Date: 20251107

Docket: IMM-7242-24

Citation: 2025 FC 1786

Ottawa, Ontario, November 7, 2025

PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Tsimberis

BETWEEN:

PEJMAN SHABANPOURFARD

AMIR ABBAS RASHIDI

ARASH SAFAEI

HAMIDREZA HEMMATI

Applicants

and

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

Respondent

JUDGMENT AND REASONS

[1] These are four judicial review applications which were heard together. The four applications deal with the same issues and involve the same business venture. Accordingly, Associate Justice Horneof the Federal Court agreed that the four applications should be heard together and issued an Order consolidating the Court files with file IMM-7242-24 (Hamidreza Hemmati v The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) being designated the lead file.

[2] The lead Applicant, Hamidreza Hemmati, along with Amir Abbas Rashidi, Arash Safaei and Pejman Shabanpourfard, [collectively, the Applicants] are all citizens of Iran and seek to start a new business venture in Canada.

[3] This is the judicial review of decisions of a visa officer [Officer] dated April 17, 2024, refusing the applications for permanent resident visas of the Applicants, under the Start-up Business Class [SUBC]. The Officer was satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the Applicant Mr. Shabanpourfard’s primary purpose in entering the commitment with the designated entity was for the purpose of acquiring a status or privilege under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 [IRPA] and described under subsection 89(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227 [IRPR]. As Mr. Shabanpourfard’s application for a permanent resident visa was identified as essential to the business in the commitment, the other three Applicants were deemed to not have met the requirements of subsection 98.01(2), as described in subsection 98.08(2) of IRPR. All four decisions are the subject of the present judicial review [Decisions].

[4] On judicial review before this Court, Mr. Hemmati raises three issues with the Officer’s Decisions.

[5] First, Mr. Hemmati submits that the Officer’s conclusion that the Applicants lack seriousness is not reasonable. Mr. Hemmati argues there is no justifiable basis for the Officer’s finding because they surpassed the minimum requirements of the SUBC in that they made significant progress, especially since Mr. Shabanpourfard’s arrival in Canada in June 2023.

[6] Second, Mr. Hemmati submits there was a breach of procedural fairness because there was no guidance provided to the Applicants on the test to be met to dispel concerns under Rule 89 of the IRPR. Mr. Hemmati argues that the lack of guidance prevented them from knowing the case they had to meet, such that a refusal of their applications amounts to a breach of procedural fairness.

[7] Third, Mr. Hemmati submits that there was a legitimate expectation that the Applicants’ applications would be approved because the guidelines of the Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada [IRCC] do not set out any information on the test or threshold that must be met.

[8] In response, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration [Minister] submits that the Decisions are reasonable because the Officer provided cogent reasons for why Mr. Shabanpourfard’s response to the second Procedural Fairness Letter [PFL] dated December 20, 2023, did not alleviate the concern that the primary purpose for entering into the commitment with the designated entity is for acquiring a status or privilege under the IRPA. Notably, the Officer explained why the reasons explaining the incompleteness of the website were given little weight and pointed out other issues with the evidence related to the joint venture agreement, the filing of taxes and the alleged sale of licences in Canada.

[9] The Minister further submits that the Decisions were not procedurally unfair because the Applicants knew the case they had to meet and had an opportunity to do so, as evidenced by the second PFL sent to the Applicants outlining the Officer’s concerns.

[10] Furthermore, the Minister submits that the Applicants failed to demonstrate how, after submitting their applications with the requisite documents, they had a legitimate expectation that their applications would automatically be approved without the Officer assessing the documents in support of the applications.

[11] For the reasons that follow, this Court dismisses the applications for judicial review. The Officer reasonably assessed the Applicants’ applications and reasonably justified why they did not qualify as members of the SUBC. Moreover, the Applicants did not establish that there was a breach of their right to procedural fairness.

I. Background

[12] The Applicants are co-founders of Deep Dent Technology Inc. [Deep Dent], a software platform helping dentists do predictive analysis on the performance of dental braces, implants, and other prostheses.

