Federal Court decision opens new avenue for stalled Start-Up Visa applicants

A landmark ruling released on November 9 and reported by Investment Migration Insider on November 12 has handed long-suffering Start-Up Visa (SUV) applicants a potent new weapon. In Naghavi v Canada (2026 FC 1370), Justice Michael Battista granted a mandamus order compelling Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) to issue a decision within 90 days on an application that had been fully assessed since mid-2024 but sidelined by successive ministerial instructions. The judgment strikes at the heart of IRCC’s SUV backlog—more than 43,000 files by the department’s own evidence. Battista found that the same ministerial instructions cited as a justification for delay were in fact “the perpetrators” of an open-ended queue, calling such circular reasoning incompatible with the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. While the Minister retains the power to set priorities, that power “does not extend to indefinite deferral,” the Court said. Practically, the ruling means every long-pending SUV applicant whose file is otherwise ready may now petition for mandamus. Immigration litigators expect a flurry of similar applications, raising the risk that IRCC could face court-ordered deadlines en masse unless it publishes credible processing timelines for de-prioritised files. For Canadian incubators and venture investors, the decision is a double-edged sword. It could accelerate admission of entrepreneurs already vetted by designated entities, injecting capital and innovation into local ecosystems. But it also exposes a governance gap: Ottawa paused new SUV applications on 30 June 2026 precisely because low funding thresholds and lax monitoring had attracted passive investors rather than true founders. Corporates that rely on the SUV to land foreign tech talent should watch two things: 1) whether IRCC appeals or simply complies, and 2) how the promised “high-impact start-up pilot” announced in Budget 2026 will replace the legacy programme. In the meantime, clients with files older than four years should have counsel review their Global Case Management notes and consider mandamus if substantive assessments are complete.