[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Protection Division [RPD] dated October 3, 2023 [Decision]. The RPD found the Applicant was neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under s 96 and 97(1) of Immigration and Refugee Protection Act [IRPA], based on credibility findings going to the core of this case. The RPD Decision is in my view reasonable in that it is transparent, intelligible and justified. Therefore, this application will be dismissed.
II. Facts
[2] The Applicant is a citizen of Türkiye. He seeks protection on the grounds of Kurdish ethnicity, Alevi faith, and political opinion as an opponent of the Turkish government.
[3] The Decision summarizes the Applicant’s Basis of Claim [BOC] narrative, which I accept:
● He was discriminated against by Sunni students, and while in school, a teacher hit him with a ruler whenever he made a mistake.
● Sunni employers did not want to hire him, so he spent many years unemployed between 2012 and 2019 but tried to survive doing odd jobs. He worked in Cameron between September 2020 and July 2021 and in Burkina Faso from December 2021 to May 2022.
● In May 2016, he participated in a protest organized by the HDP, against the building of a refugee camp for 25,000 Syrian nationals. A military commander demanded that protestors leave the area, but HDP officials refused to leave. The gendarmeries attacked and arrested protestors, including him. He was interrogated and beaten in custody.
● In May 2018, he, along with two friends, were canvassing for the HDP and Selahattin Demirtaş, a former co-leader of the HDP, when a large group of Turkish nationalists destroyed their materials, beat them with chain and sticks, then vanished.
● In July 2022, he attended a musical and cultural festival in the town of Elbistan. While there, he and a group of friends did Halay dance and waved HDP flags. While on their way home, special teams and police stopped them at a check point. An officer saw his scarf in the colors of green, red, and yellow around his neck, and ordered officers to take him and another friend to security headquarters. He was verbally and physically abused.
● According to the narrative, following his recovery the claimant attempted to return to the festival, but was stopped at the same checkpoint. He was taken to the security headquarters where a police superior insulted and threatened him, stating they would keep him longer if he was arrested again. He was kept in custody for 6 hours and beaten.
● With the assistance from relatives, he contacted an agent and left Türkiye on August 23, 2022. On August 28, 2022, he entered the United States, where he was detained. Following release, he entered Canada on September 10, 2022, and filed a refugee claim.
III. Decision under review
[4] The RPD held the Applicant lacked credibility because he had not established central issues namely that he was a member of the Kurdish Alevi community, nor that he was a member or supporter of the Republican People's Party [CHP] or pro-Kurdish Peoples’ Democratic Party [HDP] opposed to the Turkish government. The RPD considered “the claimant’s age, level of education, his work and travel history, the stressful environment of the hearing room setting, and nervousness that some claimants may experience”
in reaching these conclusions. Notably, it had the advantages of an oral hearing.
[5] The Decision summarizes the factors contributing to its credibility finding:
● The claimant was hesitant and vague when testifying about his Kurdish Alevi identity.
● The claimant's evidence in his BOC narrative and testimony conflicted. For instance, when asked what his ethnicity is, he stated, “I am Turkish Alevi person.” However, the claimant’s narrative states he is Kurdish Alevi.
● The claimant wrote in his narrative that he speaks the Kurdish language, but when questioned about this at the hearing, he testified that he does not.
● The claimant’s testimony regarding the Alevi faith conflicts with the documentary evidence on country conditions and lacks credibility.
● The only documentation provided to prove his Alevi identity has several irregularities that were not explained to the satisfaction of the panel.
● The claimant has not attended any Canadian Kurdish Alevi associations and the panel finds the reason the claimant gave for not doing so to be unreasonable.
