Exceeding a visa or residence period does not give rise to an entry ban of the same length for every foreign national. The length of the violation, whether it was detected by the competent authorities, whether the departure was voluntary, compliance with the period granted for departure and the payment of debts are assessed together. Payment of a fine does not, by itself, lift a separate entry ban, if there is one. A correct examination requires that the calculation of lawful stay, the assessment document and the entry ban decision be read separately. [K1, Art. 9; K2]
This article addresses the entry bans imposed because of a violation and the ways to apply against them. The source of the period tables below is the official announcement of June 9, 2020 of the Presidency of Migration Management (Göç İdaresi). The announcement was examined on the official page accessed on October 13, 2026; it is not presented as a new law enacted in 2026 or as a calculation system that applies on its own in every case.
The period of lawful stay must be calculated correctly first
The last validity date on a visa sticker may not mean that one can stay in Türkiye without interruption until that date. The period in which the visa may be used, the number of days of stay permitted and the number of entries are separate fields. Under a visa exemption as well, different periods may apply depending on the person’s citizenship and the relevant regulation. The upper limit of ninety days within one hundred eighty days in Article 11 of Law No. 6458 on Foreigners and International Protection (YUKK) should not be understood to mean that everyone may necessarily stay ninety days. [K1]
A short exit does not automatically erase the previous days of stay. In calculating the stay, previous entries and exits, valid permit periods and any applicable exemption are examined together. If the passport stamp is illegible or differs from the system record, obtaining the official entry-exit record becomes important.
For a residence permit, the type of permit and its end date must be determined. Cancellation of the permit, rejection of an extension application and the expiry of the permit period on its own are not the same legal event. Each may have different consequences for notification, stay and departure. Without drawing this distinction, a violation should not be calculated by looking only at the date on the card.
Is ten days an additional right of lawful stay?
No. Article 54 of YUKK lists, among the grounds for deportation, exceeding the visa or visa exemption period by more than ten days and exceeding the residence period by more than ten days without an acceptable justification. This threshold does not create an additional ten-day stay permit that is free of penalty and unconditional for everyone. The end of lawful stay and the satisfaction of the conditions of a specific ground for deportation are different matters. [K1, Art. 54/1-e and g]
There may also be other grounds, such as cancellation of the visa, cancellation of the residence permit or unauthorized work. For this reason, the explanation that “ten days have not yet passed” is not, on its own, a sufficient defense against all administrative acts.
Does a residence application or an appointment prevent a violation?
Article 24 of YUKK regulates that an application to extend a residence permit is made before the end of the permit and starting from sixty days before the period expires. The document issued upon a properly made extension application produces certain legal consequences until a decision is given. However, merely booking an appointment online cannot in every case be treated as the same as a valid application document. [K1]
The type of application, whether it was completed on time, the content of the application document and the notification of the rejection decision must be seen. Where a work permit affects residence, the validity of the permit and the reason it ended are also examined separately. It is not correct to give a definite assurance of stay on the basis of a screenshot that is incomplete or filled in with wrong information.
Under what conditions may an entry ban not be imposed?
Article 9/4 of YUKK provides for the assessment, within the limits set by the Ministry, of a person whose visa or residence period has ended, who applies for departure before this is detected by the competent authorities and who pays the administrative fines. Article 9/5 likewise provides that an entry ban may not be imposed on those invited to leave Türkiye who depart within the period. The possibility in the law does not mean that everyone who pays will be free of every obstacle to entry. [K1]
The Presidency’s 2020 announcement states that no entry ban is applied in two situations in which the violation lasted less than three months:
- Before the violation is detected by the competent authorities, the person voluntarily comes to the border gate, departs and pays the fines.
- A person against whom a deportation decision has been issued and who has been given a period for departure comes to the border gate within that period, departs and pays the fines. [K2]
The person in the second group may already have been detected; the conditions of the first group should therefore not be carried over unchanged to the second. In both groups, the length of the violation, the payment and the manner of departure matter together. In addition, the existence of a different security record, another entry ban or a bar to admission is assessed separately.
