Federal Court Overturns Decision Due to Unreasonable Ruling

Date: 20260715 Docket: IMM-9328-25 Citation: 2026 FC 950 Ottawa, Ontario, July 15, 2026 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Ahmed BETWEEN: [NAME] Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT I. Overview [ 1 ] The Applicant, [NAME], seeks judicial review of a decision made by the Refugee Appeal Division ( “[NAME]” ), dated March 26, 2025, confirming the finding of the Refugee Protection Division ( “[NAME]” ) that the Applicant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act , SC 2001, c 27 ( “ IRPA ” ). The determinative issue was the Applicant’s credibility. [ 2 ] The Applicant argues that [NAME] erred in its credibility findings, misapprehended the evidence placed before it, and failed to assess his claim holistically. [ 3 ] For the reasons that follow, I find [NAME]’s decision is unreasonable. This application for judicial review is allowed.

II. Background [ 4 ] The Applicant is a 28-year-old Kurdish citizen of Turkey. He cites a fear of persecution based on his pro-Kurdish political opinion, his involvement with the Peoples’ Democratic Party ( “[NAME]” ), a pro-Kurdish political party in Turkey, and his Kurdish ethnicity. [ 5 ] In his Basis of Claim ( “BOC” ) narrative, the Applicant reported that he comes from a Kurdish family who has shown continuous support for the [NAME]. He described that, in 1992, his parents were forced to leave their homeland, Diyarbakir, and relocate to Mersin, where he was born, due to an ongoing conflict between Turkish state security forces and Kurdish people. He states that certain of his family members, including his brother, were arrested or targeted because of their pro-Kurdish support. [ 6 ] The Applicant described that he had been involved with the [NAME] since his teenage years. He stated that in June 2018, and again in March 2019, he actively participated in the [NAME]’s election campaigns, visiting local neighbourhoods, encouraging Kurdish voters to support the [NAME], and attending party gatherings. The Applicant stated that during the March 2019 election campaign he was harassed and physically assaulted by “[NAME]” , who he described as aligned with the ruling Justice and Development Party ( “AKP” ). [ 7 ] The Applicant stated that he was detained by Turkish police in 2018, arrested in November 2021 and arrested again in March 2022, because of his support of the [NAME] and his participation in protests and pro-Kurdish political events. He described that during the arrests in 2021 and 2022, he was subjected to mistreatment, verbal and physical abuse. The Applicant reported that after his detention in 2022, he continued to be subjected to harassment from the police and AKP supporters. Fearing arrest and further mistreatment, the Applicant left Turkey and sought refugee protection in Canada in December 2022. [ 8 ] The Applicant reported in his BOC narrative that since his arrival in Canada, he is actively engaged with the [NAME] in Toronto and continues to support the [NAME] on his social media platforms. He states that, as a result, his political profile is “widely recognized by [NAME].” [ 9 ] In a decision dated November 8, 2024, the [NAME] dismissed the Applicant’s claim for refugee protection. The [NAME] found that the Applicant had failed to credibly establish that he was involved with the [NAME] or his profile as an imputed political opponent because his testimony was vague and lacked corroborative documentary evidence. The [NAME] found that he had not established his sur place claim because, on the balance of probabilities, he had not come to the attention of the [NAME]. On November 20, 2024, the Applicant appealed this decision to [NAME]. [ 10 ] In a decision dated March 26, 2025, [NAME] confirmed the [NAME]’s credibility findings and dismissed the Applicant’s appeal. The Applicant first sought to place new evidence before [NAME]. [NAME] accepted the Applicant’s Turkish Passport Information Protocol, issued on November 22, 2024, and his Country Entry/Exit Record dated November 22, 2024, as new evidence because the [NAME] had specifically requested the documents. However, [NAME] refused to admit a document dated “10/06/2024” confirming the Applicant’s [NAME] membership for the “2014/2 term” and a letter dated November 23, 2024, from an [NAME] district president stating that the Applicant had been actively involved with the [NAME] from November 2014 until his departure to Canada. [NAME] found that neither document met the test for admitting new evidence under subsection 110(4) of the IRPA . [NAME] also denied the Applicant’s request for an oral hearing under subsection 110(6) of the IRPA because the new admitted evidence did not raise a serious issue regarding the Applicant’s credibility. [ 11 ] [NAME] determined that the Applicant was not a credible witness and that he had failed to credibly establish the central allegations underlying his claim. [NAME] noted, in the form of charts, inconsistencies between the Applicant’s BOC narrative and his testimony before the [NAME] regarding his alleged involvement with the [NAME] and his interactions with the police and [NAME]. Relying on [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2018 FC 924 ( “ [NAME] ” ) at paragraph 22, [NAME] found that the accumulation of the Applicant’s contradictions, inconsistencies, and omissions supported a negative conclusion about his credibility. [NAME] also drew a negative credibility inference based on the Applicant’s failure to present corroborative evidence – specifically, firsthand evidence of his [NAME] activities, documentary evidence of his [NAME] membership, and evidence to support his allegations of harm from the police and [NAME]. [NAME] found that this evidence should have been available to establish the core elements of the Applicant’s claim and that the Applicant had not reasonably explained the absence of the evidence. [NAME] further noted additional inconsistencies in the Applicant’s evidence regarding his place of birth and his knowledge of Kurdish to support its negative credibility finding. [ 12 ] [NAME] then concluded that the Applicant did not demonstrate a serious possibility of persecution based on his Kurdish ethnicity. [NAME] noted that the objective evidence establishes that Kurds face discrimination and mistreatment in Turkey, which could rise to the level of persecution, but also found the Applicant did not fit any of the profiles who face a heightened risk of violence and mistreatment, such as [NAME], or [NAME]. [NAME] considered the Applicant’s personal circumstances and determined that, when assessed as a whole, the evidence did not establish that the Applicant’s risk of discrimination rises to the level of persecution. [ 13 ] Lastly, [NAME] agreed with the [NAME] that, on the balance of probabilities, the Applicant’s pro-Kurdish social media posts would not have been brought to the attention of the [NAME], that he is not at risk of persecution due to his activities since leaving Turkey, and therefore that he had failed to establish a sur place claim. [ 14 ] This is the decision presently under review.