[13] The Applicants are the four members of Deep Dent and are all essential to Deep Dent. They are supported by the designated entity, Manitoba Technology Accelerator [MTA].

[14] In their applications, the Applicants provided supporting documentation, including a submission letter from their representative, a letter of support obtained from MTA, a services agreement between Deep Dent and MTA, a business plan, and the Applicants’ CVs, International English Language Testing System results and proof of financial capacity.

[15] On April 26, 2022, the Applicants incorporated Deep Dent in Canada as an Ontario corporation.

[16] On November 1, 2023, IRCC requested updated proof of funds because 6 months of transactional statements were not attached.

[17] On November 27, 2023, the first PFL was sent to the Applicants explaining that they do not appear to have started a qualifying business that meeting the required ownership structure. The letter provided the Applicants with 15 days to respond to the concerns.

[18] On December 10, 2023, the Applicants provided documents showing the required ownership structure was met, which included an updated commitment certificate issued on December 1, 2023, a Civil Partnership Contract dated March 21, 2021, signed between the business members, and corporate records outlining the share structure.

[19] The Officer sent a second PFL dated December 20, 2023, stating their concern that the primary purpose of entering into the agreement with MTA was to obtain a status or privilege under the IRPA. The letter highlighted concerns with Deep Dent’s website, the registration of the domain name, Deep Dent’s progress and engagement on LinkedIn, and provided the Applicants with 14 days to respond to the concerns.

[20] By letter dated December 29, 2023, IRCC granted the Applicants’ extension of time request until February 2, 2024, to provide a response to the second PFL.

[21] On January 24, 2024, the Applicants provided documents to show their work since they submitted their applications in 2021 and submitted further documents, including 13 Appendices such as Technical Report Detailing Improvements since Incubator Graduation, Hardware development and 3D printing progress.

II. Decisions under Judicial Review

[22] On April 17, 2024, IRCC issued the Officer’s decision that Mr. Shabanpourfard was not a member of the SUBC as described in subsection 98.01(2) of the IRPR. The Officer noted that they reviewed and considered the information and documentation submitted in response to the second PFL and that they were not sufficient to alleviate their concerns. The Officer found that they were satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that Mr. Shabanpourfard’s primary purpose in entering the commitment with the designated entity, MTA, is for the purpose of acquiring a status or privilege under the Act and described under subsection 89(b) of IRPR.

[23] On the same date, the IRCC issued three letters of refusal to the other Applicants because Mr. Shabanpourfard was identified as essential in the commitment and because of the Officer’s decision refusing Mr. Shabanpourfard’s permanent resident visa. The Officer consequently found the other Applicants had not met the requirements of subsection 98.01(2) of the IRPR, as described in subsection 98.08(2) of the IRPR, and they too are therefore not a member of the SUBC. The refusal letters and Global Case Management System [GCMS] notes are identical for each of the other Applicants and are all based on the decision to refuse Mr. Shabanpourfard.

[24] I will be treating mainly the refusal of Mr. Shabanpourfard because the Officer’s decision that he was not a member of the SUBC is the decision at the heart of the judicial reviews. I summarize the Officer’s findings below from the relevant GCMS notes, which are part of the Decisions: Baker v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 1999 CanLII 699 (SCC), [1999] 2 SCR 817 at para 44.

[25] In the GCMS notes, the Officer indicates that they were satisfied that the Applicants had started a qualifying business meeting the required ownership structure. However, while Mr. Shabanpourfard has outlined the progress made in the business, the Officer indicates that the documents provided in response to the second PFL did not alleviate and disabuse their concerns relating to Mr. Shabanpourfard’s lack of seriousness and the genuineness of the primary intent of the transactions. The Officer provided reasons explaining why the documents submitted did not alleviate the specific concerns raised in the second PFL.

