Federal Court Rejects Judicial Review of Refugee Claim Rejection

OUTCOME: Dismissed

Date: 20260617 [NAME_1] : IMM-2225-25 Citation: 2026 FC 813 Edmonton, Alberta , June 17, 2026 PRESENT: Madam Justice McDonald BETWEEN: [NAME_2] [NAME_2] Applicants and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The Applicants, [NAME_2] and [NAME_2], are brothers, of Kurdish ethnicity, and citizens of Türkiye. They seek judicial review of the dismissal of their refugee claims by the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD). [ 2 ] They argue that the RAD was overzealous and microscopic in making credibility findings against them and they argue that the RAD failed to reasonably assess cumulative persecution. [ 3 ] I am dismissing this judicial review as I have found the RAD decision to be reasonable.

I. Background [ 4 ] The brothers claim they faced persecution in Türkiye due to their Kurdish ethnicity and their support for the Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP). They claim to have faced discrimination in school, during mandatory military duties, and in their jobs. [ 5 ] [NAME_2] claims that he engaged in political activism during the 2018 Turkish presidential election and was harassed by police as a result. He also states that, in February 2020, seven individuals attacked him after he left the local HDP office, and that, after arriving, the police accused him of starting the incident. He further testified that, in September 2021, his manager at a construction site called the police, who beat him and four other Kurdish workers and removed them from the worksite without pay. [ 6 ] [NAME_2] states that, in June 2021, he attended a protest following the death of an HDP activist and was detained by police for three days afterward. [ 7 ] [NAME_2] entered Canada in December 2021 and [NAME_2] entered Canada in March 2022. They each claimed refugee protection on arrival. The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) heard the Applicants’ claims in two separate hearings. After the first hearing, the RPD noted pictures of [NAME_2] at a celebration with a Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) flag. The PKK is a designated terrorist group in Canada. Based on this image and [NAME_2]’s testimony on this point, the RPD notified the Minister regarding possible exclusion under Articles 1F(a) or (c). After an investigation, the Minister declined to intervene further on this issue. [ 8 ] In a decision dated June 28, 2024, the RPD rejected the Applicants’ claims. Credibility was the determinative issue. The RPD found that their allegations of political activism in Türkiye were not credible and that they did not face more than a mere possibility of persecution there based on their Kurdish ethnicity. [ 9 ] The RAD upheld the RPD’s findings in a decision dated January 13, 2025.

II. The RAD decision [ 10 ] The RAD decision upheld the RPD’s findings regarding risk of persecution due to political activity as HDP supporters, and their Kurdish ethnicity. [ 11 ] First, the RAD found that the Applicants’ testimony regarding their political activity in Türkiye was not credible. The RAD reviewed [NAME_2]’s testimony and made the following negative credibility findings: [NAME_2] testified that he had been verbally and physically assaulted by police officers. When pressed for details, he changed his testimony and stated that he was never physically assaulted. The RAD member asked him about the September 2021 incident, where his Basis of Claim form stated that he was beaten by police officers. He also added that the police used mustard gas, which he did not include in his Basis of Claim form. When asked about the February 2020 incident, [NAME_2] was unable to speak generally about it, until the RPD reminded him of what he wrote in his Basis of Claim form. The RAD found it unreasonable that he couldn’t answer questions without prompting, given that it was one of two significant events described in his Basis of Claim form. [NAME_2] indicated on his intake forms that he had never been charged or sought by police for any reason in any country. However, he claims he was detained by police and accused of instigating the fight in February 2020. The RPD asked [NAME_2] why he testified that he was never physically assaulted. [NAME_2] answered that he was discussing the February 2020 incident. However, the RAD noted that this question was actually in response to a general question, before the RPD asked about the February 2020 incident. The RAD drew a negative credibility finding from this evolving testimony. [ 12 ] The RAD reviewed [NAME_2]’s testimony and made the following negative credibility findings: [NAME_2]’s application included pictures of him at an event with a PKK flag. When shown this picture of the PKK flag, he claimed he did not recognize it. When asked about the PKK, he described them as “an armed organization that protects the Kurdish people” and that “PKK represents me. It represents Kurdish people” . The RAD found it unreasonable that a Kurdish citizen who lived in Türkiye between 1999 and 2022, and was aware of the PKK, would not recognize the PKK flag. The RAD therefore found his answers on this point were untruthful. [NAME_2] testified that he attended a protest in Izmir, and was then detained from July 8-10, 2021. However, his Basis of Claim form states that he was detained from June 17-19, 2022. When asked about this discrepancy, he claims that he was possibly confused, from the stress of his journey to Canada, when he filled out his forms. However, the RAD rejected this excuse, noting that [NAME_2] did not complete his Basis of Claim form until 3 months after entering Canada. [ 13 ] The RAD considered the corroborative evidence but gave it low weight and concluded that it did not outweigh credibility concerns or independently establish the events in their Basis of Claim forms. The corroborative evidence consisted of: A letter purportedly from an HDP office in Türkiye. The letter stated that [NAME_2] had participated and supported the HDP. The RAD gave this letter low weight because: it did not corroborate any specific events; it included no contact information for the HDP office or the letter’s author; and [NAME_2] had no evidence of how he received the letter. Letters from the Applicants’ father. The RAD gave these little weight because they stated generic information about treatment of Kurds in Türkiye, and did not corroborate any of the events described in the Applicants’ Basis of Claim form, or suggest that they were politically active. [NAME_2]’s pro-Kurish social media posts. The RAD found these posts insufficient to establish that he was politically active, given his lack of a political profile. [ 14 ] The RAD found that the Applicants had not established that they were politically active in Türkiye, given their lack of credibility and weak corroborative evidence. They therefore did not face a risk of harm in Türkiye due to political affiliation. [ 15 ] Finally, the RAD found that the Applicants did not face sufficient risk of persecution, based on their Kurdish ethnicity, to justify refugee protection. While the RAD accepted that Kurds may face discrimination and harassment in Türkiye, it did not cumulatively amount to persecution.

