Canada’s refugee board recognizes CHP membership as grounds for asylum in two July rulings, signaling shift in risk assessment for Turkish opposition supporters.
Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) has accepted two asylum claims tied to membership and support for Turkey’s main opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP), finding a credible risk of persecution on the basis of political opinion. The decisions—issued on July 17 and July 21 by Refugee Protection Division (RPD) members Tyler Hammond and Maria (Mary) Lipton.
In the first case, a Turkish family identified by initials E.Y., N.K.Y. and A.K.Y. was granted protection on July 17. The panel accepted evidence that E.Y. took part in 2013 anti-government protests, that E.Y. and N.K.Y. were detained in 2023 while serving as election observers, and that the family continued political engagement in Canada, including a demonstration protesting the jailing of Istanbul Mayor Ekrem İmamoğlu. Support letters, photographs from CHP events and social-media activity were deemed credible and probative of ongoing political activity and risk.
A second ruling on July 21 accepted the claim of a Turkish national identified as M.A.T., citing the combined impact of his long-standing CHP membership, Kurdish identity and Alevi background. According to the decision, M.A.T. participated in party campaigns and protests, was detained while observing elections in 2019 and again after attending Nevruz celebrations in March 2023, lost his job, and was physically attacked while distributing CHP brochures—facts the panel found consistent with country-condition reporting.
Both rulings frame Turkey’s expansive post-2016 use of counterterrorism laws as having eroded the rule of law and disproportionately exposed opposition supporters—particularly CHP activists—to arbitrary detention and mistreatment. The July 21 decision also referenced external reporting that political affiliations visible through the e-Devlet (e-state) system can trigger workplace discrimination, reinforcing the risk for known CHP members. While the specific IRB decisions are not publicly posted, the members who issued them are listed on the RPD’s roster.
The IRB’s move is notable because CHP-based claims have historically faced skepticism on the ground that supporters of Turkey’s main opposition were not routinely targeted nationwide. In Canadian refugee law, individual RPD rulings do not create binding precedent; however, clusters of similar decisions can influence future case analysis, and the IRB maintains separate mechanisms for “persuasive decisions” and “jurisprudential guides” to promote consistency. These July rulings are not labeled as such, but they still mark a meaningful signal in the Board’s risk assessment of Turkish opposition claimants.
The backdrop inside Turkey has grown more fraught for the CHP since its sweeping victory in the March 2024 local elections and the arrest of Istanbul’s mayor. İmamoğlu—now the CHP’s declared 2028 presidential candidate—was detained on March 19 and jailed on March 23 on corruption-related charges, prompting the largest nationwide protests in years; waves of further detentions followed through the spring and summer. International coverage and wire reports have documented the crackdown and ensuing street protests.
The CHP has characterized the campaign against its officials as a “judicial coup.” In an October report titled “Judiciary Against the Ballot Box: The Anatomy of a Coup,” the party asserted that 16 CHP mayors remain in jail and 13 municipalities have been placed under government-appointed trustees; independent outlets subsequently repeated those figures in coverage of the report. Turkish authorities deny political motives and maintain that the judiciary acts independently.
The Canadian context is complex. Ottawa has been tightening elements of the asylum system in 2024–25—even exploring legislation that would curtail some refugee hearings—yet the IRB remains an independent tribunal tasked with case-by-case determinations grounded in evidence and country conditions. That independence helps explain how, despite policy headwinds, panels can and do recognize protection needs when the record supports a well-founded fear of persecution.
Neither Turkey’s government nor Canada’s federal authorities have formally commented on these two specific IRB rulings. The cases nevertheless underscore a developing trend: documented CHP activity—especially when combined with other risk factors such as Kurdish or Alevi identity, prior detentions, or visibility through official systems—can now carry significant weight in Canadian refugee adjudication. Whether the IRB’s leadership will later identify a persuasive decision or a jurisprudential guide on Turkey/CHP claims remains to be seen, but the July outcomes will likely inform counsel and decision-makers in similar files