[26] The Officer gave little weight to Mr. Hemmati’s explanation for the lack of engagement with the website. The Officer did not find their absence and/or lack of presence in Canada to be a factor that prevents them from making the necessary changes and ensuring their website is free of error because the Officer noted the website was initially designed by a third party in Iran.

[27] When reviewing the new design in their new domain <https:// deep-dent.com/new/>, the Officer found that the prices of the packages advertised were different from the prices listed on the other website <https://deep-dent.com/> and different from their latest pitch deck. Regarding the registration of <https:// deep-dent.com/new/> as a new Canadian domain, the Officer gave weight to the Applicants’ explanation that their friend handled the hosting and domain purchase on their behalf due to not having access to direct payment to hosting companies and being a resident in Canada.

[28] Then, the Officer found that while the Applicants had outlined progress made in the business, the documents provided did not alleviate their concerns for their lack of seriousness and that the transactions entered were genuine.

[29] Some of the relevant GCMS notes are reproduced in part below:

[Joint Venture Agreement]

A Joint Venture Agreement was made 2023/08/20 […] the agreement term begins on 2023/07/20 but the agreement was made one month later. 4 out of 15 pages of the agreement were provided. The signature page was not included. I give little weight to this as the document does not show that an agreement has been entered into.

[Taxes and Incorporation in Canada]

[…] Applicant indicated they complied with Canadian tax regulations but this was not evident in the documents submitted.

[Contract for the sale of Deep Dent 2.0 Software]

[…] A contract for the sale of Deep Dent 2.0 Software was made between Deep Dent 2.0 Software Group and a Dentistry Clinic in Iran on 2023/04/07. […] I give little weight to this document as the name of the company differs from the company they have established in Canada. Evidence of sales contracts made in Canada [was] not provided.

[Provisional Patent Application]

Provisional patent application was filed on or around 2022/09/26 with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. […] Applicant indicated that changes have been made to the current patent and a new version has been sent for registration and is ready for filing. I give little weight to this as it does not appear that applicant has applied for a non-provisional patent to protect their invention as no evidence was provided. Furthermore, the Monthly Progress Report advised the team that patent protection for software is difficult and were advised to seek a licensing agreement instead.

[Negotiations for Grants and Financing since 2023/10/24]

[…] An agreement was provided between RDP Associates Inc. and Deep Dent Inc. The agreement does not appear to have come into effect as the date is not filled in nor has it been signed by the applicant. I give little weight to this.

[LinkedIn page]

[…] Little explanation was provided to why the business page [on LinkedIn] lacked activity during the 6-month period from the applicant's arrival in Canada to the issuance of the second procedural fairness letter. As of 2023/12/20, there was one post on Deep Dent's LinkedIn page. Following my procedural fairness letter, numerous posts were made. Many of the graphics appear similar and are accompanied by little to no description. This did not disabuse my concern that one or more transactions were entered into primarily for the purpose of acquiring a status or privilege under the Act.

III. Relevant Legislation

[30] The Minister relied on Justice Ahmed’s prior judgment and reasons in Li v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 1327 [Li], which provided a description of the legislative scheme of the SUBC program, which I refer to and incorporate herein.

[31] On March 2013, the Government of Canada launched the SUBC program, which provides a pathway to permanent residence for entrepreneurs seeking to launch their start-up businesses in Canada. Effective April 11, 2018, the IRPR were amended to incorporate the SUBC program, was incorporated into sections 98.01 to 98.13 of the IRPR. Subsection 98.01(1) of the IRPR stipulates:

[32] To be considered a member of the SUBC, an applicant must fulfill the requirements outlined in subsection 98.01(2) of the IRPR, which was recently summarized by Justice Little in Phan v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 916, at paragraph 13:

Under IRPR subsection 98.01(2), a foreign national is a member of the Start-up Business Class if: (a) they have obtained a commitment made by one or more entities designated under the IRPR and that complies with certain other conditions; (b) they have attained a certain level of language proficiency; (c) they have a certain amount of transferable and available funds; and (d) they have started a qualifying business within the meaning of section 98.06.

