In this article
Updated 13 September 2026
One of the most pressing questions for foreign nationals facing a criminal investigation or prosecution in Türkiye is whether they can remain in the country. Not every criminal file leads automatically to deportation. At the same time, the belief that "I have not been convicted yet, so no administrative measure can be taken" is not correct in every situation. Criminal liability and the administrative assessment of a foreign national's stay in the country are governed by different legal rules.1,2
That distinction becomes particularly important where a person released from prison is taken to a removal centre, or where a person who has been acquitted encounters a residence problem. The correct remedy cannot be chosen until it is established which decision has been taken, what its reasons are and when it was served. This article explains the procedures that are often confused with one another and the basic ways of protecting one's position.
Opening an investigation is not a finding of guilt
The taking of a statement from a person as a suspect following a complaint does not mean that it has been established that an offence was committed. The prosecution gathers evidence; where there is insufficient suspicion, it may decide that there are no grounds for prosecution. If proceedings are brought, the court in turn assesses the evidence. Under the presumption of innocence, no one may be regarded as guilty until guilt has been established by judgment.3,4
The assessment of public order or public security under the law on foreign nationals, by contrast, is not always conditional on a final conviction. Administrative grounds are examined separately under Article 54 of the LFIP. That does not mean that any report, on its own, justifies every measure. The facts attributed to the person and the basis of the administrative decision must be understood, and objections must genuinely be assessed.2,5
The position of a person whose name merely appears in a file, for instance, is not the same as that of a person who is the subject of a security assessment founded on specific conduct. In the defence, rather than simply saying "my case is ongoing", what must be addressed is what the accusation is, what role the person played and on what evidence the administrative reasoning rests. Citizenship or nationality cannot take the place of an individual risk assessment.
A conviction does not always mean immediate deportation
Article 59 of the Turkish Criminal Code provides that the position of a foreign national sentenced to imprisonment for an offence is to be notified to the Ministry of the Interior, at the stages of release and execution specified in the statute, so that it may be assessed for the purposes of deportation proceedings. That notification does not mean that the criminal court makes a direct and automatic removal decision in respect of every foreign national. The conditions and impediments in the immigration legislation apply separately.1,2
The nature of the conviction, whether the judgment has become final, the state of execution and the ground relied on by the administration must all be ascertained. Because the statute contains different grounds for deportation, no universal threshold of the kind "below this sentence nobody is removed" can be derived simply from the length of the sentence. What information has been passed to the administrative file also matters.
The defence made by the lawyer in the criminal file and the subject matter of proceedings to be brought against a deportation decision are not the same. Even where the same events are recounted, one concerns the elements of the offence and the other the basis of the administrative act and the rights of the person that require protection. Running the two files without regard to one another may therefore lead to an incomplete assessment.
Release from custody and leaving a removal centre are different things
A decision to release concerns the end of pre-trial detention, or of the relevant deprivation of liberty, in the criminal file. Where a lawful administrative detention decision has also been taken in respect of the person, he or she may be taken to a removal centre after release. In such a case the legal basis of the new deprivation of liberty is not the criminal court's earlier detention order. The existence and conditions of the separate decision must be examined.3,2
Being held in a removal centre is likewise not in itself a criminal conviction. Administrative detention is a measure tied to the deportation process and subject to statutory conditions. Administrative detention need not be applied as a matter of course for every deportation decision; alternative obligations and their suitability for the person's situation are assessed separately. Whether the decision contains only standard formulas, and what its concrete reasoning is, are important.2
The first thing for relatives to do is to establish in which institution the person is being held and which decisions have been served. The criminal release document, the deportation decision and the administrative detention decision must each be obtained separately. The existence of one document does not mean that another does not exist. Getting the decisions to the lawyer without delay prevents time limits from being missed.
How acquittal and a decision not to prosecute affect the administrative file
An acquittal or a decision that there are no grounds for prosecution may be important for the assessment of the allegation of an offence on which the administrative act relies. Especially where the administrative reasoning rests on the same facts, the reasons for the decision, information on whether it has become final and the findings as to the evidence should be submitted to the administration and to the relevant court. Merely reporting the operative sentence of the decision may not be enough to explain why it is favourable.