[Emphasis in original]
[6] In my respectful view the Respondent accurately outlines the Decision’s findings on the Applicant’s Kurdish Alevi identity:
a. When the panel asked the Applicant at the hearing what his ethnicity is, the Applicant stated, “I am Turkish Alevi person.” When questioned further, the Applicant stated he is Kurdish Alevi. The Applicant denied saying he was Turkish and claimed there was a misunderstanding. Noting the Applicant’s use of an interpreter, the RPD was not immediately concerned by this statement. However, concerns arose following additional questioning.
b. When asked whether he spoke Kurdish, the Applicant gave a lengthy response, and then stated no. The Applicant claimed that Kurds are not allowed to speak their language. The RPD rejected this claim, noting that the objective evidence indicates that while some restrictions exist (e.g. main language in public schools), Kurdish is widely used throughout Türkiye.
c. When asked whether he is aware of Kurdish culture and traditions, the Applicant stated yes. However, the Applicant’s testimony centered on generalities and practice of the Alevi faith, not Kurdish culture, and traditions, specifically. The Applicant’s testimony closely mirrored the content of his narrative, wherein he described the Alevi faith. The RPD noted that Alevis can be either Turkish or Kurdish. The RPD found the Applicant to be vague and hesitant when testifying about his Kurdish Alevi identity (e.g. visits to cem houses). The RPD found that the Applicant's testimony was the result of having rehearsed for the hearing, rather than having actual knowledge.
d. There were irregularities with the Applicant’s Alevi cultural association membership card. There was no membership number, despite there being a space dedicated for one. The year “2007” appears on an ink stamp along with the organization’s name. The Applicant did not know what “2007” meant. The speculative explanations provided by counsel and the interpreter as to what “2007” meant were not in the evidence. The RPD found that the inconsistency between the issue date on the card (June 23, 2020) and the 2007 stamp suggested that the document was unreliable. Moreover, the Applicant testified that he obtained the card in 2021, not 2020.
e. The Applicant failed to demonstrate any involvement in the Kurdish Alevi community in Canada, despite being in Canada for approximately one year prior to the hearing.
f. Regarding his Alevi faith, the Applicant appeared to know little beyond what was stated in his narrative. The Applicant stated that Alevis only believe in the Twelve Imams, despite the documentary evidence speaking about several key features of the Alevi faith.
[Footnotes omitted]
[7] With regard to political opinion, the RPD found a number of issues with the Applicant’s evidence, including (again as the Respondent accurately summarizes):
a. The Applicant’s testimony regarding his political involvement with and knowledge of the HDP was vague or incorrect. He could not pinpoint when he started supporting the HDP. His description of the HDP platform was correct, but lacked detail. He was unable to correctly identify who the current HDP leader was. He did not appear to be aware of the HDP’s merger with the Green Left party, and did not know how it fared in the most recent election. This appeared to be inconsistent with the profile of someone who “involved with elections, supported the party during elections, went to their constituency office, attended meetings, and workshops, and told others about the party.
b. The Applicant provided a letter from the HDP. The RPD found that the letter, and the Applicant’s testimony regarding how he became to be an HDP member, were inconsistent with the NDP [National Documentation Package] evidence.
c. With respect to an incident in 2016, the Applicant’s Basis of Claim (“BOC”) and testimony were inconsistent regarding whether he was questioned and beaten by the police or the military. With respect to an incident in 2022, the Applicant’s BOC and testimony were inconsistent regarding whether the police accused him of being a supporter of separatism.
[8] The Decision states:
[45] The claimant’s allegation that he is a member of the HDP is central to his claim. In light of key inconsistencies between his testimony and the objective evidence, and his lack of knowledge about the party, the panel draws a negative inference regarding his involvement in HDP. On a balance of probabilities, I find that the claimant was not involved with the HDP.
[46] The panel accepts the claimant’s evidence that he did not go beyond elementary school. However, I find this does not explain the problematic nature of his evidence. The claimant’s narrative is well-written and detailed. While accepting that the claimant would have had the assistance of counsel in writing his narrative, the claimant would have had to narrate the details of his claim, yet he had extreme difficulty speaking on key elements of his claim at the hearing.
