Docket: IMM-18747-24
Citation: 2025 FC 1984
Ottawa, Ontario, December 17, 2025
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Saint-Fleur
|
BETWEEN: |
|
SEMAH CIL |
|
Applicant |
|
and |
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
|
Respondent |
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
I. Overview
[1] This is an application for judicial review of the decision of the Refugee Protection Division [RPD] dated September 24, 2024 [Decision] rejecting the Applicant’s claim for refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA].
[2] For the reasons that follow, this application for judicial review is granted.
II. Background Facts
[3] The Applicant is a Kurdish citizen of Türkiye and is of Alevi faith. She is also a supporter of the People’s Democratic Party [HDP]. During her schooling, the Applicant was “constantly bullied, insulted, and abused”
by students and teachers due to her Kurdish identity.
[4] The Applicant’s sister used her social media to complain about the imprisonment of relatives for their political activities. The Applicant believes, because of this social media post, she was summoned to the court to provide testimony. However, she was warned by a lawyer that this may not be good news for her. The Applicant’s sister subsequently left Türkiye on September 5, 2022, but letters summoning the Applicant’s sister continued.
[5] The Applicant previously supported the HDP, but now supports the Peoples' Equality and Democracy Party [DEM] party. However, the Applicant has stated she will continue to support the HDP if she returns to Türkiye. The Applicant’s involvement with the HDP includes her involvement in cleaning and organizing food and Nawroz events. The Applicant also attended protests in support of the HDP on November 4 in 2018, 2019, and 2020. Attendees were met by police with pepper spray and glass bottles.
[6] The Applicant attended the Karapinar Cemevi to commemorate the Maras Massacre of December 1978 while volunteering with the Sivas Massacre Commemoration Program. The police attended the Cemevi and verified the Applicant’s identity, questioned her about why her brother had left, hit her on the arm, accused her of lying, and threatened her. The police told her they felt sorry for her but wanted to know why she was going to the Cemevi. They then let her go. The following day, a police car was outside of the Applicant’s home. The car followed her when she left home, prompting her to immediately return home.
[7] Others involved with the memorial program arranged for her to enter the United States through the Mexican American border with the assistance of smugglers. On December 27, 2022, the Applicant departed Türkiye to join her sister in Canada.
[8] On February 6, 2023, the Applicant was being held in the United States when she learned of an earthquake that had destroyed her family home. The Applicant alleges Türkiye failed to assist those villages they knew were mostly Kurdish and Alevi.
[9] On June 30, 2023, the Applicant commenced her refugee claim and was found to be exempt from the Safe Third Country Agreement. The Applicant’s sister, whose refugee claim was pending, acted as her anchor relative.
III. Decision Under Review
[10] The RPD determined the Applicant was neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of Canada’s protection. The determinative issues were the Applicant’s forward-facing risk, the discrimination related to her Kurdish identity and Alevi faith, and the credibility of her claim related to her political involvement.
A. Kurdish Identity and Persecution
[11] The RPD accepted the Applicant’s Kurdish identity; however, they also determined she had not experienced discrimination rising to the level of persecution.
[12] Based on the Applicant’s evidence, the RPD concluded the Applicant has faced discrimination because of her Kurdish identity. The RPD considered that she had encountered issues when speaking her Kurdish language, both in school and elsewhere, and has since avoided doing so. The RPD also considered her testimony of having pursued higher education because of her Kurdish identity, particularly her language and because she is from a poor family.
[13] The RPD reviewed the objective evidence from the National Documentation Package indicating that the ban on Kurdish languages has become more relaxed since the early 2000s, that Kurdish languages are taught as a primary language of instruction for some university programs and private schools, and that Kurdish languages may be chosen as an optional course of study in public schools. The RPD concluded the Applicant’s issues speaking her language would not be an issue considering she had completed her secondary school education and her reasons for not pursuing post-secondary education were unclear. The RPD concluded, on a balance of probabilities, her choice to not pursue further education was an economic decision and not because of her Kurdish identity.
[14] The RPD assessed documentary evidence on employment and noted no laws prevent Kurdish people from accessing public or private employment, government health services or education, or participating in public life. In terms of cultural rights, the documentary evidence confirmed Kurdish people can freely celebrate Newroz. The RPD found that Kurdish people have been able to maintain their own language, culture, and identity despite not having their own state.
