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

For Professionals

Professional Updates Immigration consultants and lawyers

Federal Court

Share

Share this page

Email

Refugee Claim Credibility, Lin v. Canada, 2026 FC 1172

In Refugee Claim Credibility, the Federal Court granted judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division decision that rejected Xiuying Lin’s claim for protection based on her Christian faith. The Court found that the RAD unreasonably assessed whether her faith was genuine without meaningfully addressing her age, limited education and inability to read or write.

Refugee Credibility, Berganza v. Canada, 2026 FC 1176

In Refugee Credibility, the Federal Court granted Elder Estuardo Duarte Berganza’s application for judicial review after finding that the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) misread a decision accepting his cousin’s refugee claim and failed to meaningfully address its corroborative value. The RAD decision was set aside and returned for redetermination by a different decision-maker.

PRRA Risk Assessment, Diaz Bravo v. Canada, 2026 FC 1164

In PRRA Risk Assessment, Diaz Bravo v. Canada, 2026 FC 1164, the Federal Court dismissed a judicial review of a pre-removal risk assessment refusal. Although the applicants had been removed to Chile before the hearing, Justice Southcott exercised the Court’s discretion to decide the moot application on its merits and found the decision reasonable.