In this article
Updated: 12 September 2026
For a foreign national who needs to remain in Türkiye, the real question is sometimes not "which type of residence permit can I apply for?" but "what happens if my current permit expires while I am unable to return to my country?" War, a threat to personal safety, serious illness or a child's need for care can make that question urgent. The humanitarian residence permit is regulated in Articles 46 and 47 of Law No. 6458 on Foreigners and International Protection (LFIP) precisely in order to answer such special situations.
The starting point is clear: the statute contains no closed list of countries whose nationals may obtain a humanitarian residence permit. Kazakh nationals, like the nationals of the other six countries, may fall within the scope of this permit. No nationality, however, is in itself a guarantee that a permit will be granted. What is decisive is that the person's situation is connected to the grounds set out in the statute and explained with concrete information.[1]
The country sections in this article do not present acceptance rates by nationality or any settled distribution of permits. Publicly available decisions and country reports show which legal issues need to be examined; they do not show that a particular ground is accepted in every application. Unless otherwise stated, the examples below are not actual permit decisions but illustrative situations explaining how an individual assessment is made.
The statutory grounds for a humanitarian residence permit
Article 46 of the LFIP sets out seven headings that may be applied without requiring the conditions laid down for the grant of other residence permits. The fact that they are worded broadly leaves the administration a margin of assessment; but the decision must take account of the person's actual situation and must be amenable to judicial review. Academic writing likewise emphasises the distinctive character of this permit compared with ordinary residence types and the importance of judicial review.[2]
The best interests of the child: it is assessed why remaining in Türkiye is necessary for the child's safety, health, care and development. The child need not be a Turkish citizen. Conversely, merely having been born in Türkiye or being enrolled at school does not produce the same outcome in every file.
Departure cannot be carried out or is not considered reasonable: where a person subject to a deportation decision or an entry ban cannot be made to leave Türkiye, or where departure is not considered reasonable or possible, this sub-paragraph may come into play. A genuine travel impediment, a problem of admission to the country or individual circumstances must be explained. The mere fact that a person does not wish to return is not a sufficient explanation.
No deportation decision to be taken under Article 55 of the LFIP: serious indications that there is a risk of the death penalty, torture or inhuman or degrading treatment in the place of removal; travel being risky because of a serious health problem, age or pregnancy; continuing treatment of a life-threatening illness combined with the absence of treatment facilities in the country of removal — all of these matter here. Victims of human trafficking benefiting from the support process, and victims of psychological, physical or sexual violence until their treatment is completed, are also expressly regulated in Article 55.
Bringing proceedings against certain acts: taking to court measures adopted under Articles 53, 72 and 77 of the statute is another ground. This provision does not cover every kind of litigation; the pendency of an ordinary debt claim, for example, does not of itself fall within this sub-paragraph.
Procedures for removal to a first country of asylum or a safe third country: the permit may come into play while procedures for returning the applicant to those countries are ongoing.
Urgent reasons and public requirements: a separate ground exists where a person whose entry into and stay in Türkiye must be allowed for urgent reasons, or in terms of the country's interests, public order and public security, is unable to obtain other residence permits because of circumstances constituting an impediment.
Extraordinary situations: war and similar grave developments may be assessed under this heading. However, instead of a general statement such as "there are problems in my country", the effect of the events on the person's return and life must be set out.[3]
Invoking one of these grounds does not mean automatic acceptance. The fact that the conditions applicable to other residence types are not required does not mean that the humanitarian ground and the person's identity will not be examined. The strength of the application lies in the clarity of the connection between the facts and the relevant statutory provision.
The relationship between humanitarian residence and protection statuses
Humanitarian residence is a residence permit. International protection, by contrast, is a separate protection regime assessed under the statutory conditions in the face of a danger of persecution or serious harm. Temporary protection, in turn, is operated under different provisions in the context of a mass influx. The purpose, application procedure and resulting rights of these routes are not the same.[4]
For a person who fears being tortured in his or her country because of political opinion, for instance, the issue is not merely a residence card; international protection and the obligation of non-refoulement must also be examined. The prohibition of refoulement in Article 4 of the LFIP does not depend on the person holding a humanitarian residence card. One should not proceed on the assumption that an existing protection application must be abandoned in order to request humanitarian residence.