III. Issue and Standard of Review [ 15 ] The sole issue raised by this application is whether [NAME]’s decision is reasonable. [ 16 ] The parties submit that the applicable standard of review is reasonableness ( Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov , 2019 SCC 65 ( “ Vavilov ” )). I agree. [ 17 ] Reasonableness is a deferential, but robust, standard of review ( Vavilov at paras 12-13). The reviewing court must determine whether the decision under review, including both its rationale and outcome, is transparent, intelligible, and justified ( Vavilov at para 15). A reasonable decision is one that is based on an internally coherent and rational chain of analysis and that is justified in relation to the facts and law that constrain the decision maker ( Vavilov at para 85). Whether a decision is reasonable depends on the relevant administrative setting, the record before the decision maker, and the impact of the decision on those affected by its consequences ( Vavilov at paras 88-90, 94, 133-135). [ 18 ] For a decision to be unreasonable, the applicant must establish the decision contains flaws that are sufficiently central or significant ( Vavilov at para 100). Not all errors or concerns about a decision will warrant intervention. A reviewing court must refrain from reweighing evidence before the decision maker, and it should not interfere with factual findings absent exceptional circumstances ( Vavilov at para 125). Flaws or shortcomings must be more than superficial or peripheral to the merits of the decision, or a “minor misstep” ( Vavilov at para 100).

