This is a report on the judicial review of three work permit refusal cases under the Start-up Business Class program (C10).
Three business partners from Kazakhstan tried to create a business for designing, fabricating and selling self-sustained greenhouses, which they claimed helped to address food insecurity in Northern Canada.
Applicants have a university degree and experience in industry and management.
Furthermore, in accordance with the program’s requirements, their applications included an undertaking to live in Manitoba, proof of payment of the employer compliance fee, a Commitment Certificate and Letter of Support from Manitoba Technology Accelerator, their designated entity under the program, an IMM-5802 Form (Offer of Employment to a Foreign National Exempt from a Labour Market Impact Assessment), and proof of sufficient funds.
Also, they provided a letter from their Designated Entity to explain the reason behind their urgent early entry to Canada and confirm their due diligence.
However, the officer believed that all three of them were ineligible for the C10 LIMA-exempt work permit because of the following reasons: irrelevant education or employment in their business field, insufficient reasons for the departure of the applicants from Canada due to the employment situation in Kazakhstan, the purpose of visit, and family ties.
After their refusal, applicants requested reconsideration, which refused as well, they brought their cases to the court.
The court reviewed the officer findings and discovered that the officer notes on family ties and the purpose of the applicants visit were unreasonable.
Because, this program was primarily designed in 2013 for entrepreneurs that want to establish their business in Canada while gaining a direct route to permanent residence by proving that they want to reside in a state other than Quebec and meet the requirements of the program.
After all, the start-up program allows applicants to come to Canada on a work permit before submitting their application for permanent residence, as long as they have a Commitment Certificate, along with a Support Letter from their designated entity.
Also, according to the court view, the officer’s reason for the applicants’ visit was unreasonable because guidance from IRCC clearly states that work permits allow applicants to enter Canada and begin working while their application for permanent residence is still pending.
This is the exact purpose that the applicants attempted to follow in their applications, and for which due diligence had already been conducted by the Designated Entity.
Moreover, there is no evidence of prior non-compliance with immigration laws from the applicants that jeopardized their lawful stay in Canada.
Furthermore, the court mentioned that there was no logical reason why the applicants would not be able to manage the job descriptions contained in the Commitment Certificates, in light of their experience and education.
The lack of proof of language score was another reason behind the officer’s decision.
However, the court clearly explained that language proficiency is a requirement for permanent residency under the program, but it is not mandatory for a work permit application.
In conclusion, after careful examination of these three cases, the court found that the first decision regarding their work permit applications was unreasonable and consequently granted them their requested visas.
If you are an entrepreneur, business owner or a senior manager willing to have a branch or affiliate of your current enterprise in Canada, or move to direct the Canadian branch, fill out our online assessment form and we can help you from scratch.
https://mics.global/canada-form/ This form is available in English, Arabic and Farsi.
