Restriction Code Explained: Entry Ban to Türkiye and How the Code Is Lifted

A restriction code (tahdit kodu) is an administrative record used in immigration and border procedures concerning a foreign national. However, the name of the code alone does not explain why the person was not admitted into Türkiye, how long the restriction lasts or which court to apply to. First, the act on which the code rests, the authority that issued it, its reasons and its date of notification must be identified. An action against an entry ban, an action against a deportation decision and an objection to administrative detention are different legal routes.

A foreign national may be subject to an entry ban, a deportation decision and administrative detention at the same time. Lifting one of these does not automatically eliminate the others. Effective review therefore requires more than finding a code: the decisions in force concerning the person must be read together.

What legal consequences can a restriction record have?

The record, the entry ban and the prior-permission requirement must be kept apart

Article 9 of Law No. 6458 on Foreigners and International Protection (YUKK) regulates the entry ban to Türkiye and the making of admission subject to prior permission. An entry ban is a measure that prevents admission for a set period, whereas prior permission is a mechanism under which admission must be separately assessed. Nor should an informative record be equated with an administrative act that directly produces legal consequences. [K1]

The file may show a code such as G-87, N-82 or Ç-113. The short explanations of these codes given on different websites do not prove the reason for the act in the person’s file or its duration. The date on which the record was created, the authority whose assessment it reflects and the personal facts relied upon must be investigated. Public secondary lists cannot be used as a fixed table of durations for each code. The prior-permission mechanism under the N-82 and N-99 codes is discussed in the article N-82 and N-99 Restriction Codes: Prior Permission and Visas with Explanatory Notes.

The deportation decision and administrative detention are separate acts

A deportation decision aims at removing the foreign national from Türkiye. Administrative detention is a measure restricting the person’s liberty, whose conditions and judicial review are regulated separately. An entry ban concerns later admission to the country. Even where they arise from a common event, the request and the time limit for each are determined separately. [K1, Art. 9, 53 and 57]

For the general framework of deportation, see our article Deportation Decision.

How is a restriction code found out and which documents are requested?

The first aim is not merely to learn the code number but to build a file that can be defended. Decision and record information may be requested from the relevant authority either by the person themselves or by a representative duly authorized by them. Identity and power of representation must be verified. Do not proceed on the assumption that there is a single online inquiry showing all restriction records in full. A similar situation is discussed in the article Refusal of Entry at the Airport: INAD Passenger Decisions and Routes for Application.

The request should clearly state the foreign national’s identity details, the foreign identification number if any, old and new passport numbers, the known date of the act and how the person learned of it. It is useful to request the following documents separately:

• The date, number, duration and reasons of the entry ban or prior-permission act.
• The assessment on which the restriction record rests and the identity match linked to the person.
• The document certifying notification of the act, and any paper handed over at the border gate, if one exists.
• Separate deportation, residence permit cancellation or administrative detention decisions.
• Monetary fines, public receivables or travel expenses linked to the act, and the related payment records.

Not receiving the reasons or the complete file is not a sound basis for postponing the application indefinitely. Especially where a deportation decision exists, the seven-day action period must be protected separately while the document request is pending. With the documents at hand the act can be identified, and the court may be asked to obtain the missing file. [K1, Art. 53; K2, Art. 3 and 20]

How long can an entry ban to Türkiye last?

Under Article 9(3) of YUKK, an entry ban may last up to five years. Where there is a serious threat in terms of public order or public security, this period may be extended by up to a further ten years. These upper limits do not mean that every file will directly result in fifteen years. The ground for the extension, the underlying facts, the scope of the decision and proportionality are assessed separately. [K1]

For a person who has committed a visa or residence violation, the person’s own voluntary attempt to leave, whether the violation was detected by the competent authorities, the duration of the violation and payment of the monetary fine are important. The law allows, under certain conditions, that no entry ban decision be taken; it does not provide that every payment automatically removes the restriction. The statement of the Presidency of Migration Management (Göç İdaresi) dated June 9, 2020 also distinguishes between different situations of violation of lawful stay. That dated statement cannot replace the current decision in the file. [K1, Art. 9(4)-(5); K3]

For example, if a person who has only paid a financial obligation arising from a visa violation is also subject to a separate security-based measure, the payment does not itself remove the security assessment. Likewise, the expiry of one ban does not show that another ban, a prior-permission requirement or residence problems have ended. On the position of old conditional-entry records, see V84 Conditional Entry and Its Removal.

For the time calculation of entry bans arising from visa and residence violations, see Entry Ban to Türkiye for Visa and Residence Violations. Specific reviews of particular codes are in the articles on G-87 and Ç-113.

What routes exist for lifting a restriction code?

The purpose of the administrative application must be stated clearly

The removal or withdrawal of the act, its amendment, or the correction of an erroneous record may be requested. Rather than asking only for the code to be deleted, the petition should identify the legal act that produces consequences and the grounds for removal. Name similarity, an incorrect passport match, a fact that has ceased to exist, an erroneous calculation of the period or a new court judgment each call for a different review.