Table of periods for voluntary departure and payment
This table in the official announcement is for foreign nationals whose violation lasted three months or longer, who come to the border gate to depart voluntarily before being detected by the competent authorities and who pay the fines. It is misleading to look only at the number of months of the violation with these conditions removed. [K2]
| Period of violation in the official announcement | Entry ban stated in the announcement |
|---|---|
| 3 months to 6 months | 1 month |
| 6 months to 1 year | 3 months |
| 1 year to 2 years | 1 year |
| 2 years to 3 years | 2 years |
| More than 3 years | 5 years |
The table preserves the range wording of the source. On boundary days such as six months, one year, two years and exactly three years, the way the ranges are inclusive should not be settled from this summary announcement alone. The official day count, the date of departure and the decision actually issued must be seen. This especially prevents “exactly three years” and “more than three years” from being assumed to be the same.
For example, a person with a four-month violation who departs voluntarily before being detected and makes the payment is not assessed under the same table as a person with the same length of violation who is detected and put into the deportation process. The example is meant to explain the difference between the conditions; it is not the outcome of an individual file.
Table of periods for other departure and violation situations
The official announcement groups certain situations separately. Non-payment is one of them; however, this group does not consist only of persons who do not pay. That a person with a violation of three months or longer who was invited to leave by a deportation decision has made the payment does not, on its own, change this distinction either. [K2]
The principal situations within the scope of this group are as follows:
- A person who comes to depart voluntarily before being detected does not pay the fines.
- A person with a violation of less than three months does not depart within the period of the invitation to leave or does not pay the fines.
- The circumstances stated in the announcement with regard to a person with a violation of three months or longer who was invited to leave by a deportation decision.
- No departure within the period granted after the rejection of a residence or work permit application or the cancellation of a permit.
- A person who has used the right to stay ninety days within one hundred eighty days, and who was admitted on the condition of applying for residence within ten days, does not make that application.
- The circumstances stated in the announcement concerning those whose administrative detention was ended and who were made subject to an alternative obligation, and those deported under the escort of officials. [K2]
| Period of violation in the official announcement | Entry ban stated in the announcement |
|---|---|
| Up to 3 months | 3 months |
| 3 months to 6 months | 6 months |
| 6 months to 1 year | 1 year |
| 1 year to 2 years | 2 years |
| More than 2 years | 5 years |
Here too, boundary days should not be calculated automatically from the summary ranges of the source. The administrative decision determines which paragraph and which facts it relies on. If the period in the announcement differs from the period in the decision the person was notified of, the difference should be examined together with its reasoning; it cannot be said that the decision is automatically null and void by looking at the table.
Why are the fine, fees and the entry ban examined separately?
The amount commonly called a “visa violation penalty” may include different legal items depending on the file. An administrative fine, a fee or another public receivable should not be lumped together under the same name. In the assessment document, the type of receivable, the provision it relies on, the period, the person’s details and the payment authority must be read.
Nationality, valid permits, the beginning and end of the violation, previous assessments and the financial rules of the relevant year may affect the calculation. It would not be correct to publish a fixed 2026 amount valid for everyone without seeing this information. The basic amounts of money written in the law may also differ from the amount currently payable because of the revaluation provisions. [K3, Art. 17; K1, Art. 102]
When payment is made, the foreign identity or passport number on the receipt should be checked. It should be clear which debt was paid; if the same person has a record tied to another passport number, a matching problem should be investigated. The bank receipt (dekont) is evidence of payment; it does not take the place of a decision stating that the entry ban imposed has been lifted.
Can a debt be an obstacle even after the entry ban period has ended?
Yes. The official announcement states that, unless certain fines and public receivables are paid, an obstacle to entering the country may remain even if the entry ban period has ended. The admission and visa requirements in Articles 7 and 15 of YUKK are assessed separately in this respect. [K1; K2]
For this reason, merely waiting for the end date on the calendar may not be enough for the person. Whether there is an active entry ban, a debt, a prior permission or another restriction should be checked separately. It should also not be said in advance that every debt produces the same result; the relationship between the record and the underlying public receivable must be established.
