Chhatrala v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1071 : Start-Up Visa Work Permit Refusal Upheld Where Applicant Failed to Establish Ability to Perform Proposed CEO Role

In Chhatrala v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1071, the Federal Court dismissed judicial review of a refusal of a work permit under the Start-Up Visa (SUV) Program. The Officer was not satisfied that the Applicant had demonstrated an ability to perform the proposed work as Chief Executive Officer of his start-up company. The Court found that the Officer reasonably assessed the evidence and that the Applicant’s arguments essentially asked the Court to reweigh the record.

Key Principle

An applicant bears the burden of establishing that they meet the requirements for a work permit under s. 200 of the IRPR, including demonstrating that they are able to perform the work sought. A Start-Up Visa Commitment Certificate or support letter does not automatically establish an applicant’s ability to perform the proposed role and cannot fetter the officer’s independent assessment under s. 200(3)(a).

Background

The Applicant, an Indian citizen, applied for a work permit under the Start-Up Visa Program in connection with Misobo Wellness Inc., a proposed business involving a wellness application connected to a wearable armband. The Applicant intended to serve as the company’s CEO.

As part of the application, a designated organization, VANTEC Angel Network Inc., had issued a Commitment Certificate and Support Letter. The Applicant also relied on his previous professional experience, including employment as an IT consultant and director. The Officer nevertheless refused the work permit because the evidence was insufficient to demonstrate that the Applicant could adequately perform the proposed CEO role.

Court Findings

• The Officer Retained Independent Discretion

The Court rejected the Applicant’s argument that the Commitment Certificate and Support Letter should be treated as definitive evidence of his ability to perform the CEO role. Accepting that position would improperly restrict the Officer’s discretion under s. 200(3)(a), which prohibits issuing a work permit where there are reasonable grounds to believe the applicant is unable to perform the work sought.

• The Commitment Certificate Did Not Establish the Applicant’s Competence

The Court noted that the Commitment Certificate described the responsibilities associated with the CEO position but did not establish that the Applicant personally possessed the ability to perform those responsibilities. Similarly, the Support Letter described his previous employment roles but did not confirm his ability to perform the proposed CEO position.

• The Applicant Failed to Substantiate His Work Experience

The Officer reasonably considered the Applicant’s past work experience but found insufficient documentary evidence supporting it. The Applicant had not provided documents such as an appointment letter, employment contract, pay stubs, bank statements showing salary deposits, or documentation substantiating his self-employed IT consulting experience. The Court held that it was not its role to reweigh this evidence.

• The Burden Remained on the Applicant

The Court rejected the argument that IRCC should have independently verified the Applicant’s employment references. The responsibility rested with the Applicant to provide sufficient evidence demonstrating that he met the work permit requirements. IRCC was not required to conduct the extensive verification proposed by the Applicant.

Outcome

The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review and upheld the work permit refusal. The Court found that the Officer reasonably concluded that the Applicant had not sufficiently demonstrated his ability to perform the proposed CEO role. No question for certification was raised or certified.

Case Citation:

Chhatrala v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1071 (CanLII)