A Federal Court judge has ordered a new refugee appeal for a Turkish asylum seeker after ruling the Refugee Appeal Division improperly relied on documents it had already declared inadmissible to question his credibility.

In Abis v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 950, Justice Shirzad Ahmed set aside the Refugee Appeal Division's decision and ordered the matter returned to a differently constituted panel for a fresh hearing.

The claimant, 28-year-old Turkish citizen Hebun Abis, sought refugee protection in Canada after alleging he was persecuted because of his Kurdish ethnicity and his support for the pro-Kurdish Peoples' Democratic Party (HDP). He claimed he had been arrested twice by Turkish authorities, assaulted by ultranationalists, harassed by police and continued his pro-Kurdish political activism after arriving in Canada.

Both the Refugee Protection Division and the Refugee Appeal Division rejected his claim, finding he was not a credible witness.

The appeal tribunal identified numerous inconsistencies between Abis's written refugee claim and his oral testimony regarding his alleged involvement with the HDP, his encounters with Turkish police and his interactions with ultranationalists. It also found he failed to provide corroborating evidence that should have been available, including proof of his HDP membership and political activities.

As part of his appeal, Abis attempted to submit additional documents, including records purporting to confirm his HDP membership and a letter from an HDP district president stating he had been an active party member before leaving Turkey.

The Refugee Appeal Division refused to admit those documents, finding they did not meet the legal test for fresh evidence under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

However, the tribunal then examined those same documents, identified additional inconsistencies and relied on them to reinforce its conclusion that Abis lacked credibility.

Justice Ahmed ruled that the tribunal could not have it both ways. Once the documents had been ruled inadmissible, they could not then be used to bolster an adverse credibility finding against the claimant.

The Federal Court set aside the decision and ordered a new hearing before a different Refugee Appeal Division panel.

The ruling does not establish that Abis is entitled to refugee protection or that his allegations are true. Instead, it means he will receive another hearing because the appeal tribunal improperly relied on documents it had already excluded from the evidence.

If an appellant's own evidence appears to expose inconsistencies, should decision-makers pretend they never saw them?

Support Rebel News

Unlike almost all of our mainstream media competitors, Rebel News doesn’t receive any government funding. We rely on our generous audience to help keep us reporting.

Optional email code

Canadian Dollars U.S. Dollars Euros Australian Dollars British Pounds

Amount

$25

$50

$75

$100

$250

$500

$1,000

$2,500

Other

$

---

Donation frequency

One-time

Monthly

Annual

DONATE