IV. Analysis [ 19 ] The Applicant submits that [NAME] erred in drawing negative credibility findings based, in part, on documents it found inadmissible. The Applicant further maintains that [NAME] assessed his evidence in a “microscopic” manner by failing to consider his evidence as a whole along side the objective country condition evidence. [ 20 ] The Respondent submits that it was reasonable for [NAME] to impugn the Applicant’s credibility based on non-admitted evidence as one of the markers of credibility. The Respondent further maintains that [NAME] reasonably assessed the cumulative impact of the inconsistencies in the Applicant’s evidence. [ 21 ] In my view, [NAME] unreasonably considered inadmissible evidence when making its credibility determination and failed to grapple with the holistic context of the evidence when analyzing the alleged inconsistencies within the Applicant’s evidence. I will address each in turn. A. Contradictory Consideration of Inadmissible Evidence in a Credibility Finding [ 22 ] The Applicant does not challenge [NAME]’s finding that two of the documents that he submitted were inadmissible, but instead he submits that [NAME] could not then use these inadmissible documents to support its overall negative credibility finding against him. The Applicant maintains that the use of this evidence was contradictory and undermined the reasonableness of the decision. [ 23 ] The Respondent submits that [NAME] is entitled to consider the whole of the evidence on the record to analyze the Applicant’s credibility. [ 24 ] In this case, I find that it was not reasonable for [NAME] to rely on evidence it had deemed inadmissible when making its findings of the Applicant’s overall credibility. [ 25 ] [NAME] is not subject to legal or technical rules of evidence. The legislation provides that [NAME] “may receive and base a decision on evidence that is adduced in the proceedings and considered credible or trustworthy in the circumstances” ( IRPA , 171 (a.3)). Subsection 110(6) of the IRPA allows [NAME] to hold a hearing for newly admitted evidence where it raises a serious issue with the applicant’s credibility. Read together, this legislative framework suggests that, where [NAME] admits evidence and attempts to rely on it to support its credibility findings, it may need to hold a hearing to allow the applicant to respond. By refusing to admit the evidence, [NAME] cannot hold a hearing, and the Applicant does not have the same opportunity to respond.

Accordingly, although [NAME] has a great deal of flexibility regarding the weight it attributes to the documents on the record, once it has decided that the evidence is not admissible, it is unreasonable for [NAME] to then rely on non-admitted evidence to undermine the applicant’s properly adduced evidence. [ 26 ] This situation differs from [NAME]’s assessment of the credibility and reliability of the submitted evidence under the [NAME] / [NAME] framework ( Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v [NAME] , 2016 FCA 96 ( “ [NAME] ” ); [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2007 FCA 385). Rather, it speaks to [NAME]’s choice to use refused evidence to undermine the Applicant’s overall credibility. A finding that a document is not credible differs and must be treated differently from [NAME]’s finding that an applicant is, overall, not credible. This is illustrated through this Court’s consistent finding that false documents, in themselves, do not necessarily and categorically undermine refugees’ claims, as refugees face particular obstacles in obtaining proper documents ( [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2015 FC 105 at para 9; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2016 FC 4 at paras 43-44, 49-51; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2022 FC 235 at para 15; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2025 FC 1820 at para 21). In this sense, where a document is inadmissible for a want of reliability or credibility, it does not necessarily undermine an applicant’s overall credibility. [ 27 ] In emphasizing this distinction, I note that these issues may be interconnected where an applicant has a pattern of adducing clearly fraudulent documents or produces an egregiously forged document ( [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2021 FC 572 at paras 40; [NAME] at para 71). When deciding the admissibility of such a document, [NAME] may need to consider the requisite procedural fairness requirements for drawing an overall negative credibility finding against the applicant based on the provided evidence, considering that the applicant may not have had an opportunity to respond to the opposing credibility findings but also considering that the applicant themselves had provided such evidence ( [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2015 FC 911 at para 11; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2018 CF 147 at paras 18-19; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2024 FC 665 at para 20; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2025 FC 1960 at para 30; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2024 FC 1048 at para 10; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2019 FC 93 at paras 9-10; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2022 FC 783 at para 40-41). However, that is not the case before me. [ 28 ] Here, [NAME] found that both the membership certification from the [NAME] and a letter from the [NAME]’s predecessor were inadmissible because they pre-dated the [NAME] decision and the Applicant had failed to provide a reasonable explanation as to why he could not produce the documents previously. [NAME] also found that the [NAME] membership certification did not follow the format described in the objective country condition documents, but [NAME] did not otherwise discuss the credibility or reliability of these documents. Instead of setting aside these documents because they were inadmissible pursuant to subsection 110(4) of the IRPA , [NAME] used these documents to support its negative credibility finding against the Applicant. [ 29 ] At the same time that [NAME] based its negative credibility finding in part on the inadmissible evidence, it also found that it could not hold a hearing because none of the admissible evidence brought into question the Applicant’s credibility. [NAME] relied in part on non-admitted evidence, [NAME] limited its own discretion as to whether this inadmissible evidence required a hearing contrary to the discretion allowed for in subsection 110(6) of the IRPA . This contradictory reasoning leads [NAME]’s reliance on this non-admitted evidence to be unreasonable. [ 30 ] Nevertheless, the Respondent submitted at the hearing that, even if that were the case, [NAME]’s decision did not depend on this evidence. As such, I find it necessary to discuss the other findings of [NAME]. B. [NAME]’s Overzealous Identification of Peripheral Inconsistencies [ 31 ] Importantly, I note that [NAME] bases its credibility finding on [NAME] , which states that even though the identified inconsistencies in isolation would be insufficient to draw a negative conclusion regarding the Applicant’s credibility, a negative credibility finding may be drawn when these inconsistencies are cumulated (at para 22). However, such an analysis does not give [NAME] leeway to base their negative credibility finding on inconsistencies that are minor or peripheral to the claim, regardless of whether they are numerous ( [NAME] at para 23).

