Darvish v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 982 : Failure to Establish Valid Commitment Certificate Submission Led to Start-Up Visa Refusals

The Federal Court dismissed a judicial review challenging the refusal of permanent residence applications under the Start-up Business Class (SUBC). The applicants argued that IRCC failed to follow its established practice regarding renewed commitment certificates and breached procedural fairness. The Court held that the regulatory requirements governing Start-up Visa applications are mandatory and that applicants bear the burden of proving compliance with those requirements.

Key Principle

Applicants under the Start-up Business Class must strictly comply with the requirements of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (IRPR), including providing a valid commitment certificate submitted by the designated entity. Alleged administrative practices or legitimate expectations cannot override the regulatory scheme.

Background

The applicants, co-founders of a start-up company, applied for permanent residence as essential members under the Start-up Business Class. One applicant re-submitted his application with a renewed Letter of Support after the original commitment certificate had expired.

IRCC issued two Procedural Fairness Letters questioning whether the designated entity had directly submitted a valid renewed commitment certificate to IRCC, as required by the Regulations. Despite further submissions, the officer concluded there was no evidence that the renewed commitment certificate had been sent directly by the designated entity and refused the principal applicant’s application. As he was identified as an essential member of the business, the remaining applicants’ applications were also refused.

Court Findings

• Applicants Must Strictly Comply with the Regulatory Requirements

Justice Go held that the Start-up Business Class provisions require applicants to submit a valid commitment certificate that complies with the IRPR. The Court rejected the argument that IRCC had an established practice permitting applications to proceed despite expired commitment certificates.

• The Burden Rests on the Applicant to Establish Compliance

The Court found that the applicants failed to provide evidence that the designated entity had directly submitted the renewed commitment certificate to IRCC, despite being specifically asked to address this issue in two Procedural Fairness Letters. The responsibility for ensuring compliance with the application requirements rested with the applicants.

• There Was No Breach of Procedural Fairness

The Court rejected the applicants’ procedural fairness arguments, finding that IRCC was not required to provide notice of legislative requirements or honour alleged legitimate expectations that conflicted with the Regulations. Since one essential member failed to satisfy the regulatory requirements, the officer was required to refuse the applications of the remaining essential members.

Outcome

The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, confirming that Start-up Visa applicants must strictly comply with the regulatory requirements governing commitment certificates and that neither alleged administrative practices nor procedural fairness principles can override the clear requirements of the IRPR.

Case Citation:

Darvish v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 982 (CanLII)