[9] On the alleged three alleged incidents (May 2016, May 2018, and July 2022) of mistreatment based on the Applicant’s political affiliations, the RPD held:
[48] Having found, on a balance of probabilities, that the claimant was not involved with the HDP, by extension the panel finds these allegations not credible.
[10] The Decision concludes:
[65] The panel finds that the claimant has not provided sufficient credible or trustworthy evidence to establish the allegations as set out in his claim, namely his ethnic and religious profiles, or that he is perceived as a political opponent by Turkish authorities. The panel finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the claimant is not wanted by Turkish authorities, and that he faces no serious possibility of persecution upon return to Türkiye. Further, the claimant has failed to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that he would be personally subjected to a danger of torture or a risk to life or of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment in Türkiye.
IV. Issues
[11] The parties agree, and I concur, the issues are whether the Decision was reasonable and procedurally fair. The Applicant specifically asks:
Was the applicant denied procedural fairness in that the RPD failed to put alleged contradictions or inconsistencies that were material to the claim, to the applicant to afford him the opportunity to respond to them?
Was the decision of the RPD unreasonable in light of its erroneous credibility findings?
V. Standard of Review
[12] The parties agree, and I concur, the standard of review for the merits of the Decision is reasonableness, and the standard of review for questions of procedural fairness is correctness and that the ultimate question remains whether the applicant knew the case to meet and had a full and fair chance to respond.
A. Reasonableness
[13] With regard to reasonableness, in Canada Post Corp v Canadian Union of Postal Workers, 2019 SCC 67, issued contemporaneously with the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65, [2019] 4 S.C.R. 653 [Vavilov], the majority per Justice Rowe explains what is required for a reasonable decision, and what is required of a court reviewing on the reasonableness standard:
[31] 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). Accordingly, when conducting reasonableness review “[a] reviewing court must begin its inquiry into the reasonableness of a decision by examining the reasons provided with ‘respectful attention’ and seeking to understand the reasoning process followed by the decision maker to arrive at [the] conclusion” (Vavilov, at para. 84, quoting Dunsmuir, at para. 48). The reasons should be read holistically and contextually in order to understand “the basis on which a decision was made” (Vavilov, at para. 97, citing Newfoundland Nurses).
[32] A reviewing court should consider whether the decision as a whole is reasonable: “what is reasonable in a given situation will always depend on the constraints imposed by the legal and factual context of the particular decision under review” (Vavilov, at para. 90). The reviewing court must ask “whether the decision bears the hallmarks of reasonableness – justification, transparency and intelligibility – and whether it is justified in relation to the relevant factual and legal constraints that bear on the decision” (Vavilov, at para. 99, citing Dunsmuir, at paras. 47 and 74, and Catalyst Paper Corp. v. North Cowichan (District), 2012 SCC 2, [2012] 1 S.C.R. 5, at para. 13).
[33] Under reasonableness review, “[t]he burden is on the party challenging the decision to show that it is unreasonable” (Vavilov, at para. 100). The challenging party must satisfy the court “that any shortcomings or flaws relied on ... are sufficiently central or significant to render the decision unreasonable” (Vavilov, at para. 100).
[Emphasis added]
[14] In the words of the Supreme Court of Canada in Vavilov, a reviewing court must be satisfied the decision-maker’s reasoning “adds up”
:
[104] Similarly, the internal rationality of a decision may be called into question if the reasons exhibit clear logical fallacies, such as circular reasoning, false dilemmas, unfounded generalizations or an absurd premise. This is not an invitation to hold administrative decision makers to the formalistic constraints and standards of academic logicians. However, a reviewing court must ultimately be satisfied that the decision maker’s reasoning “adds up”.