[33] As a further requirement, under subsection 89(b) of the IRPR, an applicant in the SUBC must satisfy the officer that their participation in the SUBC program is primarily for the purpose of engaging in the business activity for which the commitment was intended, and was not primarily for the purpose of acquiring a status or privilege under the IRPA:

IV. Preliminary Issue

[34] The Minister raises a preliminary issue that the Applicants’ Record includes an extensive Further Affidavit of Lina Ayub that attaches as Exhibits several documents, none of which were before the decision-maker.

[35] The general rule is that evidence that was not before the decision-maker and that goes to the merits of the matter is not admissible in an application for judicial review in this Court (Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada v Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency (Access Copyright), 2012 FCA 22 [Access Copyright] at para 19).

[36] Mr. Hemmati relies upon the first and third recognized exceptions reproduced below to the general rule of inadmissibility in Access Copyright to submit that the Further Affidavit in this matter and its Exhibits are admissible:

1. Where the new evidence provides general background information in circumstances where that information might assist in understanding the issues relevant to the judicial review but does not add new evidence on the merits;

[…]

 

3. Where the new evidence highlights the complete absence of evidence before the decision maker on a particular finding.

[37] Before considering the Minister’s position, it is important to note that the Federal Court of Appeal held that these few recognized exceptions to the general rule “exist only in situations where the receipt of the evidence by the Court is not inconsistent with the differing roles of the judicial review court and the administrative decision-maker”: Access Copyright at para 20.

[38] The Minister points out that the Applicants have boldly and generally asserted that all their Exhibits satisfy exceptions 1 and 3 to the general rule but have failed to demonstrate that this is indeed the case. While Exhibits A to E of Lina Ayub’s Further Affidavit consist of publicly available application guides, delivery instructions for the program and Ministerial instructions, the Minister submits that they are not relevant to the issue in this judicial review and that Mr. Hemmati has failed to demonstrate how the exhibits would assist the Court in assessing the reasonability of the Officer’s analysis and conclusion that Mr. Hemmati has failed to address the Officer’s concerns. After review of Exhibits A to E of Lina Ayub’s Further Affidavit and the Applicant’s Further Memorandum, I must agree with the Minister.

[39] As for Exhibits F to M of Lina Ayub’s Further Affidavit, they consist of copies of IRCC’s evaluations of the Start-Up Visa Program from 2016 and 2023, copies of responses from IRCC to frequently asked questions, a copy of a New York Times article from June 5, 2023 titled “Countries Seek Entrepreneurs From Silicon Valley”, a copy of IRCC’s Data Entry Manual, a copy of IRCC’s Start-Up Visa Business Program SOP, a copy of an email from Jennifer Bouchard, Assistant Manager, dated August 23, 2023, a copy of IRCC’s Start-Up Visa Presentation from 2022, and finally copies of sample correspondence between IRCC staff, National Angel Capital Organization and other Designated Entities under the Start-Up Visa Program. The Minister points out, and upon having verified the record, it would appear that they have never been put before the Officer. While Mr. Hemmati asserts that Exhibits F to M were tendered to demonstrate a breach of procedural fairness, there are no submissions demonstrating how this is the case. Again, I must agree with the Minister.

[40] After a careful review of the record before this Court, including the Certified Tribunal Record, I find the aforementioned exhibits to the Further Affidavit of Lina Ayub postdate the Decisions and were not before the Officer. I am not satisfied that any of the exceptions referenced above are applicable allowing for this new evidence’s admissibility. If accepted, these materials would be for the purpose of bolstering the merits of the Applicants’ applications, as opposed to addressing an issue falling under either of the Access Copyright exceptions or evidencing a procedural defect that would otherwise not be apparent.

[41] The Court’s role is to “not delve into or re-decide the merits of what the [Officer] has done”: Access Copyright at para 18.

