Federal Court Rejects Asylum Claim Due to Lack of Credible Evidence

Date: 20260128 Docket: IMM-9012-24 Citation: 2026 FC 120 Ottawa, Ontario, January 28, 2026 PRESENT: Mr. Justice Pentney BETWEEN: [NAME] Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent

JUDGMENT AND

REASONS [ 1 ] Mr. [NAME], the Applicant in this matter, is a citizen of Türkiye. He is of Kurdish descent and an adherent of the [NAME] faith. The Applicant seeks judicial review of the decision of the [NAME] Protection Division ([NAME]) that rejected his request for asylum. [ 2 ] The Applicant claimed [NAME] protection in Canada for three primary reasons. He feared persecution in Türkiye based on: (i) his involvement with an opposition party that supported the Kurdish people; (ii) his choice to be a conscientious objector to mandatory military service; and (iii) his identity as an [NAME] of Kurdish descent. [NAME] refused his claim based on negative credibility findings. The Applicant argues that these findings are unreasonable, because [NAME] engaged in a selective review of the evidence and based its negative credibility finding on problems with his evidence about a peripheral issue while failing to consider the evidence he provided about two of the three key incidents of persecution. He says [NAME] also failed to consider evidence that substantiated his claim. [ 3 ] For the reasons set out below, the application for judicial review will be dismissed. [NAME]’s credibility findings are reasonable, and a review of the decision in light of the record confirms that [NAME] was aware of, and considered, all of the key factors put forward by the Applicant in support of his claim.

I. Background [ 4 ] The Applicant’s narrative states that he comes from a politically active family that supported parties fighting for the rights of the Kurdish people. This political activity caused his family to be targeted by state authorities in Türkiye. He says that he also faced discrimination during his elementary and secondary school education because of his identity. [ 5 ] The Applicant’s [NAME] claim is based on his fear of persecution because of his [NAME] identity, and also because of his support for the [NAME] ([NAME]), which is an opposition party in Türkiye, as well as his choice to be a conscientious objector. The Applicant says he experienced many incidents of discrimination and abuse when he was in school because of his identity as a [NAME]. He points to three more recent incidents in support of his claim for protection. [ 6 ] First, the Applicant says that between February and June 2021, he was part of protests in his village objecting to plans to build a biomass power plant. The plant was to be built by a supporter of the [NAME], and police intervened to break up the protests. The Applicant claims that his father was physically assaulted by the police. [NAME] hearing, the Applicant testified that his parents were arrested at this protest and then released; he said they went to court and were acquitted of the charges. [ 7 ] Second, the Applicant states that in March 2022, he attended a Nowruz Day celebration, which is a significant day for Alevis. However, the police intervened and attacked the participants, detaining several people. The Applicant says he was beaten but managed to escape. [ 8 ] Finally, on December 10, 2022, the Applicant attended a meeting marking International Human Rights Day in front of a [NAME] (an [NAME] house of worship). He states that the police intervened, claiming that the gathering was illegal. The Applicant says he was arrested and subjected to physical abuse and threats while in detention, and the police warned him not to attend any activities organized by the [NAME]. [ 9 ] The Applicant decided to flee Türkiye after his arrest and detention, in part because of his objection to the mandatory military service he knew he would soon have to serve. He objected to joining the military because of its involvement in the repression of the Kurdish people. He also feared mistreatment by military commanders and other soldiers because of his identity and his choice to be a conscientious objector. With the assistance of a smuggler, the Applicant flew to Mexico, then went to the United States, where he flew from San Diego to New York and then drove to the Canadian border where he claimed asylum.

