The Federal Court dismissed Adnan Aydemir’s challenge to a negative PRRA Risk Assessment, finding the officer reasonably concluded that the evidence did not establish a personalized risk of persecution in Turkey. Chief Justice Diner also found that the officer made no credibility finding requiring an oral hearing.
Federal Court dismisses PRRA judicial review
In Aydemir v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1188, Chief Justice Diner dismissed an application for judicial review of a June 25, 2024 negative Pre-Removal Risk Assessment decision by a senior immigration officer.
Aydemir, a Turkish citizen of Kurdish identity, arrived in Canada in September 2022. The Court noted that he was ineligible to make a refugee protection claim because of a prior Turkish conviction for an offence involving a firearm and his designation under paragraph 36(1)(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
After a removal order was issued, he applied for a PRRA on October 20, 2023. His removal had been scheduled for September 3, 2024, but was stayed pending the judicial review proceeding.
Officer found no personalized risk linked to HDP support
The officer considered Aydemir’s Kurdish identity, his claimed support for the Peoples’ Democratic Party, known as the HDP, and his accounts of detention and police violence while distributing brochures and attending political rallies.
Although the officer accepted that Aydemir may have been mistreated because of his HDP involvement, the decision found limited corroborating evidence about the depth and extent of that involvement. The officer also noted that Aydemir received a Turkish passport in May 2021 and departed Turkey through Istanbul Airport exit procedures.
The officer recognized that some Kurdish people with particular profiles may face persecution in Turkey, and that the Kurdish community has historically faced discrimination. However, the officer concluded that being Kurdish or a simple HDP supporter, without further evidence linking the applicant personally to a future risk, was insufficient to establish protection under sections 96 and 97 of the IRPA.
Applicant alleged unreasonable assessment and hearing error
Aydemir argued that the officer unreasonably assessed the evidence, failed to consider the consequences of his return to Turkey, assigned too little weight to the evidence, and used contradictory reasoning.
He also submitted that the officer made veiled credibility findings. On that basis, he argued that he was entitled to an oral PRRA hearing under section 167 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations.
Court found the officer assessed sufficiency, not credibility
The Court applied the presumptive reasonableness standard to the PRRA decision. Chief Justice Diner emphasized that a reviewing court does not reweigh the evidence or substitute its own assessment for that of the decision maker; the party challenging the decision must identify a sufficiently central flaw that undermines confidence in the result.
The Court found the officer’s reasoning transparent and intelligible. The officer had considered the incidents described by Aydemir but found the evidence vague, lacking in specificity, and insufficient to show that Turkish authorities had specifically targeted him. The Court noted there was no evidence that he was an HDP member and no indication that he intended to take part in future political activities.
On the oral-hearing issue, the Court observed that the applicable standard of review for the availability of a hearing under section 167(a) of the regulations remains unsettled. It did not need to decide that issue conclusively because it found that the officer had not made credibility findings.
Instead, the officer’s conclusions rested on insufficient evidence. The officer engaged with Aydemir’s account and expressly stated that no credibility concerns arose, while finding that the letters from interested third parties and other evidence did not establish his alleged direct HDP involvement or a risk on return.
Outcome and practice significance
The Federal Court held that Aydemir had not shown that the negative PRRA decision was unreasonable or that an oral hearing was required. The application for judicial review was dismissed, and no question was certified.
The decision turns on the evidence in this PRRA record. It illustrates the Court’s distinction between an officer finding an applicant not credible and an officer accepting the account but finding the evidence insufficient to establish a personalized risk.
Source: Federal Court Decisions