The distinction is also important in health matters. For a person who wishes to receive planned treatment in Türkiye, a short-term residence permit may be considered. Where travel poses a serious risk, or where ongoing treatment for a life-threatening illness is unavailable in the country of removal, a different examination is required under Articles 55 and 46. Not every illness or pregnancy of itself constitutes a ground for humanitarian residence.[5]
For certain impediments identified after a deportation decision there is a more explicit regulation. Article 57/2 of the Implementing Regulation provides that, where it is established that the person falls within the health and travel impediments under Article 55/1(b) or (c) of the LFIP, the deportation decision is not to be implemented and a humanitarian residence permit is to be granted. Article 57/1 provides for assessment of the possibility of removal to a third country where the risk under Article 55/1(a) exists, and, where that is not possible, for the decision not to be implemented and the permit to be granted. Because of these special provisions it is not correct to regard every file as an area of unlimited administrative discretion.[6]
Assessing individual risk for Russian nationals
For Russian nationals, the existence of the war and the applicant's personal situation must be kept apart. The 2025 report on Russia by the UN Special Rapporteur addresses repression and serious rights violations connected with anti-war expression and opposition activity. That report may support the context of an individual claim; it does not show that all Russian nationals are exposed to the same danger or that they enjoy an automatic right to humanitarian residence in Türkiye.[7]
For a person against whom measures have been taken because of anti-war activity, who has received personal threats, or who explains with concrete information that he or she would face ill-treatment on return, Articles 4, 55 and 46 of the LFIP must be examined together. Summonses or investigation documents, information about earlier detentions, publicly known activities and threats directed at the person may all form part of the assessment. Where documents cannot be produced, the reason for that and a consistent account of events matter.[8]
Merely being of military age, being affected by economic sanctions or preferring to live in Türkiye does not take the place of the humanitarian grounds in the statute. Conversely, a Russian child's need for serious medical treatment, or the concrete harm that separation from a parent would cause, may be assessed independently of political risk. Two people holding the same passport may therefore see their files end differently.
The individual impact of the war for Ukrainian nationals
For Ukraine, armed conflict, displacement and obstacles to safe return are the principal areas of examination. The March 2026 report of the UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission addresses forced displacement from occupied territories and the obstacles encountered on return. UNHCR's information page for Türkiye likewise directs people arriving from Ukraine to assess residence and protection options with the relevant authorities.[9]
Rather than simply producing a Ukrainian passport, the application should explain where the person lived, the current conditions in that area, his or her access to a home or family, and the facts preventing a safe return. Displacement documents, previous address records, evacuation information, health records and documents on the care situation of children may be useful. These are items of evidence to be assessed against the statutory conditions; they are not an immutable list of compulsory papers.[10]
An extraordinary situation, the best interests of a child, the impediments under Article 55, or, if the conditions are met, departure not being considered reasonable or possible, may arise together. A national of another country who lived in Ukraine may equally invoke the effect of the war on his or her own situation. Conversely, where a person has long been settled in another safe country, simply showing Ukrainian nationality does not make examination of the individual circumstances unnecessary.
The statement "Ukrainians are granted humanitarian residence" is therefore too broad. The more accurate formulation is that the effect of the war on the person's life and possibility of return is assessed under the relevant humanitarian and protection provisions.
Temporary protection and humanitarian residence for Syrian nationals
In Syrian files the first task is to establish the person's current status. A temporary protection identity document is not a humanitarian residence permit. It would not be correct to act simply by choosing a residence type without taking into account the special regime, registration and status provisions applicable to those within scope. Syrian nationality is not in itself a reason for exclusion from Article 46 of the LFIP; but the relationship between the existing temporary protection registration and the contemplated procedure must be examined separately.[11]
It is particularly important that the country assessment be up to date. UNHCR's May 2026 assessment on Syria details different risk profiles, including religious and ethnic minorities, persons associated with particular political or military links, women and children. That report supports an assessment based on the person's profile and conditions in the relevant area, rather than reaching the same conclusion about all Syrians.[12]
In a specific case, inability to travel because of serious illness, the absence of ongoing treatment in the country of return, continuing treatment of a victim of violence, or serious effects on a child's care and safety may be examined under Article 46. Where there is a risk of personal ill-treatment on return, the obligation of non-refoulement is also assessed separately.[13]
Merely wishing to live in another province, experiencing problems with address registration or encountering difficulties in temporary protection procedures does not of itself show that the conditions for humanitarian residence are met. The existing registration, earlier decisions and the statuses of family members must be examined together. Neither automatic permits nor safe return for everyone can be inferred from out-of-date country information.