II. Decision Under Review [ 10 ] [NAME] rejected the Applicant’s [NAME] claim, based on negative credibility findings and insufficiency of evidence. [NAME] also examined the Applicant’s prospective risks in Türkiye based on his identity as an [NAME] and his Kurdish ethnicity. In the Panel’s view, there was no objective basis for finding a prospective risk of persecution based on these identities. [NAME]’s core findings are summarized below. [ 11 ] The first main finding related to the Applicant’s credibility due to inconsistencies in his evidence about his passport. He first claimed that [NAME] took it from him at the Port of Entry, saying he had his passport and national ID card in his bag, but when officials returned the bag to him the passport was missing. [NAME] examined the Applicant’s travel history, noting that he had taken a flight from San Diego to New York just prior to driving to the Canadian border. Based on that, [NAME] concluded that it was probable that the Applicant had his passport shortly before entering Canada, because he would have needed it to be able to board the flight. Upon further questioning, the Applicant changed his story, saying that he must have lost his passport when he was in the United States. His counsel noted that [NAME] regularly seize migrants’ passports and do not return them, but [NAME] rejected that because the Applicant had been able to board a flight in the United States. Moreover, the Applicant had not provided a notice of seizure which he would have received from [NAME]. [ 12 ] Based on the Applicant’s evolving narrative, [NAME] concluded that it was probable that he had possession of his passport until shortly before he entered Canada. [NAME] stated: “for reasons unknown to the Panel, [the Applicant] had deliberately made his passport unavailable to [NAME] when he entered Canada and made a claim.” ([NAME] Decision, para 18). [NAME] continued: [19] I find that the claimant is not credible in respect of the location of his passport, and is, on balance, attempting to mislead the panel, and Canadian officials as to certain details within his passport by failing to provide the original version. I therefore draw a negative inference as to the claimant’s overall credibility, in respect of the claimant’s evolving testimony, and his deliberate attempts to hide his passport. [ 13 ] [NAME] considered the Applicant’s evidence regarding his political profile as a supporter of the [NAME]. [NAME] found there was little evidence of his involvement with the party and no documents to support his narrative. While the Applicant claimed that his parents had been arrested during the February 2021 protests, and that they went to court and were acquitted of the charges, there were no documents about this. [NAME] rejected the Applicant’s explanation that his counsel had advised him not to submit the documents because they were not necessary. [NAME] noted that it was highly unlikely that experienced counsel would provide such advice, and the Applicant had filed a newspaper article about the protests which indicated he knew that corroborating evidence was important to support his claim. [NAME] found the Applicant’s evidence about his family’s involvement in the protests and his parents’ arrest to be spontaneous fabrications. The Applicant’s credibility on this point was diminished because the letter from his father did not mention any arrest or court appearance. [ 14 ] [NAME]’s conclusion on the Applicant’s political profile was as follows: [26] There is no other documentation provided which would corroborate the claimant’s political profile as a [NAME] member or supporter. Other than the claimant’s testimony, which confirms that he has never attended any official [NAME] events, and his father’s letter, which for the reasons noted above, I do not find credible, there is no credible nor trustworthy evidence connecting the claimant to the [NAME] or the protests, so on this basis, the claimant’s political profile as a [NAME] supporter is not established on a balance of probabilities. [ 15 ] Third, [NAME] concluded that there was no prospective risk of persecution stemming from the Applicant’s [NAME] identity. The Panel considered the two letters of support from [NAME] community centres in Canada but found that the objective evidence did not establish that the Applicant would automatically be persecuted upon return to Türkiye owing to his profile. [NAME] accepted that there is discrimination against [NAME] individuals in Türkiye, the evidence did not demonstrate that this was so widespread or systematic as to amount to persecution. [NAME] accepted that low level supporters of the [NAME] are often targeted, the Panel stated that the Applicant had not established that he was politically involved with the [NAME]. [ 16 ] Finally, [NAME] concluded that the Applicant would not experience persecution or harm relating to mandatory military service in Türkiye. [NAME] found that on balance the Applicant would not be considered a draft evader upon return to Türkiye as he had applied for a Canadian work permit prior to his departure, and the country condition evidence indicated that authorities would accept this as a reason for not serving in the military. Even if he was discovered, [NAME] indicated that Türkiye lacks capacity to follow up regarding his failure to serve. The final point on this issue is [NAME]’s finding that the Applicant could “buy out” his military time if required, which would cost a third of the price he was willing to pay to the agent that assisted him in fleeing to Canada. [ 17 ] Overall, [NAME] found the Applicant lacked credibility, his evidence of political involvement was insufficient, and the objective evidence did not support his fear of persecution for being [NAME], or that he would be targeted because of his refusal to attend mandatory military service. Based on this analysis, [NAME] found the Applicant not to be a [NAME] or a person in need of protection. [ 18 ] The Applicant seeks judicial review of this decision.