[15] The RPD concluded the discrimination experienced by the Applicant does not amount to persecution and there is no forward-facing risk in this respect.
B. Alevi Faith and Persecution
[16] The RPD accepted the Applicant’s Alevi faith but concluded she had not been persecuted on this basis.
[17] The RPD considered the Applicant’s interaction with police when she attended the Cemevi to attend a commemorative ceremony and found it did not rise to the level of persecution, particularly as she visited the Cemevi every Sunday and had not been personally threatened to prevent her from doing so.
[18] The RPD considered her testimony indicating she was subject to compulsory religious education for Sunni Muslims and was told there was no such thing as an Alevi religion. The RPD noted compulsory religious education and prayers are not acceptable but are not persecution. The Applicant also testified she was generally excluded and discriminated against everywhere she went in her neighbourhood. However, the RPD found she provided vague responses and she never faced personal threats.
[19] The RPD consulted the documentary evidence which indicates there are between 10 and 25 million individuals of the Alevi faith who are also able to conduct religious ceremonies and festivals without interference and are generally able to participate in Turkish life. However, the Turkish state does not recognize Alevism as a separate religion and considers members of the Alevi faith to be Muslims. The RPD found the documentary evidence confirms members of the Alevi faith face a low risk of societal discrimination and discrimination by officials.
C. Political Involvement
[20] The RPD concluded the Applicant’s evidence on her political activities was evolving and lacked important details. As a result, the RPD drew a negative inference and concluded the Applicant was not a member of the HDP party.
[21] The RPD noted, while the Applicant testified she attended protests on November 4 of 2018, 2019, and 2020 for the release of Selahattin Demirtas, her narrative made no reference to these protests. The RPD further noted that she testified nothing happened to her at these protests. The Applicant now supports the DEM party “by heart.”
[22] The RPD was not persuaded by the letter submitted in support of the Applicant’s position she was politically active. It was a handwritten note from the Provincial Chairman of the DEM Party which stated the Applicant undertook active roles in the activities of the party, including with the Youth Commission. The RPD was particularly concerned about the authenticity of the letter considering it was undated, was not on official letterhead, had the stamp of a different political party, and referred to details that were not in either the Applicant’s Basis of Claim or narrative. The RPD was not satisfied with the Applicant’s explanations when asked at her hearing and gave this evidence no weight.
IV. Issues and Standard of Review
[23] This matter raises the following issues:
-
Did the RPD err by not considering the country condition evidence in their assessment of persecution?
-
Did the RPD fail to properly assess the cumulative nature of the Applicant’s profile?
-
Did the panel fail to assign appropriate weight to the Applicant’s testimony?
[24] The parties concur, and I agree, the standard of review is reasonableness. In this respect, the role of the reviewing court is to examine the decision maker’s reasoning and determine whether the decision is based on an “internally coherent and rational chain of analysis”
and is “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 [Vavilov]; Mason v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 SCC 21 at para 64). A decision will be reasonable if, when read as a whole and taking into account the administrative setting, it bears the hallmarks of justification, transparency, and intelligibility (Vavilov at paras 91-95, 99-100).
V. Relevant Dispositions
[25] Section 96 of IRPA defines the qualities of a Convention refugee:
Convention refugee
|
Définition de réfugié
|
96 A Convention refugee is a person who, by reason of a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion,
|
96 A qualité de réfugié au sens de la Convention — le réfugié — la personne qui, craignant avec raison d’être persécutée du fait de sa race, de sa religion, de sa nationalité, de son appartenance à un groupe social ou de ses opinions politiques :
|
(a) is outside each of their countries of nationality and is unable or, by reason of that fear, unwilling to avail themself of the protection of each of those countries; or
|
a) soit se trouve hors de tout pays dont elle a la nationalité et ne peut ou, du fait de cette crainte, ne veut se réclamer de la protection de chacun de ces pays;
|
(b) not having a country of nationality, is outside the country of their former habitual residence and is unable or, by reason of that fear, unwilling to return to that country.
|
b) soit, si elle n’a pas de nationalité et se trouve hors du pays dans lequel elle avait sa résidence habituelle, ne peut ni, du fait de cette crainte, ne veut y retourner.
