Background
Ozan Mert, a 36-year-old citizen of Türkiye, is an ethnic Turk and an Alevi by religion. He left Türkiye in 2016, saying he feared persecution because of his political opinion and his support for the Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi (CHP), or Republican People’s Party. He first travelled to the United States, where he claimed asylum in 2018. After encouragement from his sister, he entered Canada on December 27, 2022, and sought refugee protection.
Mert was found ineligible for a hearing before the Refugee Protection Division under section 101(1)(c.1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. He then applied for a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA). A PRRA officer held a hearing on June 12, 2025, and rejected the application on June 17, 2025. The officer concluded that Mert would not face persecution, danger of torture, risk to life, or risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment if returned to Türkiye, principally because of what the officer described as an “overwhelming number of credibility issues.”
The officer accepted that Mert was Alevi and a CHP member, and acknowledged that citizens could face persecution if they protested against the ruling government. Nevertheless, the officer identified inconsistencies concerning how Mert learned of protests, his evidence about the 2013 Gezi Park protests, his account of a 2015 women’s rights protest, and alleged searches of his parents’ home in 2021 and 2022. Mert sought judicial review in the Federal Court, alleging procedural unfairness and unreasonableness.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Blackhawk dismissed the application. The Court applied correctness, or a standard akin to correctness, to the procedural-fairness issue, considering all the circumstances to determine the content of the duty owed. The central questions were whether Mert knew the case he had to meet and had a full and fair opportunity to make submissions. The parties agreed that reasonableness under Vavilov governed review of the merits.
On procedural fairness, the Court found no breach arising from Mert’s appearance without counsel. The record showed that he had retained counsel before the hearing, but counsel was unavailable on the scheduled date. The decision stated that Mert chose to appear unrepresented, and there was no record that either he or his counsel sought an adjournment. The Court held that proceeding with a hearing in counsel’s absence is not, by itself, a breach of procedural fairness. It also noted that the officer explained the process through an interpreter and told Mert that he could seek clarification or raise objections. While courts and tribunals must show some flexibility toward self-represented participants, Mert’s choice carried an obligation to seek clarification and educate himself about the process.
The translation complaint also failed for want of an adequate evidentiary basis. Mert supplied neither a transcript nor a recording of the remote Microsoft Teams hearing. Apart from assertions in his affidavit, there was no evidence permitting the Court to assess the alleged interpretation deficiencies. The officer had recorded that Mert and the interpreter reported no difficulty understanding one another, that communication appeared fluid apart from brief clarifications, and that Mert raised no objections.
On reasonableness, the Court held that much of Mert’s argument invited impermissible reweighing of the evidence. The officer had considered the narrative, testimony, medical report, Minutes of Arrest, and Mert’s sister’s statutory declaration. The Court accepted that one finding about the Minutes of Arrest was unsupported: the officer’s statement that it strained plausibility that an officer would have typed and printed the document during the alleged November 21, 2021 search. That error did not undermine the result because the officer had independently found the document inconsistent with Mert’s narrative and testimony, which referred to only one visit by authorities in 2021. Mert had not addressed that separate inconsistency underlying the findings that the document was “likely not genuine” and deserved “little weight.”
The Court also noted the absence of evidence supporting the alleged 2022 search, Mert’s failure to preserve the “thousands” of Twitter messages he described, and the unclear basis for his sister’s knowledge of events in Türkiye when her declaration said she had lived in Canada since 2019. The remaining credibility findings were cumulative and entitled to considerable deference. It was also open to the officer to find Mert’s answers about his political activities and beliefs vague, lacking conviction, and based on commonly known information. No question was certified.
Key Takeaways
- Appearing without counsel did not itself establish procedural unfairness where Mert chose to proceed, no adjournment was requested, and the officer explained the process and invited clarification.
- Assertions of translation problems were insufficient without a transcript, recording, or other evidence allowing the Court to evaluate them.
- One unsupported observation about the Minutes of Arrest did not make the PRRA decision unreasonable because independent inconsistencies supported the officer’s adverse authenticity and weight findings.
- The Court would not reweigh the evidence or displace cumulative credibility findings merely because another assessment was possible.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the distinct inquiries on judicial review of a PRRA refusal: procedural fairness is assessed for correctness in light of the circumstances, while the merits receive deferential reasonableness review. It also shows that identifying a discrete unsupported finding is not enough if the applicant does not confront the independent and cumulative grounds sustaining the decision.
For unrepresented PRRA applicants, the reasons underscore the practical importance of requesting an adjournment when counsel is unavailable, raising interpretation difficulties during the hearing, and preserving a record capable of supporting later allegations. The Court’s conclusions were tied to this record; they do not eliminate the flexibility owed to self-represented participants or excuse decision-makers from fairly conducting PRRA hearings.