PRRA Refusal Upheld: Why Credibility Findings Are the Hardest to Overturn

Case: Mert v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1332 — judicial review dismissed

What happened

The applicant, a 36-year-old Turkish citizen of Alevi faith and a supporter of the CHP (the Republican People’s Party), fled Türkiye in 2016 fearing persecution, claimed asylum in the United States in 2018, and entered Canada on December 27, 2022. His refugee claim was found ineligible for hearing, so he applied for a pre-removal risk assessment (PRRA).

The PRRA was rejected on June 17, 2025, after a hearing on June 12, 2025. The officer found the applicant was not credible, pointing to numerous inconsistencies between his written narrative, his testimony, and his evidence:

• His account of the 2013 Gezi Park protests was inconsistent, including whether he sought medical attention at a hospital or on site.
• His account of a 2015 women’s rights protest was inconsistent, including whether he attended with others and whether he sought medical attention afterwards.
• The evidence of searches of his parents’ home in 2021 and 2022 did not line up with his narrative and testimony.

The officer accepted that he is of the Alevi faith and a CHP member, and acknowledged citizens could face persecution for protesting against the ruling government — but found the inconsistencies fatal to his credibility.

What the Court decided

The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review, for reasons that matter to anyone facing a credibility-based refusal:

1. No procedural fairness breach. The applicant had retained counsel, but counsel was unavailable on the hearing date. He chose to proceed unrepresented, and neither he nor his counsel sought an adjournment. Proceeding without counsel is not itself a fairness breach.
2. Translation complaints need proof. He alleged translation errors at the hearing, but produced no transcript or recording. The decision recorded that both he and the interpreter said they had no difficulties understanding each other, and he raised no objections during the hearing. Bare assertions in an affidavit afterwards were not enough.
3. The Court will not reweigh the evidence. Asking the Court to reach a different conclusion from the same evidence is not judicial review. The officer assessed the whole record, including the medical report, the Minutes of Arrest, and his sister’s statutory declaration.
4. Corroborating documents were discounted for reasons. The Minutes of Arrest were inconsistent with his own narrative, which mentioned only one visit from the authorities in 2021. His sister’s declaration was hearsay on the 2021–2022 incidents — she had lived in Canada since 2019.
5. Credibility findings get heavy deference. Findings of fact and credibility sit at the heart of a decision-maker’s expertise and are overturned only if perverse, capricious, or made without regard to the evidence.

What this means for you

Credibility is the hardest ground to overturn on judicial review. This case shows why:

• Consistency is everything. Your narrative, your testimony, and your documents must tell the same story on the details — dates, places, who was there, what happened next. Inconsistencies accumulate, and officers weigh them together.
• Never proceed unrepresented by default. If your counsel is unavailable, ask for an adjournment. Going ahead alone means you carry the burden of understanding the process and raising problems as they happen.
• Raise translation problems on the record, in the moment. If you do not understand the interpreter, say so during the hearing and make sure it is noted. A complaint raised only afterwards, with no transcript or recording, has almost nothing to stand on.
• Corroboration must actually corroborate. A document that contradicts your own account, or a declaration from someone who could not have witnessed the events, can hurt more than help.

How VG Immigration Services can help

If your PRRA or refugee claim was refused on credibility grounds, or you are preparing for a PRRA hearing and want your evidence tested before an officer sees it, book a consultation at vgis.ca or message us on WhatsApp at 416-578-9269.

This post summarizes a Federal Court decision for general information. It is not legal advice for a specific case, and every file turns on its own facts and evidence.