[105] In addition to the need for internally coherent reasoning, a decision, to be reasonable, must be justified in relation to the constellation of law and facts that are relevant to the decision: Dunsmuir, at para. 47; Catalyst, at para. 13; Nor-Man Regional Health Authority, at para. 6. Elements of the legal and factual contexts of a decision operate as constraints on the decision maker in the exercise of its delegated powers.
[106] It is unnecessary to catalogue all of the legal or factual considerations that could constrain an administrative decision maker in a particular case. However, in the sections that follow, we discuss a number of elements that will generally be relevant in evaluating whether a given decision is reasonable, namely: the governing statutory scheme; other relevant statutory or common law; the principles of statutory interpretation; the evidence before the decision maker and facts of which the decision maker may take notice; the submissions of the parties; the past practices and decisions of the administrative body; and the potential impact of the decision on the individual to whom it applies. These elements are not a checklist for conducting reasonableness review, and they may vary in significance depending on the context. They are offered merely to highlight some elements of the surrounding context that can cause a reviewing court to lose confidence in the outcome reached.
[Emphasis added]
[15] The Supreme Court of Canada in Vavilov at paragraph 86 states, “it is not enough for the outcome of a decision to be justifiable. Where reasons for a decision are required, the decision must also be justified, by way of those reasons, by the decision-maker to those to whom the decision applies.”
Vavilov provides further guidance that a reviewing court decide based on the record before them:
[126] That being said, a reasonable decision is one that is justified in light of the facts: Dunsmuir, para. 47. The decision maker must take the evidentiary record and the general factual matrix that bears on its decision into account, and its decision must be reasonable in light of them: see Southam, at para. 56. The reasonableness of a decision may be jeopardized where the decision maker has fundamentally misapprehended or failed to account for the evidence before it. In Baker, for example, the decision maker had relied on irrelevant stereotypes and failed to consider relevant evidence, which led to a conclusion that there was a reasonable apprehension of bias: para. 48. Moreover, the decision maker’s approach would also have supported a finding that the decision was unreasonable on the basis that the decision maker showed that his conclusions were not based on the evidence that was actually before him: para. 48.
[Emphasis added]
[16] Vavilov makes it abundantly clear the role of this Court is not to reweigh and reassess the evidence unless there are “exceptional circumstances.”
The Supreme Court of Canada instructs:
[125] It is trite law that the decision maker may assess and evaluate the evidence before it and that, absent exceptional circumstances, a reviewing court will not interfere with its factual findings. The reviewing court must refrain from “reweighing and reassessing the evidence considered by the decision maker”: CHRC, at para. 55; see also Khosa, at para. 64; Dr. Q, at paras. 41-42. Indeed, many of the same reasons that support an appellate court’s deferring to a lower court’s factual findings, including the need for judicial efficiency, the importance of preserving certainty and public confidence, and the relatively advantageous position of the first instance decision maker, apply equally in the context of judicial review: see Housen, at paras. 15-18; Dr. Q, at para. 38; Dunsmuir, at para. 53.
[Emphasis added]
[17] The Federal Court of Appeal held in Doyle v Canada (Attorney General), 2021 FCA 237 that the role of this Court is not to reweigh and reassess the evidence unless there is a fundamental error:
[3] In doing that, the Federal Court was quite right. Under this legislative scheme, the administrative decision-maker, here the Director, alone considers the evidence, decides on issues of admissibility and weight, assesses whether inferences should be drawn, and makes a decision. In conducting reasonableness review of the Director’s decision, the reviewing court, here the Federal Court, can interfere only where the Director has committed fundamental errors in fact-finding that undermine the acceptability of the decision. Reweighing and second-guessing the evidence is no part of its role. Sticking to its role, the Federal Court did not find any fundamental errors.
[4] On appeal, in essence, the appellant invites us in his written and oral submissions to reweigh and second-guess the evidence. We decline the invitation.