|
[26] Subsection 97(1) of IRPA defines the conditions for an applicant to be considered a person in need of Canada’s protection:
Person in need of protection
|
Personne à protéger
|
97 (1) A person in need of protection is a person in Canada whose removal to their country or countries of nationality or, if they do not have a country of nationality, their country of former habitual residence, would subject them personally
|
97 (1) A qualité de personne à protéger la personne qui se trouve au Canada et serait personnellement, par son renvoi vers tout pays dont elle a la nationalité ou, si elle n’a pas de nationalité, dans lequel elle avait sa résidence habituelle, exposée :
|
(a) to a danger, believed on substantial grounds to exist, of torture within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention Against Torture; or
|
a) soit au risque, s’il y a des motifs sérieux de le croire, d’être soumise à la torture au sens de l’article premier de la Convention contre la torture;
|
(b) to a risk to their life or to a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment if
|
b) soit à une menace à sa vie ou au risque de traitements ou peines cruels et inusités dans le cas suivant :
|
(i) the person is unable or, because of that risk, unwilling to avail themself of the protection of that country,
|
(i) elle ne peut ou, de ce fait, ne veut se réclamer de la protection de ce pays,
|
(ii) the risk would be faced by the person in every part of that country and is not faced generally by other individuals in or from that country,
|
(ii) elle y est exposée en tout lieu de ce pays alors que d’autres personnes originaires de ce pays ou qui s’y trouvent ne le sont généralement pas,
|
(iii) the risk is not inherent or incidental to lawful sanctions, unless imposed in disregard of accepted international standards, and
|
(iii) la menace ou le risque ne résulte pas de sanctions légitimes — sauf celles infligées au mépris des normes internationales — et inhérents à celles-ci ou occasionnés par elles,
|
(iv) the risk is not caused by the inability of that country to provide adequate health or medical care.
|
(iv) la menace ou le risque ne résulte pas de l’incapacité du pays de fournir des soins médicaux ou de santé adéquats.
|
VI. Analysis
[27] The Applicant alleges the RPD did not consider the cumulative nature of her profile. That is, the RPD did not consider the Applicant’s profile as a Kurdish and Alevi supporter of the HDP.
[28] The Respondent submits there is no merit to this submission as the RPD considered the Applicant’s Kurdish ethnicity and her faith, and it was the Applicant who could not describe the alleged discrimination she experienced when asked by the RPD. Further, the RPD referred to the lack of additional religious-based discrimination experienced by Kurdish Alevis.
[29] In Thevarasa v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 1123 at paragraph 21, the Court held the decision maker erred by considering each of the applicant’s characteristics in isolation and not cumulatively. Citing Vilvarajah v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 349, the Court reiterated Justice Diner’s warning against carving up an applicant’s cumulative profile.
[30] The Court in KS v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 999 at paragraph 42 outlines the obligation on officers to consider the risk factors cumulatively:
[42] In conducting its analysis, the RPD must assess the cumulative impact of all the bases of concern put forward by the Applicant (Boroumand v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 FC 1219 at para 63, Yener v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 FC 372 at para 57). In LS v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 330, at paras 14-15, the Court confirmed that, if the RPD’s reasons indicate that it failed to assess cumulatively the relevant risk factors and, instead, examined each risk element in isolation, the decision may be set aside.
[31] I agree with the Respondent, the fact that the RPD did not explicitly state it considered the intersectionality of these factors is not sufficient to render the Decision unreasonable (Magoya v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 516 at paras 40-41). Nevertheless, the decision maker must consider the effect of these characteristics together.
[32] The RPD considered the characteristics of the Applicant’s profile, namely her Kurdish ethnicity, her Alevi faith, and her political involvement. The RPD refers to the lack of any additional religious-based discrimination experienced by Kurdish Alevis as compared to those who identify only as Alevi. However, in conducting an independent assessment of the Applicant’s circumstances and evidence, the RPD’s reasons do not exhibit a global and cumulative assessment of the Applicant’s profile. The RPD did not consider the three characteristics of the Applicant’s profile, her ethnicity, faith, and political involvement, cumulatively, choosing instead to dismiss each aspect individually. This renders the Decision unreasonable.
VII. Conclusion
[33] For the foregoing reasons, this application for judicial review is granted.
[34] Neither party proposed a question for certification, and I agree none arises.
Email this Content