How is an erroneous day count or assessment examined?
The first step is to compare the person’s own chronology with the period the administration used as its basis. A previous exit not being entered into the system, a permit period not being taken into account, a different passport being used or a rejection notification being tied to the wrong date may affect the outcome. These are treated not as grounds for automatic cancellation but as possibilities to be investigated with documents.
| Problem | Priority document | Question to examine |
|---|---|---|
| The violation was started too early | Visa, permit and entry records | On which day did the lawful stay end? |
| The exit does not appear | Border crossing record, passport and transport documents | Has the actual exit been reflected in the official record? |
| The application period was counted as a violation | Application document and result notification | For what period and with what effect on stay did the document operate? |
| The payment was not recorded | Assessment and receipt | Do the person, the type of debt and the period match? |
| The wrong period table | Record of findings (tespit tutanağı), invitation to leave and exit record | Do the conditions for voluntary departure really exist? |
If a hospital stay, a serious condition that prevented travel or a document problem caused by the administration is raised, it should be explained on which days the obstacle continued and how it affected the departure. Instead of merely saying “I had an excuse,” a connection should be established among the report, the application and the correspondence. The effect of an excuse on a specific ground for deportation does not mean that it automatically removes all financial obligations.
Where is an application made against which act?
Administrative application and action against the entry ban
Lifting or amending the entry ban act may be requested; an annulment action may also be considered. To the extent there is no special provision, the general time limit for filing an action is sixty days. Notification and the date of learning of the act are determined from the file. A timely administrative application that meets the conditions of Article 11 of the Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577 (İYUK) may affect the remaining time limit for filing an action; after thirty days of silence, the days that elapsed before the application are taken into account when the period begins to run again. [K4, Arts. 7 and 11]
A petition requesting information should not be treated as the same as a request to lift the act. The competent court is also determined according to the authority that issued the act and the relevant rules of jurisdiction. No general rule can be established that all entry ban actions are filed in the same city. Filing an action, as a rule, does not stop the act unless there is a separate decision on a stay of execution. [K4, Arts. 27 and 32]
For the examination of records and codes, see our guide to restriction codes; for a record of unlawful entry or exit, see our article on the Ç-113 restriction code.
Is the route against the fine always the same?
For an administrative fine, Article 27 of the Misdemeanors Law provides, in general, for an application to the criminal judgeship of peace (sulh ceza hâkimliği) within fifteen days of notification or pronouncement (tefhim). However, Article 27/8, which concerns the situation where a decision falling within the jurisdiction of administrative courts also exists against the same person within the same act, and the special provisions must be examined separately. For this reason, “it must be the criminal judgeship of peace” should not be said without seeing each assessment. [K3]
The route for a dispute over a fee or a different public receivable is likewise not automatically the same as the route for an administrative fine. The legal nature of the document must be determined. Under the regulation in the law, payment of a fine under the Misdemeanors Law does not, by itself, remove the right to apply; the time limit for applying should still be protected. [K3, Art. 17]
If a deportation decision has also been issued
An application may be made to the administrative court within seven days of notification of a deportation decision. This special period is not the same as the one for applications against a fine or an entry ban. The enforcement safeguard in Article 53/3 of YUKK and the requirement to notify the administration of the court application are also taken into account. If there is administrative detention, that decision is also subject to a separate legal examination. [K1]
Having filed an action against a residence rejection does not automatically make a deportation decision notified later the subject of that action. In the application schedule, there should be a separate date, period, authority and delivery record for each decision.
For the general framework of a deportation decision, see Deportation Decision; for notification and the time limit for filing an action, see our article on objection to a deportation decision and the seven-day time limit.
Can re-entry be possible before the period ends?