B. Procedural fairness
[18] The Federal Court of Appeal conclusively determines, and I agree, that on procedural fairness “the ultimate question remains whether the applicant knew the case to meet and had a full and fair chance to respond”
: see Canadian Pacific Railway Company v Canada (Attorney General), 2018 FCA 69 at paragraph 55-6 [Canadian Pacific Railway] [per Rennie JA]:
[55] Attempting to shoehorn the question of procedural fairness into a standard of review analysis is also, at the end of the day, an unprofitable exercise. Procedural review and substantive review serve different objectives in administrative law. While there is overlap, the former focuses on the nature of the rights involved and the consequences for affected parties, while the latter focuses on the relationship between the court and the administrative decision maker. Further, certain procedural matters do not lend themselves to a standard of review analysis at all, such as when bias is alleged. As Suresh demonstrates, the distinction between substantive and procedural review and the ability of a court to tailor remedies appropriate to each is a useful tool in the judicial toolbox, and, in my view, there are no compelling reasons why it should be jettisoned.
[56] No matter how much deference is accorded administrative tribunals in the exercise of their discretion to make procedural choices, the ultimate question remains whether the applicant knew the case to meet and had a full and fair chance to respond. It would be problematic if an a priori decision as to whether the standard of review is correctness or reasonableness generated a different answer to what is a singular question that is fundamental to the concept of justice―was the party given a right to be heard and the opportunity to know the case against them? Procedural fairness is not sacrificed on the altar of deference.
[Emphasis added]
[19] I will also follow a more recent Federal Court of Appeal judgment relying on “the long line of jurisprudence, both from the Supreme Court and”
the Federal Court of Appeal itself, that “the standard of review with respect to procedural fairness remains correctness”
: see Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers v Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship), 2020 FCA 196 at paragraph 35 per de Montigny JA (as he then was). Notably, to the same effect is the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Khosa, 2009 SCC 12, per Binnie J at paragraph 43:
[43] Judicial intervention is also authorized where a federal board, commission or other tribunal
(b) failed to observe a principle of natural justice, procedural fairness or other procedure that it was required by law to observe;
No standard of review is specified. On the other hand, Dunsmuir says that procedural issues (subject to competent legislative override) are to be determined by a court on the basis of a correctness standard of review. Relief in such cases is governed by common law principles, including the withholding of relief when the procedural error is purely technical and occasions no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice (Pal, at para. 9). This is confirmed by s. 18.1(5). It may have been thought that the Federal Court, being a statutory court, required a specific grant of power to “make an order validating the decision” (s. 18.1(5)) where appropriate.
[20] In Dunsmuir v New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9 at paragraph 50, the Supreme Court of Canada also establishes what is required on the correctness standard of review:
[50] When applying the correctness standard, a reviewing court will not show deference to the decision maker’s reasoning process; it will rather undertake its own analysis of the question. The analysis will bring the court to decide whether it agrees with the determination of the decision maker; if not, the court will substitute its own view and provide the correct answer. From the outset, the court must ask whether the tribunal’s decision was correct.
VI. Submissions of the parties
[21] The Applicant submits he was denied procedural fairness by not having an opportunity to respond at the hearing to inconsistencies found in his testimony. Further, he says the Decision is unreasonable.
[22] The Respondent submits the Decision was procedurally fair and the Applicant’s arguments amount to a request to reweigh the evidence.
A. Did the RPD breach procedural fairness?
[23] The Applicant submits he was denied procedural fairness by not being informed of or afforded the opportunity to respond at the hearing to what the RPD held were contradictions or inconsistencies in his submissions which the Applicant submits were “material to the claim.”
He points to two specific instances (outlined above): 1) the RPD’s finding that the Applicant wrote in his Basis of Claim [BOC] narrative that he spoke Kurdish but stated at the hearing that he did not, and 2) the RPD faulting him for describing Selahattin Demirtas as the leader (or one of the two leaders) of the HDP party.