V. Issues and Standard of Review

[42] Mr. Hemmati raises the following points in issue:

a. Whether the Officer’s Decisions were unreasonable?

 

b. Whether the Officer breached their duty of procedural fairness?

[43] The parties agree that the merits of the Decisions are reviewable on the presumptive standard of reasonableness and that the issue of procedural fairness is determined on the basis that approximates correctness review: Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 at paras 10,16-17, 25 [Vavilov].

[44] To avoid intervention on judicial review, the decision must bear the hallmarks of reasonableness – justification, transparency, and intelligibility: Vavilov at para 99. A reasonable decision will always depend on the constraints imposed by the legal and factual context of the decision under review: Vavilov at para 90.

[45] The Court must avoid reassessing and reweighing the evidence before the decision-maker; however, a decision may be unreasonable, if the decision-maker “fundamentally misapprehended or failed to account for the evidence before it”: Vavilov at paras 125-126. The reviewing court must ultimately be satisfied that the decision-maker’s reasoning “adds up”: Vavilov at para 104.

[46] The party challenging the decision bears the onus of demonstrating that the decision is unreasonable: Vavilov at para 100.

[47] On the other hand, breaches of procedural fairness in administrative contexts have been considered reviewable on a correctness standard or subject to a “reviewing exercise […] ‘best reflected in the correctness standard’ even though, strictly speaking, no standard of review is being applied”: Canadian Pacific Railway Company v Canada (Attorney General), 2018 FCA 69 at para 54 [Canadian Pacific].

[48] The duty of procedural fairness “is ‘eminently variable’, inherently flexible and context-specific”; it must be determined with reference to all the circumstances, including the non-exhaustive list of factors stated in Baker v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 1999 CanLII 699 (SCC), [1999] 2 SCR 817 at paras 22 and 23: Vavilov at para 77.

[49] In sum, the focus of the reviewing court is whether the process was fair. In the words of the Federal Court of Appeal in Canadian Pacific at para 56, the ultimate or fundamental questions are:

[56] No matter how much deference is accorded administrative tribunals in the exercise of their discretion to make procedural choices, the ultimate question remains whether the applicant knew the case to meet and had a full and fair chance to respond. It would be problematic if an a priori decision as to whether the standard of review is correctness or reasonableness generated a different answer to what is a singular question that is fundamental to the concept of justice—was the party given a right to be heard and the opportunity to know the case against them? Procedural fairness is not sacrificed on the altar of deference.

[Emphasis added.]

VI. Analysis

A. Legal Framework

[50] As set out by the Minister, an officer may issue a permanent residence visa, if it is established that a foreign national is a member of the economic class. The economic class includes the startup business class: IRPA, s 12(2); IRPR, ss 70(1), 70(2)(b).

[51] The Applicants bear the onus of convincing the Officer that their purpose is primarily to engage in the business activity intended in their commitment, and not to acquire status.

B. Issue 1 – Whether the Officer’s Decisions were unreasonable?

[52] In the second PFL, the Officer clearly outlined having “concerns that your primary purpose for entering into a commitment with the designated entity Manitoba Technology Accelerator is for the purpose of acquiring a status or privilege under the Act.” The Officer added that these concerns were based on a lack of seriousness on the Applicants’ part because of the numerous issues with their website, including the website having several spelling and grammatical errors, pages that could not be found, and the website using sample pages. Furthermore, the Officer’s concerns were also based on a lack of progress in the business as there was little evidence showing contact with potential customers or the implementation of marketing strategies. The Officer also noted that the business’ LinkedIn page had little engagement.

[53] In response to the Officer’s concerns in the second PFL regarding the website and LinkedIn page, Mr. Hemmati submits that they sent the Officer 361 pages of documents that included an explanation regarding their website, its development and their new version that was in development as the business had progressed, including a Marketing & Sales Plan – with their website and social media. Mr. Hemmati submits that they were aware of the issues with their existing website for their start-up (including the typos that existed therein) and explained the challenges they had faced including in developing their website, accessing social media (i.e., their LinkedIn page) through Iran’s highly controlled state internet restrictions and working through the pandemic.