III. Issues and Standard of Review [ 19 ] The issue in this case is whether [NAME] decision is unreasonable. The Applicant argues that it is, because [NAME] was unduly focused on his passport loss, which was peripheral to his [NAME] claim, and its analysis of the merits of his claim focused on only one incident, ignoring the other instances of persecution. [ 20 ] [NAME]’s decision must be assessed under the framework for reasonableness review set out in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov , 2019 SCC 65 [ Vavilov ], and confirmed in [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2023 SCC 21 [ [NAME] ]. [ 21 ] In summary, under the Vavilov framework, a reviewing court is to review the reasons given by the administrative decision maker and determine whether the decision is based on an internally coherent chain of reasoning and is justified in light of the relevant legal and factual constraints ( Vavilov at para 85; [NAME] at para 8). The onus is on the Applicant to demonstrate that “any shortcomings or flaws … are sufficiently central or significant to render the decision unreasonable” ( Vavilov  at para 100). Absent exceptional circumstances, reviewing courts must not interfere with the decision-maker’s factual findings and cannot reweigh and reassess evidence considered by the decision-maker ( Vavilov at para 125).

IV. Analysis A. [NAME]’s analysis of the passport issue was reasonable [ 22 ] The Applicant submits that [NAME] was unduly focused on the evidence about his passport, and that it failed to consider that he was quite young when he arrived in Canada, and his evidence simply reflected his efforts to recall precisely what had happened. The Applicant contends that [NAME]’s conclusion that he deliberately sought to mislead [NAME] was not justified, in the circumstances. [ 23 ] I am not persuaded. Credibility assessments are often based, in whole or in large part, on the consistency of the evidence on a particular point, including the documents a claimant submitted, any notes from interviews with that person and their testimony before [NAME]: [NAME] v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2018 FC 924 at paras 20-26. While minor differences of peripheral details should not be seized on to support significant credibility findings, [NAME] is entitled to consider differences relating to important aspects of a claimant’s narrative in assessing credibility. On this point, a [NAME]’s travel history is often an important part of their claim; that is why the Basis of Claim form asks claimants to provide so much detail about it: see [NAME] v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2019 FC 547 at para 18; [NAME] v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2017 FC 601 at paras 18-22. [ 24 ] In this case, [NAME] examined the Applicant’s evidence about his passport, noting inconsistencies and his evolving narrative as he was questioned. The Applicant submits that this was peripheral to his [NAME] claim, because [NAME] accepted his identity and there was documentary evidence supporting his narrative about the route he took to travel to Canada. [ 25 ] I accept that the location of the Applicant’s passport was not central to the merits of his [NAME] claim, in the sense that [NAME] had to analyze that aspect separately. However, I am not persuaded that [NAME]’s credibility analysis is unreasonable, given the Applicant’s evolving on the question of where his passport was and when he lost possession of it. The Applicant’s evidence was inconsistent and evolved under questioning. [NAME] considered and rejected his explanations and found that his evidence on this point diminished his credibility. [NAME]’s credibility findings are entitled to deference if they are based in the evidence and clearly explained. That is the case here, and I can find no basis to conclude that the credibility findings are unreasonable. B. [NAME] did not ignore the other incidents of persecution [ 26 ] The Applicant submits that the decision is unreasonable because [NAME] only discussed the first of the three incidents of persecution he experienced. His Basis of Claim form and testimony referred to three recent incidents of persecution: the February/June 2021 demonstrations against the biomass plant; the March 2022 Nowruz celebration; and the December 2022 celebration of International Human Rights Day. The Applicant says [NAME]’s decision does not deal with the latter two incidents, and in particular the last one where his experience of being detained, assaulted and threatened caused him to decide to flee Türkiye. He says this is unreasonable, because [NAME] failed to consider his cumulative experience of persecution, as an [NAME], a Kurd and a supporter of the [NAME]. [ 27 ] The Respondent argues that [NAME]’s decision must be read in light of the record, including its questioning of the Applicant during the hearing. The transcript shows that [NAME] did ask questions about each of these incidents, but in the end, it was not persuaded that the Applicant’s evidence was credible. The Respondent submits that this was a reasonable finding, and [NAME] cannot be faulted for not discussing each incident in detail. It was clearly aware of all of the Applicant’s allegations, and its negative credibility finding extended to his evidence on each of the three incidents. [ 28 ] I am not persuaded that [NAME]’s failure