[24] The Applicant submits he had reasonable explanations for these inconsistencies. First, he never said he spoke Kurdish when preparing his BOC narrative and “can only assume there was a confusion in translating his narrative into English.”
In this he files no evidence confirming translation or professional error. Second, “had he been asked to explain his statement that Mr. Demirtas was a co-leader of the HDP, he would have said that, although the politician could not carry out his leadership functions in prison, he was regarded by the applicant and other HDP adherents as the true leader of the Party.”
I am not persuaded by this argument, and accept the transcript.
[25] The Applicant cites Portillo Romero v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 1452 [Romero], but and with respect I find the cases different in terms of the relative importance of the dispute in issue. In Romero, Russell J held the finding “extremely important,”
but in the case at bar this finding is but one of many inconsistencies and instances of lack of credibility. It cannot be said (as the Applicant argues) this finding resulted in a hearing that was on the whole unfair.
[26] The Respondent also submits, and I agree, procedural fairness does not require the RPD to give a claimant the opportunity to elaborate on incorrect answers provided during questioning about their political knowledge in the context of a politically-based claim as here. The Respondent also adds, as I have just found, Romero is distinguishable from the case at bar and does not stand for the proposition the Applicant advances.
[27] It is also the case that questioning by the RPD on the Applicant’s political knowledge is to be expected (Gao v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 1139, at para 28). The RPD’s questions were unambiguous, objectively verifiable, and reasonably considered did not go beyond basic facts a long time supporter (or member) of a political party might reasonably be expected to know. And it is certainly the case that lack of political knowledge may form the basis of a negative credibility finding: Mbuyamba v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 918 at paragraphs 30–31 [per Pentney J]; Lunda v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 704 at paragraphs 24–25 [Lunda, per Gascon J]; Ahmed v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 1210 at paragraphs 32–34 [per Southcott J]; MTA v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 1508 at paragraphs 33–34 [per Lafrenière J].
[28] I find the Applicant, who was represented by counsel before the RPD, was not denied procedural fairness.
B. Was the Decision reasonable?
[29] The Applicant submits RPD made a number of unreasonable credibility findings, particularly concerning the Applicant’s political affiliation. In reviewing these sorts of claims the Court must keep in mind judicial review is not a “treasure hunt for error”
(Vavilov at para 102).
(1) Applicant’s knowledge of HDP
[30] The Applicant submits the following paragraphs from the Decision are unreasonable:
[32] The panel asked the claimant what the main objective or platform of the HDP is. In response he stated the HDP wants to establish justice and freedom, to give rights to everyone, and to solve problems between right and left, between Sunnis and Alevi. The claimant is correct in principle given that the documentary evidence describes aims of the party as "labour, equality, freedom, peace and justice." However, given the claimant's testimony about longstanding involvement with the HDP, since 2012, the panel would have expected more details from him regarding the party's platform. For instance, the documentary evidence states the following,
The party defines its policy areas of consisting of a number of "struggles" on its official Turkish language website; these include "the struggle against imperialism, warmongering, exploitation and hegemony", and struggles for "attaining democracy", "self and local administration, democratic freedom", "peace, equality and a democratic solution on the Kurdish issue", "attaining labour rights", "equality and freedom for people and faiths", "equality and freedom for women", "LGBT individuals" and "ecology and life".
[33] Given his vague testimony and lack of detail about a party he has allegedly supported for more than a decade, the panel finds this detracts from the credibility of the claimant's allegation that he is a member and/or supporter of the HDP and draws a negative credibility inference.
[31] The Applicant submits it was grossly unreasonable for the RPD to expect him to use phrases such as “the struggle against imperialism, warmongering, exploitation and hegemony,”
or “ecology and life,”
and that this undermines the RPD’s finding that he was not involved with the HDP.
[32] With respect, I do not accept this as a reasonable or fair characterization of the Decision. Keeping in mind the RPD had an oral hearing, and expressly noted the Applicant’s limited education which was not overlooked, it was open for the RPD to reasonably find the Applicant gave “vague testimony and lack of detail about a party he has allegedly supported for more than a decade.”
