Not automatically. The significance depends on what the permit covers, the enterprise’s readiness and the reliability of the remaining steps. A pre-launch case may rely on credible commitments, but the application should not describe regulated operations as authorized when they are not. Obtain a case-specific review of the actual situation. Ask who must satisfy each condition. The enterprise must be real, operating and not marginal; the investor must hold treaty-country nationality, must have irrevocably committed substantial funds that remain at risk, and must be positioned to develop and direct the business. A permit bears on the first set of facts and leaves the second untouched.
Explain the operational effect of the missing authorization
List the revenue-producing activities that depend on the permit and those that can lawfully occur without it. Identify who has confirmed the process and what remains uncertain. This allows the immigration reviewer to assess the enterprise’s real status.
Avoid reducing readiness to a checkbox saying either all permits must already exist or a filed application always suffices. Where a regulated activity is on hold, describe the enterprise as it stands rather than as it is meant to become. An operating company with staff, premises and lawful unregulated revenue tells a different story from a shell awaiting approval, and the difference shows in records nobody has to characterize: bank statements, payroll runs, supply contracts, a signed lease.
Whoever prepares the file should be able to point at the document behind each claim of readiness.