to discuss each of the incidents in detail makes the decision unreasonable. As the Respondent has submitted, I am required to examine the decision in light of the record, and this includes the transcript of [NAME] hearing. I have reviewed that transcript, and it is abundantly clear that the Applicant was questioned about each of the incidents that formed the basis for his claim. It is also clear that [NAME] was aware that his claim was based on his ethnic and religious identity as well as his political affiliation. [ 29 ] In examining the Applicant’s argument on this point, it bears repeating that [NAME] made several findings on key issues. On the Applicant’s connection with the [NAME] reviewed the Applicant’s evidence about the February 2021 protests, noting the discrepancy between his evidence about his parents’ arrest and detention and the lack of any reference to this in his father’s letter. Finding that the Applicant’s failure to provide corroborative documents diminished his credibility, and that his answers to questions amounted to spontaneous fabrications, [NAME] made the following finding: [26] There is no other documentation provided which would corroborate the claimant’s political profile as a [NAME] member or supporter. Other than the claimant’s testimony, which confirms that he has never attended any official [NAME] events, and his father’s letter, which for the reasons noted above, I do not find credible, there is no credible nor trustworthy evidence connecting the claimant to the [NAME] or the protests, so on this basis, the claimant’s political profile as a [NAME] supporter is not established on a balance of probabilities. [ 30 ] While it would undoubtedly have been preferable for [NAME] to discuss the Applicant’s evidence about the threats he received during his detention after the December 10, 2022 celebration of International Human Rights Day, I am not persuaded that its failure to do so makes the decision unreasonable. First, [NAME] was clearly aware of the allegation in the Basis of Claim form, because it is mentioned in the decision when the Applicant’s claim was summarized. In addition, the Applicant testified about it during the hearing. Second, although the Applicant claims that the police threatened him if he participated in future [NAME] events, it is not clear that he alleged that he was detained or mistreated as a result of his political affiliation. If anything, the Applicant’s evidence would tend to show that he was caught up in police actions against the Kurdish and/or [NAME] community rather than because of his involvement with a political party. [NAME] simply did not believe that the Applicant had established that he was an active member of the [NAME], and I can find no basis to disturb its finding on that matter. [ 31 ] The Applicant’s claim and his testimony did not draw a bright line between his alleged persecution based on his political beliefs and that based on his religion and ethnicity. [NAME] considered the totality of the evidence and the Applicant was questioned about all of the elements of his claim by [NAME] and his own counsel during the hearing. The Applicant’s counsel also made comprehensive submissions. [NAME] was clearly aware of all of the elements of the Applicant’s claim. [ 32 ] I reject the argument that [NAME] failed to consider the cumulative effect of persecution. The decision analyzed several incidents, finding the evidence to be lacking and causing [NAME] to question the Applicant’s overall credibility. [NAME] also examined the Applicant’s prospective risks based on his identity as a [NAME] in Türkiye, finding that while he may experience some discrimination (as he says he did during his schooling), this did not rise to the level of persecution. The breadth of [NAME]’s consideration of the Applicant’s claim is demonstrated in the following passage in the Conclusion section of the decision: [46] I have found there to be significant credibility concerns and a lack of sufficient evidence with respect to the claimant’s political profile. There is a lack of objective evidence that the claimant would be persecuted resulting from his ethnicity and religion as a [NAME]. He would likely not be pursued and targeted from his refusal to attend military service. [ 33 ] Viewed in light of the record, I am not persuaded that [NAME] ignored the other incidents cited by the Applicant. I can find no basis to conclude that [NAME]’s conclusion is unreasonable because it is based on a consideration of the evidence and clearly explained in the decision. [ 34 ] For these reasons, I cannot accept the Applicant’s claim that [NAME] engaged in a selective review of the evidence he submitted in support of his claim.

V. Conclusion [ 35 ] Based on the analysis set out above the application for judicial review will be dismissed. [ 36 ] There is no question of general importance for certification.

JUDGMENT in IMM-9012-24 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that : The application for judicial review is dismissed. There is no question of general importance for certification. "William F. Pentney" Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD Docket: IMM-9012-24 STYLE OF CAUSE: [NAME] v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO DATE OF HEARING: MAY 22, 2025

JUDGMENT AND

REASONS: pentney j. DATED: JANUARY 28, 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