[54] The Officer’s decision regarding the website and the LinkedIn page are reproduced below:

I give little weight to the applicant's explanation regarding the development of the website. The team had made changes to the website during the incubation period but were advised towards the end of the incubation program to overhaul the website. Applicant did not provide reasons to why this was suggested by their mentors. I have reviewed the Monthly Status Reports by MTA and there is no indication that such a suggestion was made.

I give little weight to the applicant's explanation for the lack of engagement with the website. They indicated the website was initially designed by a third party in Iran, as such it appears the applicant has access to their website. I do not find their absence and lack of presence in Canada to be a factor that prevents them from making the necessary changes and ensuring their website is free of error. My concerns were not disabused.

Applicant indicated working on a new design, https://deep-dent.com/new/ and has decided to register a new Canadian domain. Details of when the new design and domain will be launched were not provided. I have reviewed https://deep-dent.com/new/ and found that the prices of the packages advertised are different from the prices on https://deep-dent.com/ and their latest pitch deck. My concerns pertaining to the applicant's and team's lack of seriousness were not disabused.

Regarding the registration of the website, applicant's friend handled the hosting and domain purchase on their behalf due to not having access to direct payment to hosting companies and being a resident in Canada. I give weight to this explanation.

[Emphasis added.]

[55] According to Mr. Hemmati, their substantial work demonstrates their commitment to their start-up as they were not legally required to do any work to qualify and remain eligible because the SUBC framework allows applicants to not do any work on their start-up until the time they arrive in Canada. Mr. Hemmati insists on the fact that on January 24, 2024, they submitted a detailed 361-page document to address the Officer’s concerns in the PFLs, which included proof of the work they did prior to obtaining their commitment from the designated entity in May 2021, detailed information and documents for the work they have done from 2021 to 2024, and details about the progress they have made since Mr. Shabanpourfard arrived in Canada in June 2023, developing their product, testing, engaging in sales, signing their first customers and trying to raise investment funds.

[56] Mr. Hemmati argues that they have “far surpassed the minimum requirements of the SUBC and showed they have made significant progress” and that there is no logical path that allows them to understand how the Officer comes to their conclusion. Mr. Hemmati states the evidence presented in response to the PFLs demonstrate the substantial progress by the business despite not being a requirement under the SUBC framework. However, that is not where the Officer’s concerns lay.

[57] The Minister submits, and I agree, that the Applicants did not alleviate the Officer’s concerns in their response to the second PFL and have not demonstrated any error in his analysis or findings. It was open to the Officer to give little weight to the Applicants’ response to its concern that their website was incomplete, had missing and sample pages, and was riddled with spelling and grammatical errors. As rightly pointed out by the Minister, the Officer noted that the Applicants had been making changes to the website already during the incubation period. Furthermore, it was noted that their website had initially been created by a third party in Iran, was accessible in Iran, and their lack of presence in Canada did not appear “to be a factor that prevents them from making the necessary changes and ensuring their website is free of error.” Mr. Hemmati has not demonstrated to me how this finding of the Officer is unreasonable given the evidence on file or has any error.

[58] The Officer noted missing details as to when the new design and domain would be launched, and the prices for advertised packages were different from the prices on the original website and further did not match the Applicants’ latest pitch deck. As such, it was open to the Officer to give little weight to the Applicants’ explanation for the website’s lack of quality.

[59] Finally, the Officer considered the Applicants’ explanations that LinkedIn was filtered in Iran, but since coming to Canada, Mr. Hemmati had been actively promoting his personal LinkedIn page and using it to promote the company and seek opportunities. The Officer found that “(t)here also appears to be little engagement on the business's LinkedIn page” noting that up to the date of the second PFL, only one post had been made on the business’ LinkedIn page, but that following the PFL, numerous posts were made, many of which were “graphics [that] appear similar and are accompanied by little to no description.” Again, a review of the record does not show any error in the Officer’s findings.

