Federal Court overturns IRCC refusal for failing to properly assess Substituted Evaluation in Start-up Visa application
On June 6, 2025, the Federal Court rendered a significant decision in Helmzadeh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1023, granting judicial review of a visa officer’s refusal to substitute an applicant’s language test results in the context of a Start-up Business Class permanent residence application. This judgment provides important guidance on the exercise of discretion under s. 98.10 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227 (“IRPR”), and the standard of reasonableness in administrative decisions.
Background
The principal applicant, Dr. Zohreh Helmzadeh, a former physician from Iran, applied for permanent residence under the Start-up Business Class, intending to establish a healthcare technology company in Vancouver. Although already residing in Canada on a work permit, Dr. Helmzadeh’s application was denied after her International English Language Testing System (IELTS) scores fell short of the required Canadian Language Benchmark (CLB) 5 in all four skill areas, as mandated by IRPR, s. 98.01(2)(b). Specifically, she scored 4.5 in Listening, with passing scores in the other areas.
After this refusal, Dr. Helmzadeh sought a substituted evaluation under s. 98.10(1) of the IRPR, arguing her professional background and the impact of COVID-19 on her ability to retest justified such discretion. The officer denied this request, prompting the application for judicial review1.
Legal Framework
- Start-up Business Class Requirements: Applicants must have a valid commitment from a designated entity and meet language proficiency thresholds (CLB 5 in all four skills), among other criteria (IRPR, s. 98.01(2)).
- Substituted Evaluation: Under s. 98.10(1) IRPR, an officer may substitute their own assessment of an applicant’s ability to become economically established in Canada if the prescribed requirements are not a sufficient indicator. However, this discretion is not available if the applicant lacks a valid commitment at the time of application (s. 98.10(2)).
Issues Before the Court
The Court considered two main issues:
- Mootness: Whether the matter was moot due to the expiry of the applicant’s commitment certificate.
- Reasonableness: Whether the officer’s refusal to grant a substituted evaluation was reasonable under the standard set by Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 6521.
The Court’s Analysis and Findings
1. Mootness
The Minister argued that, since the commitment certificate had expired before the application was filed, the applicant was ineligible for a substituted evaluation. The Court held there remained a live controversy, particularly as pandemic-era policies (e.g., OB 669) might have affected the assessment of expired commitments. Importantly, the officer’s reasons did not reference the expired certificate, and the Court could not supplement the decision with post hoc rationales1.
“If the expiry of the Commitment Certificate were an underlying reason for the rejection … it was for the Officer, rather than the Respondent now, to provide this justification. Reasonableness review starts with the reasons themselves…” (Helmzadeh, at para 21)1.
2. Reasonableness of the Officer’s Decision
Applying the Vavilov reasonableness standard, the Court found the officer’s decision deficient. The officer focused solely on the applicant’s failure to meet the language benchmark, without considering whether, in light of her overall profile (including medical expertise and entrepreneurial background), the language requirement was a sufficient indicator of her ability to become economically established in Canada.
The Court emphasized that s. 98.10(1) IRPR requires a holistic assessment—not merely a reconsideration of language scores. The officer’s reasons did not demonstrate such an analysis, nor did they address the applicant’s submissions regarding her professional experience.
“What is to be potentially substituted is not merely the replacement of the evaluation of the language test results … but rather an overall evaluation of an applicant’s ability to become economically established in Canada. There is no indication in the Decision that this was considered…” (Helmzadeh, at para 27)1.
The Court also reiterated that administrative decision-makers cannot have their reasons supplemented by arguments raised after the fact by the Minister on judicial review (Alexion Pharmaceuticals Inc v Canada (Attorney General), 2021 FCA 157; Vavilov, at para 97)1.
Disposition
The Federal Court allowed the application for judicial review, set aside the officer’s decision, and remitted the matter for redetermination by a different officer. No question of general importance was certified1.
Practical Implications
- Holistic Assessment Required: Officers must provide a transparent, intelligible, and justified analysis that considers whether regulatory requirements (such as language benchmarks) are, in the applicant’s circumstances, sufficient indicators of economic establishment.
- Limits on Post Hoc Rationales: The Federal Court will not accept new reasons advanced by the Minister on judicial review that were not present in the original decision.
- COVID-19 Policy Considerations: Temporary pandemic-era policies may affect the interpretation of regulatory requirements, but such considerations must be explicitly addressed in the officer’s reasons.
Conclusion
Helmzadeh reinforces the importance of reasoned decision-making in Canadian immigration law, particularly where officers exercise discretionary powers. Applicants for the Start-up Visa Program who seek substituted evaluations must be afforded a meaningful analysis of their overall ability to become economically established, not just a mechanical application of language test results.
For more information or assistance with Start-up Visa applications and judicial reviews, contact Ahlawat Law Professional Corporation.
References:
1 Helmzadeh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1023 (Federal Court Judgment and Reasons, June 6, 2025).
2 Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65.