(2) HDP letter
[33] The Applicant submits the RPD’s findings on the HDP letter are unreasonable based on two of the three concerns the RPD raised; namely, its reliance on documentary evidence to find inconsistencies with the Applicant’s testimony and its characterization of the letter as “unreliable,”
giving it “little weight.”
[34] The Applicant points to Oranye v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 390 [Oranye]; however it seems to me this case is distinguishable because “the RAD relie[d] upon the Nigeria NDP for the proposition that fraudulent documents are easily available in Nigeria. No further analysis [was] provided, and the RAD ma[de] no factual finding that the affidavits [we]re, in fact, fraudulent”
(Oranye at para 26).
[35] In the case at bar, the RPD raised three concerns specific to the letter—one of which the Applicant does not challenge: the inconsistency between the NDP evidence and the Applicant’s testimony he did not have to do anything to become a member. In this respect the Applicant invites the Court to reweigh and reassess the evidence which is not the role of the Court on judicial review as noted above.
(3) HDP/Green Left merger
[36] The Applicant submits the RPD unreasonably faulted the Applicant for not knowing about the HDP’s “change of name”
through a merger with the Green Left Party. The Applicant cites Item 4.16 of the NDP, relied on by the RPD, which in part states:
Party co-chair Mithat Sancar said ahead of Monday’s assembly meeting that they will be discussing the methods of transferring HDP’s experience to the Green Left in a way that “will maintain its institutional presence”. … At the time of writing, the future of the HDP is yet to be determined. It is unclear whether the HDP will be banned by the Constitutional Court of Turkey, whether it will disband voluntarily prior to any ban, continue to operate on a much smaller level or as appears most likely at the time of writing, merge with the Green Left Party and operate under that banner.
[Emphasis added]
[37] This again entails weighing and assessing the evidence of the Applicant’s knowledge regarding a monumental change for the party he claims to have supported for over 10 years. I also note the document relied upon by the Applicant to impugn the RPD’s analysis does not appear to have been before the RPD.
(4) Interpretation issue
[38] The Applicant submits that regardless of the RPD’s other credibility findings, the alleged misinterpretation of “Turkish”
instead of “Kurdish”
is “an issue distinct from any of the RPD’s other concerns about identity,”
making it “unreasonable for the RPD to have initially accepted the explanation and then us[ing] it as one reason for doubting the applicant’s identity.”
[39] I disagree, and am not persuaded it is unreasonable at one point in an analysis to accept but later to reassess a matter in light of additional considerations. Reasons may evolve in other words without attracting judicial review. That is entirely a matter for the RPD as an expert decision-maker to do, and in respect of which it must be afforded considerable deference. The Applicant provided no evidence from himself or any Turkish speaker confirming the interpreter made a mistake.
(5) Inconsistency regarding the May 2016 incident
[40] The Applicant submits the RPD made an unreasonable finding about inconsistencies with his testimony about the May 2016 incident. He submits:
The difference between police and military that was the inconsistency identified by the RPD, was not as clear as it believed. The applicant mentioned “gendarmeries”, i.e. gendarmes, in his BOC narrative, as having been the persons who detained him. The Member did not inquire, and it is not clear, whether gendarmes are properly classified as military or police in Turkey. It is submitted that such lack of clarity undermined the RPD’s finding that the applicant’s evidence on this point was so inconsistent as to support a finding that the May 2016 detention did not occur.
[41] This, with respect, is a relatively minor issue, somewhat clouded by the Applicant’s use of the word “gendarmeries,”
which evidences no unreasonableness in my respectful view.
VII. Conclusion
[42] For the reasons above this application for judicial review will be dismissed.
VIII. Certified question
[43] Neither party proposes a question for certification and I agree none arises.
Email this Content