Canada’s Start-Up Visa Program stopped accepting new applications on January 1, 2026. For founders who are already in the queue — and there are tens of thousands of them — the questions are different from the ones the program’s marketing used to answer. How does priority processing actually work? What are officers refusing on? Can a court be asked to force a decision after five years of waiting? This guide sets out where the program stands in 2026 and what the Federal Court has said about it.
Key Takeaways
- The program is suspended to new applications, and no new SUV-specific work permits are being issued, though existing permit holders may apply to extend.
- The posted processing time exceeds ten years, and as of September 2025 roughly 43,000 applications were pending.
- Ministerial Instructions have limited admissions under the Start-Up Visa and the Self-Employed Persons Program to 500 individuals per year each.
- Approval rates collapsed: IRCC finalized roughly 6,000 applications in 2024 at close to 80 percent approval, then roughly 2,000 in 2025 at below 30 percent.
- Section 89 of the Regulations is the central battleground — an application fails if the requirements were met through transactions entered into primarily to acquire status rather than to genuinely run the business. Verify the current IRCC posting before relying on any figure here.
Where the program stands
The suspension did not come out of nowhere. The numbers behind it explain the policy. The inventory grew far faster than processing capacity, the posted processing time passed ten years, and the approval rate fell off a cliff — from around 85 percent on roughly 600 finalized applications in 2022, through just under 80 percent on more than 3,000 in 2023 and about 80 percent on roughly 6,000 in 2024, to below 30 percent on roughly 2,000 finalized in 2025.
Ministerial Instructions now cap admissions under this program, and under the Self-Employed Persons Program, at 500 individuals per year each. Against an inventory of roughly 43,000 applications, that arithmetic is the single most important fact for anyone still waiting.
Designated entity activity has also been curtailed, and no new work permits specific to the start-up business class are being issued. Founders already holding one may apply to extend.
Priority processing: who actually moves
A narrow priority mechanism exists. Applications may qualify for priority processing where at least one member of the applicant group holds a valid work permit available only to start-up business class applicants, and the commitment came from an authorized Canadian venture capital fund of at least $200,000, an authorized angel investor group of at least $75,000, or an authorized business incubator of at least $75,000 — with incubators that are members of Canada’s Tech Network treated separately.
Files are then processed in order: those meeting all of the above conditions; those meeting them except for the work permit requirement; and finally everything else. If your file is in the third band, plan accordingly.
What officers are refusing on
Section 89 of the Regulations does the heavy lifting. It provides that an applicant in the start-up business class or the self-employed persons class has not met the requirements where those requirements were satisfied through one or more transactions entered into primarily to acquire a status or privilege under the Act, rather than for the purpose of engaging in the business activity the commitment was intended to support. In practice this is a genuineness test, and the burden sits with the applicant.
The Federal Court’s recent decisions show what that means evidentially. In Rezaie v. Canada, 2026 FC 369, IRCC issued two procedural fairness letters and the response consisted largely of screenshots of meetings and references to communications with potential partners. The Court upheld the refusal, noting the evidence was primarily one-way communications and generic inquiries without concrete partnerships, agreements or commercial arrangements. On intention, the Court accepted that an officer may weigh past conduct and present circumstances: where a business proposal contemplated negotiating with laboratories, building customer partnerships and advancing product testing in Canada, but the record showed little of that had actually been done while the applicant was in Canada, the officer could reasonably find the stated intention not credible.
Ajili v. Canada, 2023 FC 788 reached the same place on similar facts. Phan v. Canada, 2022 FC 916 confirms that an officer may make a determination under paragraph 89(b) — and carries a practical lesson: legal arguments have to be put to the officer, not saved for judicial review.
Commitment certificate problems are a second cluster. In Orouji v. Canada, 2024 FC 1736, a team’s original commitment certificate was cancelled by the first designated entity and a new one obtained from a second; the refusal was upheld because the timing of the certificate and the assessment behind it are integral to the program. The practical reading is blunt: changing a commitment certificate is extremely high risk in the current climate.
That said, officers do not always win. In Majidifard v. Canada, 2026 FC 538, IRCC issued procedural fairness letters asking about a commitment certificate filed two years earlier, then refused because the ownership information came outside a six-month window. The Court found the decision unreasonable, holding the officer had failed to explain why the additional information did not fit within subsection 98.03(3), and distinguishing cases involving an actual change in circumstances from one where the applicant was simply confirming a status quo that had held throughout.
Work permit refusals
Work permit refusals under this program have their own pattern: that the business is online so a presence in Canada is not required; that the work has not progressed far enough; that the clients or development are not in Canada; insufficiency of financial resources; significant benefit not established; and problems with the letter of support.
On funds, officers look beyond a year’s low income cut-off for the family. The question is what the business actually needs, evidenced by the business plan, held in liquid and available form, with source of funds documented.