[60] What a review of the record does show is that the Officer explained and gave cogent reasons as to why the Applicants’ response did not disabuse their concerns raised in the second PFL. Notably, the Officer provided detailed reasons explaining why they:

• 1)found little supporting documentation showing progress made in the business, little indication that Mr. Shabanpourfard has contacted potential customers and implemented sales and marketing strategies;

• 2)found that the joint venture agreement term did not show an agreement had been entered into;

• 3)noted some inconsistencies in their documentation regarding the filling of their taxes;

• 4)gave little weight to the contract with a dentistry clinic in Iran as some information was missing or inconsistent;

• 5)found that the Applicants submitted no evidence they had applied for a non-provisional patent;

• 6)gave little weight to the undated and unsigned agreement for grants and financing;

• 7)gave little weight to the Applicants’ explanation for the lack of quality and engagement in their website; and

• 8)found that the LinkedIn posts published after the second PFL was issued did not disabuse the concerns regarding the Applicants’ primary purpose.

[61] In those circumstances, the Officer’s finding that the “Applicant[s] ha[ve] provided little supporting documentation to show progress made in the business” despite the “detailed explanations and numerous documents” provided by the Applicants is not unreasonable.

[62] It is important to reiterate that it is not the Court’s role to re-weigh the evidence: Vavilov at para 125. The Applicants submitted insufficient and/or deficient documentation to the Officer that did not speak directly to the concerns of the Officer and, before this Court, failed to demonstrate any error made by the Officer in concluding that their business lacked progress or seriousness.

[63] In my view, Mr. Hemmati has not demonstrated how the Officer’s Decisions were unreasonable. In the case at bar, “[i]t boils down to a disagreement with the decision made, as opposed to showing that it is unreasonable”: Ajili v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 788 [Ajili] at para 29.

C. Issue 2 – Whether there was a breach of procedural fairness?

[64] First, Mr. Hemmati submits that none of IRCC’s documents provide any guidance to SUBC applicants as to how their applications will be assessed under section 89 or what threshold of activity is required. Although they admit at para 69 of their Further Memorandum that the PFL did advise them of the Officer’s concern regarding the “primary intent”, Mr. Hemmati adds that there was no guidance provided on how to alleviate those concerns. Mr. Hemmati argues that without such guidance, assessments of applications under section 89 are arbitrary. Mr. Hemmati indicates that they have identified a fundamental flaw in the SUBC program, including the statutory framework, because applicants like them do not know the case they need to meet when officers assess the “primary purpose” of a start-up several years after submission.

[65] The Minister submits that in Ajili, Le v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC499 and Neri v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1087, the decisions on section 89 were upheld as reasonable, regardless of whether any specific guidance for officers or applicants exist and that the reviewing Court was still able to assess the reasonableness of the decisions.

[66] In my view, and similar to the conclusions of Justice Ahmed in Li at paragraph 33, the Applicants in this case knew the case to be met as they received two PFLs specifically raising the Officer’s concerns that needed to be disabused. In these circumstances, I am not convinced that the process of reviewing the Applicants’ SUBC applications was unfair merely because there is an absence of ministerial guidance on the SUBC program.

[67] Second, the Applicants rely on Tafreshi v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 1089 to argue that the absence of IRCC guidelines on the test that applicants must meet gives rise to a legitimate expectation in the legal sense. In other words, their SUBC application should be approved since they submitted a commitment from a designated entity and other required eligibility documents.

[68] I agree with the Minister that Mr. Hemmati has not demonstrated that there was a legitimate expectation because the second PFL sent to the Applicants communicated, without any ambiguity, the Officer’s concerns. The second PFL specifically noted that:

• -There appeared to be “little progress” being made in the business since completion of the incubation program;

• -The website for the proposed product was not registered under any of the Applicants’ names;

• -Information indicated that the website ought to have been completed on or around August 2022, but the website still contained numerous spelling errors, grammatical errors, pages that could not be found, and sample pages;

• -There appeared to be an “overall lack of seriousness” on the Applicants’ part;

• -There was little evidence indicating contact with potential customers, or that sales and marketing strategies had begun to be implemented;

• -As of December 20, 2023, there was little engagement on the business’ LinkedIn page.

