Maplevisa
Maplevisa
Iman Borhanifar, RCIC
Author

Iman Borhanifar, RCIC

Founder & Editor, Maplevisa

Iman Borhanifar is a Regulated Canadian Immigration Consultant (RCIC) based in Toronto and licensed by the College of Immigration and Citizenship Consultants (CICC). He writes and reviews MapleVisa coverage of Canadian immigration policy, programs, and regulatory developments.

His background includes Canadian immigration consulting, business and management, and legal studies, including common law. He is also a member of the Canadian Bar Association (CBA), Ontario Bar Association (OBA), and Canadian Association of Professional Immigration Consultants (CAPIC).

Regulated Canadian Immigration Consultant Toronto, Ontario
Member of:
CICC CAPIC CBA OBA
About Maplevisa
Professional memberships and affiliations of Iman Borhanifar

For Individuals

Canadian Immigration News Applicants and families

Permanent Residence

View all Permanent Residence

For Professionals

Professional Updates Immigration consultants and lawyers

Federal Court

View all Federal Court
Share

Share this page

Email

Iman Borhanifar, RCIC

PRRA Religious Persecution, Dong v. Canada, 2026 FC 1158

by

The Federal Court dismissed Duanmei Dong’s application for judicial review of a refused Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) on September 14, 2026. In PRRA Religious Persecution, the Court found the officer reasonably gave little weight to a letter intended to corroborate her fear of persecution in China because of her Christian faith.

PR Truthfulness, Zai v. Canada, 2026 FC 1151

by

In PR Truthfulness, the Federal Court dismissed a challenge to IRCC’s refusal of an Afghan national’s permanent residence application under a temporary Afghan resettlement public policy. Justice Norris found that the officer’s conclusion that the applicant had not answered truthfully under subsection 16(1) of the IRPA was reasonable and that the process was procedurally fair.

Refugee Claim New Evidence, Saif v. Canada, 2026 FC 1156

by

In Refugee Claim New Evidence, the Federal Court dismissed a nine-year-old Indian citizen’s challenge to the Refugee Appeal Division’s refusal of her protection claim. Justice Conroy found the RAD reasonably declined to admit proposed new evidence and reasonably upheld the earlier finding that the child was not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection.

Internal Flight Alternative, Et AL. v. Canada, 2026 FC 1146

by

The Federal Court dismissed the applicants’ judicial review on September 11, 2026, finding the Refugee Appeal Division’s conclusion that Mumbai was a safe internal flight alternative was reasonable. The Court upheld the RAD’s finding that the evidence did not show Punjabi police were motivated to locate and harm the applicants outside Punjab.

IFA, Munoz Perdomo c. Canada, 2026 CF 1148

by

In IFA, Munoz Perdomo v. Canada, 2026 FC 1148, the Federal Court allowed a Colombian family’s judicial review application and set aside a Refugee Appeal Division decision denying their refugee claim. The Court found that the Division did not address credible evidence that was central to whether Tren de Aragua remained motivated to find the claimants in Colombia.