Several refusals have not survived review. In Serimbetoz v. Canada, 2022 FC 1130, the Court held that refusing on family ties and purpose of visit was illogical where the work permit was expressly a precursor to permanent residence — a classic case of dual intent under section 22(2) of the Act — and noted that language scores, while required for permanent residence under the program, are not required for the work permit. Karimi v. Canada, 2023 FC 411 makes the same point about the “will not leave Canada” finding: it runs contrary to the very purpose of a program whose objective is permanent residence.
The limits are real too. In Maghami v. Canada, 2023 FC 542, the Court confirmed an officer is not bound by the designated entity’s assessment — it is an expression of opinion for the officer’s consideration — and upheld a refusal where the claim that the applicant’s presence was urgently required was vaguely documented. And in Hasan v. Canada, 2025 FC 1933, insufficient evidence of education and work experience sank a work permit: the applicant bore the burden, and asking the Court to reweigh the evidence was not an answer. Related refusals have turned on unverifiable operations — non-functional website links, illegible screenshots, no corporate bank statements, no evidence of how a geographically scattered team actually worked together.
For where these permits sit in the wider system, see our overview of LMIA-exempt work permits.
Mandamus: forcing a decision
After five years of waiting, some founders ask the Federal Court to compel a decision. The results are mixed and worth understanding before spending money on the attempt.
In Tousi v. Canada, 2025 FC 671, applicants had been in process for more than 60 months and one essential co-founder remained in security checks. The Court held the delay for the other founders was not justified and granted mandamus; Majidi v. Canada, 2025 FC 680 reached the same outcome.
But in Zheng v. Canada, 2026 FC 245 — 60 months in process, all eligibility and security checks passed — the Court accepted that IRCC may suspend processing of a start-up application under subsection 98.03(4) of the Regulations, and denied mandamus. In Yim v. Canada, 2026 FC 254, IRCC filed evidence about the Ministerial Instructions and quota data shortly before the hearing; the Court held there is a clear right to performance of the duty.
A parallel decision in the Quebec investor context, Khajir v. Canada, 2026 FC 258, is worth noting for its reasoning: the Court held that applicants need to know where they stand in the queue, observing that the respondent cannot escape accountability indefinitely by making the process more opaque than necessary.
What founders should do now
If you are in the queue, the single most useful thing you can do is document concrete progress on the start-up. That is what section 89 turns on, it is what procedural fairness letter responses live or die by, and it is the evidence that will form the basis of any later legal options. One-way emails and meeting screenshots are not progress.
Watch co-founder stability. Changes in the people identified as essential, and changes to internal agreements, create risk at exactly the point where the file is least able to absorb it — as do changes to a commitment certificate.
If a procedural fairness letter arrives, treat it as the last real opportunity to put evidence and legal argument before the officer. A reconsideration request afterwards is a double-edged tool that can be used against an applicant.
And for anyone who has not yet filed: this route is closed. The realistic alternatives are the active business pathways — provincial nominee entrepreneur streams and significant benefit or intra-company work permits — which we map in our investor and business immigration overview.
FAQ
Can I still apply for the Start-Up Visa in 2026?
No. The program has been suspended to new applications since January 1, 2026, and no new SUV-specific work permits are being issued. Existing work permit holders may apply to extend.
How long will my pending application take?
The posted processing time exceeds ten years, and roughly 43,000 applications were pending as of September 2025 against an admissions cap of 500 individuals per year. Check the current IRCC processing-time posting for your own file rather than relying on any single figure.
What is section 89 and why does it matter so much?
It provides that a start-up business class or self-employed persons class applicant has not met the requirements where those requirements were satisfied through transactions entered into primarily to obtain immigration status rather than to genuinely carry on the business. It is the most common basis for refusal at the permanent residence stage.
Can I sue to speed up my application?
You can apply for mandamus in the Federal Court, and some applicants with very long delays have succeeded. Others have not: the Court has accepted that IRCC may suspend processing under subsection 98.03(4). Outcomes turn heavily on the specific delay, the stage reached, and the evidence filed. See our FAQs for related questions.
My co-founder wants to leave the team. What happens?
Changes to co-founders identified as essential are a well-documented refusal risk, as are changes to a commitment certificate. Obtain advice before anything is formalized rather than after.
Disclaimer: This article is for general information only and is not legal advice. Immigration law and IRCC/ESDC policy change frequently, and every case turns on its own facts. Reading this article does not create a lawyer–client relationship. Obtain advice tailored to your situation before you act.
Talk to a Canadian immigration lawyer. BridgePoint Law advises individuals and businesses across Canada — and on Canada–US–China cross-border matters — on start-up and entrepreneur immigration. Book a consultation with our team in Toronto and Kingston. We work in English, Mandarin, and Cantonese.