These decisions do not, however, automatically set aside every existing administrative act. The administration may also have relied on another statutory ground, or a separate application may be required for the act to be withdrawn. Conversely, reasoning that treats the person as guilty without assessing the outcome of the criminal file at all may raise problems as regards the presumption of innocence and effective judicial review. The facts and the reasons must be examined together.4,2,5
A decision to defer the announcement of the judgment is also not the same as an acquittal. Its distinctive consequences under Article 231 of the Code of Criminal Procedure must be taken into account, and the language of established guilt must not be used merely because such a decision exists. Since the regulation in this area changed again in July 2026, applying older explanations without regard to their date would not be correct. The true legal position created by the decision must be taken as the basis of the administrative assessment.6,4
The seven-day time limit against a deportation decision
Under Article 53 of the LFIP, proceedings may be brought before the administrative court against a deportation decision within seven days of its service. That period does not wait for the criminal file to be concluded. The idea that "let us first obtain an acquittal, then bring proceedings" may cause a serious loss of rights. The content and the date of the notification must be checked immediately, and the authority that made the decision should also be informed of the application.2,7
The statute provides that, subject to the foreign national's consent, the deportation measure is not to be carried out during the period for bringing proceedings or, where proceedings have been brought, until the case is concluded. That safeguard does not mean automatic release from the removal centre or the grant of a residence permit of its own motion. The distinction between the deportation measure and administrative detention must be preserved here too.2,7
A person's signing of a document in a language he or she does not understand may give rise to disputes about consent or about the content of the notification. Documents said to contain voluntary return or consent to removal should in particular be translated and understood. If there is an allegation of pressure or of misleading information, when, by whom and how that occurred should be conveyed to the lawyer and the relevant authority without delay.
Challenging administrative detention is a separate matter
An administrative detention decision may be challenged before the magistrate's court in criminal matters. That challenge does not of itself suspend the detention. The five-day period in the statute is laid down for the judge to conclude the examination; it should not be read as meaning that the foreign national may exercise the right of challenge only within five days. A fresh application is also possible where the circumstances change or cease to exist.2,7
For administrative detention in a removal centre the statute lays down a six-month upper limit and the possibility of an extension of up to six further months on specified grounds. Extension is not automatic for everyone; statutory conditions are required, such as the procedures being incapable of completion because the foreign national does not cooperate or does not provide correct information or documents about his or her country. The assessment of continued administrative detention must also be carried out at regular intervals.2,7
The application may set out a settled address, family ties, state of health, identity documents and the reasons why alternative obligations would be sufficient. None of these is in itself a guarantee of release in every case; but they can help an individual assessment to be made. The possibility of benefiting from a lawyer's assistance and, for those without means, the relevant legal aid provisions should also be examined.2
Risk in the country of removal and family life
Articles 4 and 55 of the LFIP contain safeguards concerning non-refoulement and the non-adoption of deportation decisions in respect of certain persons. Matters such as torture, inhuman treatment or risks threatening life must be made concrete. The existence of a public order allegation does not remove the prohibition on sending a person to a place where there is a risk of torture. Health and other special circumstances must likewise be assessed within their statutory conditions.2
The existence of general problems in a country may provide important context; but the person's own risk and the documents supporting it must also be explained. Records of threats, earlier applications, health documents and information about the family must be connected to one another meaningfully in the file. It is not correct to promise everyone the same outcome on the basis of nationality.
The presence of a spouse or children in Türkiye also enters into the assessment; it does not on its own create an absolute right to remain. In the Constitutional Court's approach to family life, striking a balance between family ties and the public interest on the facts of the particular case is important. Facts such as the child's age, the care relationship and the reality of living together should therefore be submitted not as a mere list of names but with explanations and documents.5
Final checks on residence and travel
The continuation of criminal proceedings does not of itself provide a residence permit. Nor should release, or the bringing of proceedings against a deportation measure, be treated as a rule that automatically extends the duration of an existing permit. In addition, where there is judicial control in the criminal file in the form of a ban on leaving the country, its status must be checked before any decision to travel. Administrative and judicial obligations must be seen together.3,2
In preparing the file, decisions, notifications, the passport, permits or protection documents, and family and health records should be brought together. Every new development in the criminal file should be conveyed to the relevant administrative file. The most important step is not to be satisfied with general statements such as "he has been released" or "he has a case", but to establish which decision produces which consequence and to make each application within its own time limit.
Sources
Sources checked on 13 September 2026. The numbers in the text refer to the sources below.
[1] Turkish Criminal Code No. 5237. In particular Articles 20–21, 30, 37–39, 59, 73, 80, 106–107, 132–134, 157–158, 168 and 204–207. KS Law text of the legislation. Go to source
[2] Law No. 6458 on Foreigners and International Protection. In particular Articles 4, 46, 48–49 and 52–59. Copy of the Legislation Information System text published by METU. Go to source
[3] Code of Criminal Procedure No. 5271. In particular Articles 48, 91, 95, 100–101, 109, 147–150, 154, 158, 202, 234 and 324. Go to source
[4] Constitution of the Republic of Türkiye. In particular Articles 17, 19, 20, 36 and 38. Constitutional Court legislation page. Go to source
[5] Constitutional Court. The Right to Respect for Private and Family Life, 2020, Volume 1. Judgments on the deportation of foreign nationals and bans on entry to the country. Go to source
[6] Law No. 7589. Adopted 16 July 2026; Official Gazette 31 July 2026, No. 33326. In particular Articles 13, 15, provisional Article 1/6–7 and Article 26 on entry into force. Text adopted by the Grand National Assembly. Go to source
[7] Presidency of Migration Management. Deportation. Decisions, judicial remedies, administrative detention and time limits. Go to source