III. Issue and standard of review [ 16 ] The Applicants challenge the reasonableness of the RAD decision on two grounds. First, they argue that the RAD took an overzealous and overly microscopic approach to credibility. Second, they argue that the RAD failed to properly assess cumulative persecution. [ 17 ] Reasonableness requires a decision to have justification, transparency, and intelligibility, be based on an internally coherent and rational chain of analysis and be justified in relation to the facts and law that constrain the decision maker ( Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov , 2019 SCC 65 at paras 85-86).

IV. Analysis A. RAD credibility assessment [ 18 ] The Applicants argue that the RAD unreasonably engaged in a microscopic analysis of their credibility. They argue that the RAD’s credibility findings were on insignificant discrepancies on secondary points, which is contrary to this Court’s jurisprudence ( [NAME_3] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2018 FC 924 at para 23). [ 19 ] I disagree. On review of the RAD decision, the discrepancies noted by the RAD relate to events that are core to the Applicants’ claims. Specifically, in [NAME_2]’s narrative, he describes two significant events of alleged persecution due to his political activity and ethnicity, first a February 2020 attack after he left an HDP office, and second, a September 2021 assault by police officers at a worksite. [ 20 ] When [NAME_2] was asked what happened in February 2020, he could not answer the question without the RAD pointing out information from his Basis of Claim form. The RAD’s negative credibility finding on this point was directly related to a significant event in his narrative. [ 21 ] [NAME_2] was also asked if he was ever physically assaulted by police officers, initially he said ‘yes’, before changing his answer to ‘no’. Later in his testimony, he said he was assaulted in September 2021 by police officers. It was reasonable for the RAD to expect [NAME_2] to recall whether he was physically assaulted by police officers. [ 22 ] These discrepancies go to the central events in [NAME_2]’s narrative and are not minor. The RAD was therefore reasonable in basing a negative credibility finding on these discrepancies. [ 23 ] In assessing [NAME_2]’s claim, the RAD noted that he provided the wrong dates for the only specific event described in his narrative, which was the detention after attending a political protest in 2021. His detention was in relation to a political protest and therefore was central to his claim. The date discrepancy was a period of three weeks. In my view, this is not an insignificant discrepancy. [ 24 ] The RAD also drew a negative credibility finding from [NAME_2]’s claim that he did not recognize the PKK flag. [NAME_2] explained that he was more familiar with the Kurdish and HDP flags, but he also said that he knew of the PKK and described it as “an armed organization that protects the Kurdish people,” adding that “the PKK represents me. It represents Kurdish people” . Given his claim to be a politically-active Kurdish citizen in Türkiye and his admitted knowledge of the PKK, it was open to the RAD to find this explanation implausible and to make an adverse credibility finding on that basis. [ 25 ] The Applicants’ challenges to the RAD’s findings on these core issues is largely a disagreement with the RAD’s refusal to accept their explanations for the discrepancies and inconsistencies in their testimony. However, it was open to the RAD to find those explanations insufficient and, on that basis, to make an overall adverse credibility finding. B. RAD’s assessment of cumulative risk [ 26 ] The Applicants also argue that the RAD failed to assess the cumulative risk they faced in Türkiye based on their Kurdish ethnicity. [ 27 ] The RAD noted the objective country condition evidence indicating that the treatment of Kurds in Türkiye could rise to persecution, depending on the individuals’ specific circumstances. Based on this evidence, the RAD found that any mistreatment the Applicants may face would not amount to persecution in the individual domains of healthcare, education, employment, housing, cultural practices, societal mistreatment, or religion. The Applicants do not dispute these findings. [ 28 ] The Applicants instead claim that the RAD failed to assess the cumulative risk of mistreatment in these areas. They claim that, despite the RAD citing and applying the test for cumulative discrimination from X (Re) , 2020 CanLII 24189 (CA IRB) at para 13, the RAD failed to substantively assess the risk. [ 29 ] The RAD assessed several areas, and found that the Applicants may face some mistreatment, but this did not arise to the level of persecution. The RAD then turned to cumulative risk, and concluded that: [59] Looking at the evidence cumulatively, I find that it does not establish that the Appellants face systemic or persistent harm or an insecure future existence in Türkiye. The objective evidence outlines that there are problems for Kurdish people in Türkiye, and I accept that the Appellants face some degree of societal and state discrimination and mistreatment as Kurds in Türkiye. However, the objective evidence does not indicate that the situation is so severe and widespread that it rises to the level of a serious possibility of persecution for all Kurdish people in Türkiye. [60] When I consider the objective evidence along with the evidence of the Appellants' past experiences and personal circumstances, I find that the Appellants have not established that they face a risk of discrimination or mistreatment with the severity or persistence to amount to persecution, or that they face an insecure future existence in consideration of the discrimination and mistreatment they face in Türkiye. [ 30 ] This conclusion was supported by the country condition evidence before the RAD. Part of the country condition evidence states: In general, any discrimination faced by Kurds does not, by its nature or repetition, even when taken cumulatively, amount to a real risk of persecution and/or serious harm. The onus is on the person to demonstrate otherwise. [ 31 ] This is consistent with the RAD’s approach to cumulative persecution. The RAD found that the country condition evidence did not establish a risk of persecution based on Kurdish ethnicity alone. The RAD considered whether the Applicants’ personal circumstances supported a different conclusion and found that they did not, given the Applicants’ profiles and the adverse credibility findings regarding their alleged experiences. In these circumstances, the RAD’s assessment of cumulative risk was reasonable. [ 32 ] Further, much of the country condition evidence the Applicants rely upon relates to politically-active Kurds. That was not of assistance to the Applicants, as the RAD specifically found that the Applicants were not politically active. [ 33 ] Overall, the RAD’s conclusion is justifiable and transparent, within a range of acceptable outcomes, and is grounded in the Applicants’ own evidence and the country condition evidence. It is therefore a reasonable decision.

V. Conclusion [ 34 ] This judicial review application is dismissed. There is no question for certification.

JUDGMENT IN IMM-2225-25 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that : This judicial review application is dismissed. There is no question for certification. blank "Ann Marie McDonald" blank Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF [NAME_1] : IMM-2225-25 STYLE OF CAUSE: [NAME_2] et al v mci HEARING

HELD BY VIDEOCONFERENCE AT : Edmonton, Alberta DATE OF HEARING: JUNE 8, 2026

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT : McDonald J. DATED: June 17, 2026 APPEARANCES : [NAME_4] FOR THE APPLICANTS [NAME_5] FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD : [NAME_6], Alberta FOR THE APPLICANTS Attorney General of Canada Edmonton, Alberta FOR THE RESPONDENTS