In Neri v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1087, the Federal Court upheld the refusal of a permanent residence application under the Start-Up Visa (SUV) program. The case is now a leading example of how Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) evaluates business legitimacy under section 89(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (IRPR), even when the applicant has support from a designated business incubator.
This decision confirms that IRCC officers have a gatekeeping role — and that SUV applicants must demonstrate genuine entrepreneurial intent and business credibility, not just formal compliance.
Summary of Facts
Mr. Neri, a citizen of the Philippines, applied for permanent residence through the Start-Up Business Class with support from Empowered Startups Ltd., a designated business incubator. His proposed venture involved a “jockey cam” designed for use in horse racing broadcasts.
Despite having the required letter of support, IRCC refused the application. The officer concluded that the venture was an “artificial transaction” — primarily intended to obtain immigration status, not to develop a viable business in Canada.
Key concerns included:
- Mr. Neri’s lack of relevant technical background
- The absence of a commercialization strategy
- Unclear ownership or control over the intellectual property
- Minimal evidence of actual business activity or traction
The Legal Challenge
Mr. Neri argued that IRCC:
- Applied unreasonable standards not found in the regulations
- Denied him procedural fairness by failing to clearly explain its concerns
The Federal Court disagreed and dismissed the application for judicial review.
Court’s Findings
- The officer’s conclusion under IRPR 89(b) was reasonable and well-supported by the record.
- IRCC is entitled to assess business legitimacy using a holistic, contextual approach, rather than relying solely on designated support.
- The procedural fairness letter issued by IRCC clearly identified material concerns, and Mr. Neri was given a meaningful opportunity to respond.
- The officer was not required to accept the incubator’s endorsement as conclusive evidence of the venture’s viability.
Key Takeaways for SUV Applicants
- Designated Support Is Not Enough
A letter of support from an incubator or designated organization does not guarantee approval. IRCC will look at the business’s substance, not just its structure. - Officers Can Look Behind the Venture
Immigration officers are empowered to reject applications they consider immigration-motivated rather than commercially driven. IRPR 89(b) provides this discretion. - Business Credibility Must Be Evident
Applicants must demonstrate technical competence, a viable commercialization plan, and some evidence of actual business development. Passive founders or speculative proposals are likely to be refused. - Procedural Fairness Requires Substance
Responding to IRCC’s fairness letters with vague assurances or generic rebuttals is insufficient. Responses should be detailed, documented, and address each concern directly. - Strategic Preparation Is Critical
A well-prepared SUV application anticipates these issues in advance, with robust documentation, clear founder roles, and evidence of work completed before submission.
Need Advice on a Start-Up Visa Case?
Whether you’re filing a new SUV application or responding to a fairness letter, it’s critical to ensure your business case is credible, commercially viable, and well-documented.
At Greenberg Hameed, we work closely with entrepreneurs, incubators, and investors to guide Start-Up Visa applications from concept to submission — and, where needed, through litigation and judicial review.
To speak with our team about your SUV case, or to request a review of a pending file, please contact us today.
Watch our short video on avoiding SUV refusals and understanding IRPR 89(b)
The content of this bulletin is for informational purposes only, and is not intended to provide or be relied on as legal advice.