KEY IMMIGRATION DECISIONS

A curated review of recent Federal Court decisions with practical implications for Canadian immigration practitioners.

September 18-25, 2026

THIS WEEK AT A GLANCE

Choose What You Want to Explore

FEDERAL COURT CASE TO WATCH

TIPS TO CHANGE YOUR PRACTICE

THE IMMIGRATION JUDGES DESK

WON, LOST & WHY IT MATTERS

OUR KEY INSIGHT THIS WEEK

Lin v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1172 — RAD Decision Set Aside

A 71-year-old Chinese claimant sought refugee protection based on her Christian faith. The RAD doubted the genuineness of her Christianity, finding among other things that she could not adequately explain what her faith meant to her personally despite almost six years of church attendance.

The Federal Court found a critical problem with that reasoning.

The claimant was elderly, had little education, could not read or write, and explained that she learned about Christianity mainly through other congregants and movies. She also repeatedly indicated that she had difficulty putting her feelings into words.

The RAD mentioned some of these circumstances—but failed to actually grapple with how they affected what could reasonably be expected from her testimony.

When credibility depends on what a claimant is expected to know, remember or articulate, the assessment cannot be divorced from the individual sitting in front of the decision-maker.

Age, literacy, education, culture, language and ability to express abstract concepts may all matter.

This is particularly important in religious claims. A claimant's inability to give sophisticated theological answers does not necessarily establish that the person's faith is not genuine.

PRACTICE POINT

Do not wait for the RPD to infer why a client's answers may be simple.

Where relevant, establish the context before questioning begins:

Limited education → inability to read religious texts → oral learning → simple vocabulary → difficulty articulating abstract religious beliefs.

The representative's job is not to coach theological answers. It is to make sure the tribunal understands the individual against whom those answers will be assessed.

Judicial review granted. The RAD decision was quashed and returned to a different panel for reconsideration.

Duarte Berganza v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1176 — RAD Decision Set Aside

The applicant's refugee claim involved political activity in Guatemala, threats and an alleged 2020 abduction and assault. His claim was rejected on credibility grounds.

On appeal, however, the RAD admitted a positive RPD decision involving the applicant's cousin.

That decision contained findings overlapping directly with the applicant's allegations—including a finding, on a balance of probabilities, that the applicant had been abducted, beaten and sexually assaulted by agents of the alleged persecutor in July 2020.

The RAD not only misread part of the cousin's decision but failed to adequately explain why this potentially corroborative evidence did not overcome its credibility concerns.

The Federal Court found both problems unreasonable.

A positive decision involving a relative does not automatically prove another claimant's case. Every claimant still bears the burden of establishing their own claim.

But where another RPD decision contains factual findings that directly corroborate the same events, those findings may be highly relevant evidence and cannot simply be brushed aside.

PRACTICE POINT

When relying on another family member's refugee decision, do not merely attach it.

Identify the precise findings that overlap:

Same persecutor. Same event. Same threats. Same political activity. Same chronology.

Then explain explicitly how those findings corroborate the client's evidence.

Judicial review granted. The matter was returned to a different decision-maker for redetermination.

This week's decisions suggest four useful file-preparation habits.

1. Build a “personal circumstances” section into vulnerable claimants' files. Where age, literacy, education, trauma, language or cultural background may affect testimony, establish those circumstances with evidence before they become credibility problems. Lin demonstrates that merely knowing these facts exist is not enough—the decision-maker must assess the evidence in that context.

2. Treat another family member's positive refugee decision as evidence—not decoration. If it corroborates your client's story, extract the exact findings and connect them to the disputed allegations. Duarte Berganza shows why that connection can matter.

3. For study permits, prove the career logic of the program. Do not stop at “this program will improve my client's skills.” Show what the program teaches → what the client currently does → what additional skills are obtained → how those skills will be used in the home country → what concrete career benefit follows.

THE PRACTICAL LESSONS

Build the record as though another decision-maker—or eventually the Federal Court—may one day need to understand exactly what happened.

One of this week's most practical lessons comes from Anokye v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1179.

The study-permit applicant relied on substantial assets: a joint bank account showing approximately US$34,185, Eurobond holdings of approximately US$57,981, and Treasury Bill investments equivalent to approximately CAD$102,769.

On the surface, this looked like a substantial financial package.

The problem?

There was no adequate evidence explaining how significant portions of those assets had been accumulated. Even the husband's statement that he was financially capable of supporting his wife was unsupported by basic evidence such as his employment.

The Court upheld the officer's concern.

When preparing proof of funds, think beyond:

“How much money does the client have?”

Ask instead:

Where did it come from?

How was it accumulated?

Who owns it?

Is it liquid?

Why will it actually be available to this applicant?

Does the income history reasonably support the accumulated wealth?

A strong financial package should tell a coherent financial story.

Balance establishes quantity. Provenance establishes credibility.

Anokye v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1179

A Good Study Plan Must Explain Why This Particular Program Makes Sense

The applicant was already employed as a Senior Staff Midwife in Ghana. She sought a study permit to complete the in-person component of UBC's Internationally Educated Midwives Bridging Program and said the training would improve her skills when she returned to Ghana.

There was an important problem.

The program was specifically designed to prepare internationally educated midwives to practice in Canada. It was non-credit and, upon completion, documentation was sent to the British Columbia College of Midwives to establish eligibility for registration.

Yet the application did not directly confront this apparent disconnect.

There was also little evidence showing what additional skills the program would provide beyond the applicant's existing training and professional experience in Ghana.

The officer was therefore entitled to question the purpose of study and temporary intent.

Generic statements such as:

“This Canadian education will improve my career prospects back home”

are vulnerable when the nature of the program itself points toward Canada.

The stronger approach is evidence-driven:

Why this program? Why Canada? Why now? What does it provide that the applicant does not already have? And precisely how does it improve the applicant's career after returning home?

If a program leads toward Canadian licensing or professional registration, that fact should be confronted directly—not ignored.

A brief reflection by Hooshang Lotfi, MBA, CPA, RCIC-IRB

This week's decisions have something important in common.

A claimant cannot read or write.

Explain why that matters to the way she understands and expresses her faith.

A cousin has already been accepted as a refugee.

Identify exactly which findings in that decision corroborate your client's allegations.

A professional wants to study in Canada.

Demonstrate exactly how that program advances the career waiting for them back home.

A client presents substantial financial assets.

Prove where the money came from and why it is available.

Too many applications contain the individual pieces of a strong case but leave the decision-maker to assemble them.

That is risky advocacy.

The representative's role is not simply to upload documents and summarize facts. It is to build a logical and evidentiary chain connecting those facts to the legal requirement that must be satisfied.

Never assume the connection is obvious. Make the connection part of the evidence and the submission.

If you are an RCIC dealing with a refusal, prolonged processing delay, complex admissibility issue, or a matter that may require judicial review, our team is available to discuss the file with you.