Zheng v. Canada (2026 FC 245): Court Upholds SUV Freeze

Zheng v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 245 — Justice Anne M. Turley, Federal Court, February 20, 2026; read with Yim v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 254 — Justice Darren R. Thorne, February 23, 2026. Checked against both decisions and IRCC's Start-up Visa pages on November 4, 2026. This is an analysis of published court decisions, not legal advice.

On February 20, 2026, the Federal Court of Canada refused to order IRCC to decide a Start-up Visa (SUV) application that had been waiting five years. In Zheng v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 245, Justice Anne M. Turley held that once the Minister suspends a designated organization and pauses the applications it supported, IRCC has no public legal duty to process those files while the suspension lasts. Without that duty, the court cannot issue mandamus. It was the first time the Court had interpreted this power, which sits in subsection 98.03(4) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations. Three days later, a second judge dismissed another SUV mandamus application for a different reason: IRCC's Ministerial Instructions had placed that file at the back of a priority queue. Read together, the two decisions explain why going to court has become much harder for SUV applicants in 2026, and what is still worth checking if you have a file pending.

What did the court decide?

The short version, in five points:

• The mandamus application was dismissed. The case failed at the first part of the legal test: there must be a public legal duty to act.
• The pause covers applications whose commitment certificates were issued before the suspension, not only new ones. The regulation reaches "applications associated with commitments made by" the suspended organization.
• CSIS finishing its part of security screening does not mean screening is complete. CSIS advises the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA), CBSA sends its own recommendation to IRCC, and IRCC still makes the decision.
• It did not matter that the suspension came almost a year after the case was filed. Whether a duty to act exists is judged on the day the case is heard.
• The Minister of Public Safety was removed as a respondent, and no question was certified for appeal.

Background: five years, then a pause

Lifu Zheng applied for permanent residence under the SUV program in February 2021. As the program required, his application was supported by a commitment certificate from a designated organization: Biomedical Commercialization Canada Inc., which operated as Manitoba Technology Accelerator and now operates as Manitoba Innovates. The dates below come from the decision.

What power did IRCC use?

Subsection 98.03(4) of the Regulations lets the Minister act when there is reason to suspect that a designated organization does not meet the program's conditions, or has given the Minister false, misleading or inaccurate information. The Minister may then:

• suspend the organization's ability to make commitments, and
• refuse to consider applications associated with commitments the organization has already made.

Under subsection 98.03(5), a suspension starts on the day the Minister notifies the organization and ends on the earlier of two dates: the day the situation is resolved, or nine months after the notice. The trigger is reason to suspect. A suspension is not a finding that an organization did anything wrong, and the Zheng decision makes no finding about this organization's conduct. The case is about what a suspension does to applicants, not about why this one was imposed.

Why did mandamus fail?

Mandamus is a court order compelling a government body to perform a public legal duty it has failed to perform. The Federal Court applies the eight-part test from Apotex Inc v Canada (Attorney General) (Federal Court of Appeal, 1993), and every part must be met. The first is that there must be a public legal duty to act. Justice Turley found that Mr. Zheng's case failed there, so she did not need to consider the rest.

There was no earlier case on this regulation, so the government pointed to a close parallel: section 13.1 of the Citizenship Act, which lets the Minister suspend a citizenship application while an admissibility investigation is under way. The courts, including the Federal Court of Appeal in Nilam (2017 FCA 44), have held that while a citizenship application is reasonably suspended there is no public duty to act and mandamus cannot issue, and that the applicant carries the burden of showing a suspension is unreasonable or invalid. Justice Turley found that case law "instructive" and applied the same reasoning to SUV files. She noted one difference: a citizenship suspension can last "for as long as is necessary", while an SUV suspension is capped at nine months.

Which arguments did the court reject?

Mr. Zheng accepted that the Minister can pause SUV files when an organization is suspended. He argued the power should not reach his file. The Court rejected each argument:

• "My certificate was already issued and my eligibility already decided." The wording, "applications associated with commitments made by" the organization, covers exactly this situation. Where a certificate has been issued but IRCC has not finished processing, the application is on hold while the suspension is in effect.
• "CSIS finished my security screening in October 2025." The evidence showed only that CSIS had given its advice and that its own role was complete. In permanent residence cases, CSIS advises CBSA, CBSA sends that advice to IRCC with its own recommendation, and IRCC decides. There was no evidence that CBSA had sent anything on, so the Court could not treat security screening as passed.
• "The suspension came long after I filed." Following Niu (2018 FC 520), whether a duty to act exists is judged when the case is heard, not when it was filed. Events in between that remove the duty defeat the application.

