that Mr.
Mohammed’s presence was necessary to establish and develop the business, the
evidence did not explain why his presence in Canada was required before his
permanent residence application was determined. The Court emphasized that the
Start-up Business Class is primarily a permanent residence program.
• Insufficient Evidence of
Canadian Benefits: The officer reasonably considered the limited evidence
concerning job creation, innovation, current operations and Canadian industry
benefits. Mr. Mohammed’s role as CIO could apparently be performed from India,
and the evidence did not establish why his physical presence in Canada was
urgently required.
Outcome
The Federal Court dismissed the
judicial review without costs. The Court held that the officer’s decision
demonstrated sufficient justification, transparency and intelligibility and
that the applicant had not established any sufficiently central or significant
error warranting intervention. No question of general importance was certified.
Case
Citation:
Mohammed v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1933 (CanLII)
Prepared by:
Dr. Muhammad
Abrar (Barrister and
Solicitor)
Author | Writer | Mentor | Legal Researcher | Canadian
Immigration Case Law and Statistics Analyst