An application under Article 11 of Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577 (İYUK), if made within the action period and addressed to the relevant authority, suspends the action period that has begun to run. If no reply is given within thirty days, the request is deemed rejected, and upon rejection the remaining period resumes running. Time elapsed before the application is counted, and no new sixty-day period is considered to arise. Not every information request or petition submitted through the Presidency’s Communication Center (CİMER) has this character. This general mechanism should not be used as a safe waiting method for the special seven-day action period against a deportation decision. [K2, Art. 11; K1, Art. 53]

In an annulment action, the correct act and authority must be identified

For administrative acts with no special time limit, the general time limit for filing an annulment action is sixty days. The starting point is assessed by reference to the written notice and the conditions under which the person learned of the concrete file. Asserting non-notification does not give an unlimited right to wait where the act is already known. Protective action should be taken on the earliest possible start date, and any objection to the time limit should be documented in order to reduce the risk of losing rights. [K2, Art. 7-8]

The competent court is determined by reference to the authority that established the act and the general jurisdiction rule in Article 32 of the Administrative Procedure Law. It cannot be assumed that every restriction action is brought in the same province merely because a central record system is used. The decision document, the reply to the application and the case file should be read together.

Is the subject of the action merely a data correction, the annulment of the entry ban, or a separate related rejection act? This distinction determines the relief sought. The difference between an element of a merely preparatory or informational nature and a definitive act requiring implementation is also important for whether the action can be examined. [K2, Art. 14]

Stay of execution is assessed separately

Filing an action against a restriction or entry ban decision does not, as a rule, automatically stop its implementation. Under Article 27 of the Administrative Procedure Law, a request for a stay of execution must set out together a manifest unlawfulness and the conditions of damage that is difficult or impossible to remedy. Consequences such as family separation, ongoing treatment or loss of education should be substantiated with documents rather than asserted only in the abstract. [K2]

The statutory enforcement safeguard in a deportation action cannot automatically be carried over to this action. Where the same person also has a deportation decision, the action concerning that decision is considered separately.

Which evidence supports which claim?

This table is not a guarantee of outcome. The aim is to identify the legal question each document answers. More important than adding many papers to the file is showing which document makes the fact relied on by the administration disputed, and why.

How are criminal proceedings, family ties and security grounds assessed together?

A criminal investigation and a migration decision are different assessments. Depending on the nature and reasoning of the charge, an acquittal can be a strong document for the administrative act; however, it cannot be said that the code is deleted automatically in every case. It is examined whether the administration repeated the same accusation, relied on a new fact, and built a reasoning specific to the person. The effect of the outcome of the criminal file is examined in detail in the article Do Acquittal and Non-Prosecution Lift a Restriction Code?.

Conversely, the presence of a security label in an administrative file should not be accepted as sufficient to justify every restriction on a person. The legal basis of the measure, its concrete reason, its duration and its connection to the person’s situation are subject to judicial review. Family ties and a child’s need for care must be considered together with the nature of the security claim, and on an individual basis.

Deletion of an INTERPOL record does not, in a single step, remove all judicial and administrative records in Türkiye. The national act on which the deleted international record was based must be identified; the decision and practice of the national authority must be followed separately. This specific subject should be read together with the firm’s existing article Correcting National Records After an INTERPOL Record Is Deleted.

What should be done after a court decision or a lifting act?

The scope of an annulment or stay decision, its notification to the administration and its actual implementation should be monitored. Article 28 of the Administrative Procedure Law requires decisions to be complied with without delay; the general outer limit is thirty days from notification to the administration. This period does not mean that the administration may wait thirty days in every file. [K2]

Before the foreign national travels again, it must be clarified which act has been lifted, whether any other active entry bar exists, and whether a visa or prior permission is required. An entry permit for a fixed period under Article 9(6) of YUKK does not produce the same result as a complete lifting of the ban. A visa application also does not in itself neutralize every restriction record. [K1]

Conclusion

Resolving a restriction file depends on identifying the correct act rather than memorizing the code name. When the reasons, duration, notification and personal evidence are reviewed together, it becomes possible to determine which administrative application and which action are necessary. Where concurrent deportation or administrative detention decisions exist, separate legal protection should be established for each; after a favourable decision, the actual implementation of the records should also be followed.

For actions and applications under foreigners’ law, you may also review our practice page Foreigners’ Law, Deportation and International Protection.

Frequently Asked Questions

Will I certainly be deported if I have a restriction code?

No. A restriction record and a deportation decision are not the same act. The person’s situation, the effect of the record and whether a separate deportation decision exists must be examined.

Does paying the fine lift the entry ban?

Not in every case. Payment is important for certain types of violation; the security ground and any separate entry ban or prior-permission requirement are assessed separately.

Can I enter Türkiye once an action against the restriction is filed?

Filing an action alone does not give a right of entry. Stay of execution, implementation of the decision, visa requirements and other entry conditions are checked separately.

Can I apply while abroad?

Being in Türkiye is not required for every application. If the procedure is carried out through a representative, the validity, certification and translation requirements depend on the country where the power of attorney was drawn up.

Does an acquittal automatically delete the restriction record?

An automatic result cannot be assumed. The reasoning of the acquittal is compared with the basis of the restriction act; the decision is submitted to the relevant authority and, if necessary, the court route is pursued.

If the entry ban period has expired, is further action needed?

It must be confirmed that no other active record or admission requirement exists. The expiry of a period is not the same as all migration records having lost their legal effect.

Sources and legal bases

K1 — Law No. 6458 on Foreigners and International Protection, in particular Articles 9-10, 53-57.

K2 — Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577, in particular Articles 3, 7-8, 11, 14, 20, 27-28, 32.

K3 — Presidency of Migration Management, statement of June 9, 2020 on entry bans for violations of lawful stay.