Protection needs and humanitarian grounds for Afghan nationals
UNHCR's September 2025 Guidance Note on Afghanistan addresses various risk profiles, first and foremost women and girls. Personal circumstances also matter for persons connected with the former administration or security structures, journalists, opposition figures and members of certain minorities. These assessments are not humanitarian residence decisions taken by the Turkish authorities, nor acceptance statistics.[14]
Where a file contains a claim of persecution or serious harm on return to Afghanistan, the international protection route must also be examined. As regards humanitarian residence, the refoulement impediments in Article 55, the best interests of the child and, depending on the nature of the events, the extraordinary-situation ground may be assessed. The ongoing treatment of a woman who has suffered violence and the care needs of a child separated from the family may touch on more than one legal heading within the same file.[15]
The application should not be confined to describing general economic hardship in the country. The person's background, who the threats come from, family and care relationships, state of health and why a safe return is not possible must be explained. Ethnic origin must also not be confused with nationality: an ethnic Uzbek who is an Afghan national cannot be treated as an Uzbek national merely because of his or her ethnic origin.
Family ties and the best interests of children for Uzbek nationals
For Uzbek nationals too, children, health, victimisation through violence, individual security risk and obstacles to return are examined within the same statutory framework. Marriage to a Turkish citizen or the existence of a child who is a Turkish citizen may be important; but neither on its own produces a humanitarian residence outcome in every file.[16]
In its Nodira Mustafayeva judgment the Constitutional Court examined the rejection of a humanitarian residence request by an Uzbek national who had a Turkish spouse and child. Taking into account concrete features such as the absence of any deportation decision against the applicant, her continuing to live with her family in Türkiye and the fact that no proceedings had been brought against the relevant restriction record, the Court held that the right to respect for family life had not been violated. The judgment does not mean that all similar requests will be refused; it shows the importance, alongside the family tie, of the real effect of the measure and of the legal remedies pursued.[17]
In an application built on a child, therefore, alongside the birth certificate, the actual care relationship, the situation of the other parent, the effect of separation on the child and any special needs must be explained. In the European Court of Human Rights' Jeunesse v. the Netherlands judgment, too, concretely weighing family life and children's interests is decisive. That judgment is not one that directly guarantees any particular type of residence permit in Türkiye.[18]
Facts capable of supporting an application by Kyrgyz nationals
Kyrgyz nationality, or being of Turkic origin, is not an independent ground for a permit under Article 46 of the LFIP. What is required in the file is a situation that makes remaining in Türkiye necessary on humanitarian grounds. Travel being risky because of serious illness, the continuing treatment of a victim of violence, or a child's care being seriously affected by separation are examples that may be examined.[19]
If, for instance, the Türkiye-based child of a Kyrgyz parent requires uninterrupted and specialised care, the application should not rest merely on the record of kinship. The child's needs, who provides that care and the consequences of separation must be documented. Likewise, an ordinary medical check-up must be distinguished from a serious condition that makes travel inadvisable. These are not privileges peculiar to Kyrgyz nationals but the application of legal criteria that hold for everyone.
Eligibility of Kazakh nationals for humanitarian residence
Yes. Article 46 of the LFIP does not exclude Kazakh nationals and does not reserve humanitarian residence to nationals of countries experiencing war. It is not correct to treat the existence of a nationwide war in Kazakhstan as a statutory precondition. Grounds such as the best interests of a child or a serious health condition may arise independently of the person's nationality.[20]
If, for example, it is medically established that travel is risky for a Kazakh national undergoing treatment in Türkiye because of a serious health problem, the relationship between Articles 55 and 46 may be examined. Merely preferring health services in Türkiye, however, does not create the same legal situation. Where a problem with a passport or travel document is invoked, the reality of the impediment, the steps taken to resolve it and the conditions of the relevant statutory sub-paragraph must be assessed.