Accordingly, where [NAME] has based its conclusions on the cumulative impact of inconsistencies, a failure to show that some of these inconsistencies actually exist on the record, or pertain to central elements of the refugee claim, may lead the whole of the decision to be unreasonable. [ 32 ] [NAME]’s decision finds numerous inconsistencies between the Applicant’s testimony before the [NAME] and his BOC narrative regarding his participation in [NAME] events and his interactions with the police. Regarding his [NAME] involvement, [NAME] emphasises that the Applicant’s BOC narrative failed to mention that he was a ballot box observer in the 2018 elections and that he met with the [NAME] constituency president about election preparations and political matters in 2021. Relating to his interactions with the police, [NAME] determined that he had referenced three detentions in the BOC narrative but only two in his testimony and [NAME] finds that the Applicant had not spoken of his detention by police prior to 2021 in his testimony. [ 33 ] [ADDRESS]’s jurisprudence has established that while omissions from a BOC narrative may be grounds for drawing an adverse credibility finding, the omissions must be significant and central to the claim ( [NAME] v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) , 2002 FCT 249, at paras 15-16; see also: [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2016 FC 710 at para 32; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2016 FC 659 at para 29). [NAME] must consider the nature of the omission, and the context in which the new information is brought forward to determine the materiality of the omission ( [NAME] v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) , 2005 FC 282 ( “ [NAME] ” ) at para 23). [ 34 ] I do not find that the identified omissions were central or even contradicted the Applicant’s claim. For instance, the Applicant demonstrated in the [NAME] hearing that he distinguished between arrests, detentions, and identification checks. This was not considered by [NAME] member when analyzing whether there were contradictions in the Applicant’s testimony. Also, in both his BOC narrative and his testimony before the [NAME], the Applicant states that he was first arrested in 2021, even though his BOC narrative states that he was detained in 2018. [ 35 ] Moreover, the Applicant mentioned in both his BOC narrative and his testimony that he was involved in gaining support for the [NAME] in the 2018 elections. At the [NAME] hearing, he discussed the candidates and results of this election in detail. The only new information provided by the Applicant in his testimony was that he was also a ballot box observer during this election. However, the jurisprudence supports that an applicant need not elaborate on every protest or political activity in which they participated in their BOC narrative ( [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2022 FC 412 at para 27). In this regard, I note that a BOC narrative is not generally designed to be an encyclopedic recitation of the details of all such political activities ( [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2007 FC 101 at para 19; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2015 FC 250 at para 20). I find this particularly pertinent in the case before me, where the Applicant’s narrative describes a life-long commitment to pro-[NAME], making it difficult to summarize each event in a BOC narrative. [ 36 ] I further find that [NAME] failed to consider the context in which the Applicant provided the additional information in his testimony when determining whether to draw a negative inference regarding his credibility. For example, although it was new information that the Applicant had attempted to make a report about the police intervention in the 2018 elections when he was a ballot box observer, I note that the Applicant mentioned this only after the [NAME] member directly asked whether the Applicant had made a report on this incident. Additionally, regarding the Applicant’s meeting with the constituency president in 2021, I note that this was revealed in the Applicant’s testimony only after the [NAME] member’s questions about examples of who he met at a constituency office. Considering this context, the Applicant