[69] I do not understand how Mr. Hemmati could expect that the Officer would somehow not reasonably consider their responses to the PFL along with their supporting documentation and assess their visa applications against the requirements of the IRPA or IRPR.

[70] The Supreme Court of Canada in Agraira v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2013 SCC 36 (CanLII), [2013] 2 SCR 559 [Agraira] held that the doctrine of legitimate expectations cannot give rise to substantive rights: Agraira at para 97. For the same reasons as referenced by Justice Little in Saloni v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 474:

[36] The doctrine of legitimate expectations does not assist the applicant in this case. In law, a legitimate expectation must be based on a clear, unambiguous and unqualified representation to the applicant about the administrative process (i.e., the procedures) that the decision maker would follow: see Canada (Attorney General) v Mavi, 2011 SCC 30, [2011] 2 SCR 504 (Binnie J.), at para 68; Agraira v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2013 SCC 36, [2013] 2 SCR 559 (LeBel J.), at para 95. Legitimate expectations may also arise from similarly clear, unambiguous and unqualified representations that a certain result will be reached, in which case more onerous procedures must be followed before backtracking or coming to a contrary result: Baker, at para 26; Agraira, at para 94. […]

[Emphasis added.]

[71] In the case at bar, there was no “clear, unambiguous and unqualified representation [to Mr. Hemmati] that a certain result will be reached”.

[72] It is trite law that the level of procedural fairness owed to a visa applicant is on the lower end of the spectrum: Li at para 33; Damangir v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 599 at para 38.

[73] I understand the Mr. Hemmati’s position to be that they otherwise engaged in the development of their product, testing, marketing and fund-raising. However, none of this was required or helpful in overcoming the concerns clearly expressed to them in the PFLs. It is clear from the record that the Officer raised concerns with the SUBC applications, and more specifically concerns with typos in the Deep Dent’s website, the registration of the domain name, and Deep Dent’s progress and engagement on LinkedIn in the second PFL, which concerns were not addressed by the Applicants. In my view, the Applicants were provided with an opportunity to respond to the Officer’s concerns, they knew or ought to have known the case to be met and did not meet it.

[74] While the Applicants provided their responses to the Officer’s two PFLs and submitted documentation in support thereof, they did not establish their entitlement to their visas.

VII. Conclusion

[75] The judicial review applications must therefore be dismissed, as the Decisions under review were reasonable, both as to the resulting outcome and the decision-making process followed. There was no procedural fairness issue in this matter requiring the Court’s intervention.

[76] The parties confirmed that there is no serious question of general importance that ought to be stated. This is a conclusion shared by the Court.

JUDGMENT in IMM-7242-24

THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that:

1. The judicial review application is dismissed.

2. There is no question for certification to be stated pursuant to Section 74 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

3. A copy of this Judgment and Reasons shall be placed in each of the related judicial review applications files IMM-7288-24, IMM-7307-24, and IMM-7399-24.

"Ekaterina Tsimberis"

FEDERAL COURT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET:	IMM-7242-24
STYLE OF CAUSE:	PEJMAN SHABANPOURFARD, AMIR ABBAS RASHIDI, ARASH SAFAEI, HAMIDREZA HEMMATI v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING:	Toronto, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING:	August 11, 2025
JUDGMENT AND reasons:	TSIMBERIS J.
DATED:	november 7, 2025

APPEARANCES:

Zeynab Ziaie Moayyed	For The Applicants
Aleksandra Murray	For The Respondent

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

Visa Law Group PC TORONTO, ON	For The Applicants
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA TORONTO, ON	For The Respondent