Article 9/6 of YUKK provides for lifting the entry ban or granting permission to enter for a certain period while the ban is maintained. Applications concerning work, education, treatment or family life are assessed on the basis of the real purpose and the documents. This possibility does not mean that every application will be accepted or that obtaining a visa will remove all records. [K1]
The application should explain why early entry is needed, which act the ban relies on and the status of the other obligations. If a family tie is relied on, the need for care and the actual consequences of the separation should be shown. A visa application made from abroad does not take the place of a pending annulment action or of an action that must be filed within the period.
When an annulment or lifting decision is obtained, the scope of the decision and its application to the records should be followed up. Under Article 28 of the Administrative Procedure Law, the requirements of a court decision are fulfilled without delay; the maximum thirty-day period in the law, running from notification to the administration, is taken into account. The existence of another record or the continuation of a visa requirement is examined separately. [K4]
Conclusion
The correct solution for a visa and residence violation is not found merely by knowing the length of the violation. The legal basis of the stay, the date of detection, the manner of departure, the payment and the other records must be assessed together. The conditions of the official tables must be preserved; it should be kept clear that payment, the entry ban and the deportation decision produce different legal consequences from one another.
A well-prepared file shows which act is erroneous and why, and which document shows it. This approach ensures both that the route of application is correctly determined and that the conditions for entering the country after the period has ended or after a decision has been obtained are realistically assessed.
For litigation and application processes concerning the law on foreigners, you can also review our service page Law on Foreigners, Deportation and International Protection.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is there definitely no entry ban for a visa violation of less than three months?
This result is not unconditional. The conditions of voluntary departure or departure within the period of the invitation to leave in the official announcement and the payment condition are examined together. There may also be another obstacle to entry.
Does the entry ban lift automatically if I pay the fine?
No. Payment concerns the performance of the debt. The period of a separate entry ban, or a decision lifting it, is assessed separately.
Can I stay lawfully for ten more days after my visa ends?
The ten-day threshold in Article 54 of YUKK is not a general right of additional stay. The financial and administrative consequences of the violation are examined separately.
Does leaving for one day and coming back renew the ninety days?
A short exit does not automatically reset previous stays. The applicable visa or exemption conditions and the one-hundred-eighty-day period are assessed together.
If I have a residence appointment, does no violation arise?
An appointment is not the same as a properly made application and an application document. The type of application, its timing, its completion and the scope of the document must be examined.
Is the entry ban for a four-month violation always one month?
No. The one-month period depends on the specific conditions of voluntary departure and payment in the official announcement. In the other group, the same length of violation may produce a different result.
Can an exactly three-year violation be calculated with certainty from the table?
The ranges are given in the source in summary wording. A definite result should not be drawn on the exact boundary days without seeing the day count and the administrative decision.
Might I be refused entry even though the entry ban has ended?
Yes. Unpaid relevant public receivables, other restrictions, a prior permission or other admission requirements may separately constitute an obstacle.
Is every fine objected to before the criminal judgeship of peace?
In addition to the general route and the fifteen-day period, the special provisions and Article 27/8 of the Misdemeanors Law should be examined. A fee or another public receivable is not counted as the same act.
Does an application to the administration start a new sixty days?
An application under the conditions of Article 11 of the Administrative Procedure Law has an effect on the remaining period. The days that passed before the application are not erased; a general assumption of a new sixty days is wrong.
Are the codes from Ç-101 to Ç-105 enough on their own to give information?
These code names are connected with records in practice. The legal result should be verified through the specific entry ban decision, the length of the violation and its conditions, rather than through a list of codes.
Does marriage or an annotated visa ensure a return?
No. The purpose of the application and its documents are assessed; the entry ban, the permit decision and the other admission requirements matter separately.
Sources and legal bases
K1 — Law No. 6458 on Foreigners and International Protection; Articles 7, 9-11, 15, 24, 27, 53-57 and 102.
K3 — Misdemeanors Law No. 5326; Articles 17 and 27.
K4 — Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577; Articles 7-8, 11, 27-28 and 32.