did not try to embellish his BOC narrative through merely responding to the questions posed. Instead, this is an instance where the Applicant fleshed out his narrative in response to direct questions posed in the hearing ( [NAME] v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) , 2006 FC 405 at para 22). I do not find it reasonable for [NAME] to draw a negative credibility finding based on these omissions without analyzing the context in which the Applicant described such incidents ( [NAME] at para 23). [ 37 ] [NAME]’s analysis of other inconsistencies, which [NAME] itself identifies as outside the Applicant’s central allegations, I further find that it failed to conduct a fulsome analysis of the Applicant’s evidence. A key example of this is [NAME]’s finding that the identification of the Applicant’s birthplace was inconsistent, which is stated at one point in his BOC narrative to be Mersin but the documentation shows that it is Diyarbakir. [NAME] found that the Applicant’s explanation that Mersin was a typographical error in his BOC narrative was insufficient and that this contradiction undermined his credibility. However, I note that at several other points in the Applicant’s BOC narrative, the Applicant states that he “hailed from Diyarbakır” and that he was from the “province Diyarbakir.” These statements appear to have been ignored by [NAME] member in reaching their conclusion. [ 38 ] Aside from [NAME]’s overzealous identification of contradictions within the Applicant’s testimony and BOC narrative, I find that [NAME] erred in its analysis of the supporting affidavits and the photos of the Applicant with a former [NAME] member of parliament. [ 39 ] [NAME] finds that the affidavit of the Applicant’s father and close friend do not show that the Applicant is an [NAME] supporter or member because they did not work with him at the [NAME]. [NAME] does not consider the photograph the Applicant provided showing him with a former member of parliament for the [NAME]. I do not find this reasoning intelligible. The affidavit of the Applicant’s close friend speaks directly about the Applicant’s participation alongside the friend’s own participation in [NAME] in Mersin and recounts that he remembers the Applicant participating in Newroz celebrations, which the Applicant described as political before the [NAME] member. The affidavit of the Applicant’s father also speaks to his first-hand experiences, stating that the police approached him and asked about his son’s whereabouts in 2023. Reading these affidavits, it is unclear why [NAME] found that they did not recount first-hand experiences of the Applicant’s support for [NAME]. [ 40 ] Considering the Applicant’s evidence as a whole, I find that [NAME]’s analysis selectively analyzes inconsistencies that are not central to the Applicant’s claim and unreasonably faults the Applicant for not providing its preferred documentation.

V. Conclusion [ 41 ] Overall, I find that [NAME]’s analysis misses the forest for the sake of the shrubbery. While thorough and rigorous review is required, [NAME]’s emphasis on peripheral and non-contradictory elements of the Applicant’s testimony undermine its ultimate conclusion. [NAME]’s analysis further overlooks key elements of the Applicant’s evidence that run contrary to its findings.

For these reasons, I find that [NAME]’s decision lacks the hallmarks of reasonableness and, consequently, I allow this application for judicial review. [ 42 ] No questions for certification were raised, and I agree that none arises.

JUDGMENT in IMM-9328-25 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that: This Application for judicial review is allowed. The decision under review is set aside and the matter remitted to a different [NAME] member for redetermination. There is no question to certify. “[NAME].” Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-9328-25 STYLE OF CAUSE: [NAME] v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario DATE OF HEARING: June 3, 2026

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT: AHMED J. DATED: july 15, 2026 APPEARANCES : [NAME] For The Applicant [NAME] For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : [NAME], Ontario For The Applicant Attorney General of Canada Toronto, Ontario For The Respondent