Three days later: Yim v. Canada and the priority queue

On February 23, 2026, Justice Darren R. Thorne dismissed a second SUV mandamus application in Yim v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 254. Chun Hung Yim applied in March 2021, and by November 2025 his file had passed its eligibility, security, criminality and medical assessments. Nothing was suspended in his case. The obstacle was the order of the queue. In April 2024 and again in December 2025, the Minister issued Ministerial Instructions under section 87.3 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act that decide which SUV applications are processed first. Under the December 2025 instructions, as the decision sets them out:

• First: at least one member of the entrepreneurial team holds a valid work permit available only to Start-Up Business Class applicants, and the commitment came from a venture capital fund (at least $200,000), an angel investor group (at least $75,000), or a business incubator that is a member of Canada's Tech Network or committed at least $75,000.
• Second: the same commitment conditions, but nobody on the team holds that work permit.
• Last: every other application.
• Within each group, files are processed first in, first out, as annual admission levels allow.

The court record shows why the queue moves so slowly. The instructions limit admissions from the SUV and Self-Employed Persons programs together to 500 people a year, and about 43,000 SUV applications were pending as of September 2025. Mr. Yim's organization was not a member of Canada's Tech Network and had committed no capital to his start-up, so his file sat in the last group. Justice Thorne accepted that the delay was longer than the process itself requires, but held that IRCC had justified it: IRCC was not refusing to process the file, it had not yet reached it in the queue. Ordering a decision, he wrote, would "circumvent, and indeed repudiate" the priorities in the instructions and let one applicant pass others who are also waiting.

Zheng and Yim side by side

Two SUV files from early 2021, two dismissals in the same week, for two different reasons:

What has happened since the nine months ran out?

The suspension in Zheng had to end no later than September 19, 2026, because the Regulations cap a suspension at nine months. Earlier in 2026, IRCC's list of designated organizations showed the suspension dates under this organization's name. The version IRCC updated on September 21, 2026 still names the organization but no longer shows a suspension note. We have not found any IRCC statement on what has happened since to the paused applications: whether they have returned to the normal queue, or whether another step has followed. IRCC's own guidance says that if an organization loses its designation, IRCC can refuse applications based on its commitments, or return applications it has not started processing and refund the fees.

Two points follow from the decisions themselves. First, the Zheng reasoning applies while a suspension is in effect; the Court described the files as on hold for that period. Second, Yim shows that the end of a pause does not by itself open the door to mandamus. A file that returns to the queue is still measured against the priority order in the Ministerial Instructions, and the Court looks at the facts as they stand on the day of the hearing.

Can you still apply under the Start-up Visa?

No. IRCC stopped accepting commitment certificates from designated organizations after December 31, 2025. From then on it accepted new SUV permanent residence applications only from people who already held a valid 2025 commitment certificate, and they had to apply by June 30, 2026. IRCC now describes the program as paused since June 30, 2026, and says it will continue to process the applications it accepted before that date. The SUV work permit is closed to new applicants; people who already hold one may be able to extend it while their permanent residence application is processed. ITC iLand does not offer the SUV as a pathway. For entrepreneurs planning now, the realistic routes are provincial entrepreneur programs and the C11 work permit. Our guide for business owners and managers and our C11 work permit guide cover both.

If you have an SUV application pending: what to check

Neither decision closes the courtroom door to every SUV applicant, but together they mean a mandamus application now has to get past two obstacles. Before deciding anything, check:

• Who issued your commitment certificate. If IRCC notified you that your organization was suspended, Zheng applies for the period of that suspension.
• Which priority group your file is in. Under the December 2025 instructions this turns on the type and size of the commitment, whether an incubator is a member of Canada's Tech Network, and whether anyone on your team holds an SUV work permit.
• Your GCMS notes. They show which assessments are complete. As Zheng shows, a CSIS letter saying its role is finished is not the same as security screening being passed.
• Your own side of the delay. One part of the unreasonable-delay test is that the applicant is not responsible for it. Answer every IRCC request promptly and keep your contact details and documents current.
• Whether court is worth it. Mandamus is fact-specific and costly. A file under a suspension, or in the lowest priority group, now faces a direct precedent against it. Mandamus can still succeed where the government cannot justify a delay, as the Federal Court found for a caregiver file in Dai v. Canada, but that case turned on a gap in the caregiver instructions that the SUV instructions do not have.

A mandamus application is Federal Court litigation, which is handled by lawyers or by applicants representing themselves. Before anyone files, it is worth having your file history and GCMS notes reviewed against both decisions, so you know which obstacle applies to you and whether there is anything to argue. This article analyses two published court decisions and is not legal advice.

Sources

Checked on November 4, 2026:

• Zheng v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 245 — Federal Court
• Yim v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 254 — Federal Court
• Start-up Visa: list of designated organizations — IRCC (updated September 21, 2026)