The correct approach is to complete the question "is Kazakhstan on the list?" with the question "what humanitarian ground does this person have and how is it explained?" Without data on country-specific acceptance frequency, no definitive distribution can be given as to the grounds on which Kazakh nationals generally obtain permits.
Preparing the application file
Humanitarian residence is among the residence applications that may be made from within Türkiye under Article 22 of the LFIP. The procedure should be clarified with the relevant Provincial Directorate of Migration Management and a reasoned request submitted. One should not proceed on the assumption that completing the online steps used for general residence applications takes the place of separately submitting the humanitarian grounds.[21]
The file should bring together, in comprehensible form, identity and current status information, the dates of entry into Türkiye and of earlier applications, any refusal or deportation decisions, and which ground under Article 46 is relied on. The chronology of events should also explain why information appears differently in different documents. The record showing that the request was received should be kept.
In a health file, the risk of travel, the nature of the treatment and, where necessary, the availability of treatment in the country of removal matter as much as the diagnosis. In a child file, care, custody, education and special needs; in a violence file, treatment and protection documents; in a personal-risk file, records relating to the events and current country information may support the assessment. A country report does not replace the individual account; it explains its context.
Previous overstay must also be assessed correctly. Under Article 44/6 of the Implementing Regulation, non-payment of the fee calculated because of a past residence overstay is not an obstacle to the grant of the permit where the conditions for humanitarian residence are met. That provision does not amount to a general amnesty removing all debts, administrative fines or entry bans.[22]
Duration of the permit and points to watch in a refusal
The current Article 46 provides that the permit may be granted and extended by the governorates, for periods determined by the Ministry and with the approval of the Directorate General. The statement that there is an unchanging one-year period for everyone does not reflect the current text of the statute. Where the conditions making the permit necessary cease to exist, cancellation or non-extension arises under Article 47.[23]
A person granted the permit must register in the address registration system within 20 working days at the latest from the date of issue. A humanitarian residence card does not of itself confer the right to work; a work permit or an applicable exemption is assessed separately. Although transition to other residence types whose conditions are met is possible, no right of transition to long-term residence is recognised. Periods spent under humanitarian residence are not counted in the aggregation of residence periods provided for in the LFIP.[24]
In the event of refusal, cancellation or non-extension, the reasoning of the decision, its service and the applicable time limit for litigation must be examined without delay. A humanitarian residence request does not take the place of the legal remedy required against a separately issued deportation decision. Article 53 of the LFIP provides a seven-day time limit for proceedings against a deportation decision, running from service. Taking into account the statutory exception relating to the person's consent, the guarantee that the deportation measure will not be implemented during the litigation period and the proceedings is assessed within that separate process.[25]
Submitting a humanitarian residence request does not of itself end all stay problems or administrative detention in a removal centre. Although residence, deportation and administrative detention procedures are connected to one another, they are subject to separate decisions and remedies. An effective file explains the person's humanitarian need while also addressing, in good time, the other procedures in force.[26]
This article is intended for general information. In an individual application, the person's documents, current status, and the legislation and country conditions in force on the date of application must be assessed together.
Sources
Date of checking for legislation and online sources: 12 September 2026. Source numbers are shown in the footnotes.
[1] Law No. 6458 on Foreigners and International Protection, in particular Articles 4, 22, 42, 46–47, 53, 55 and 61–63; the METU institutional copy incorporating the 2025 amendments. Go to source
[2] Presidency of Migration Management, Types of Residence Permit, section on the humanitarian residence permit; current explanations of duration, conditions and transition. Go to source
[3] Nuray Ekşi, The Humanitarian Residence Permit in the Light of Court Decisions, Public and Private International Law Bulletin, 38(2), 2018, pp. 243–283, DOI 10.26650/ppil.2018.38.2.0101. Explanations of duration under the former legislation have not been used as current rules. Go to source
[4] Temporary Protection Regulation, 2014/6883, in particular Articles 12, 25 and provisional Article 1; copy published by the Presidency of Migration Management. Go to source
[5] Regulation on the Implementation of the Law on Foreigners and International Protection, Articles 44 and 57; Official Gazette 17.03.2016/29656; copy published by the Presidency of Migration Management. Go to source
[6] UN Human Rights Council, Situation of Human Rights in the Russian Federation, report of Special Rapporteur Mariana Katzarova, A/HRC/60/59, 15.09.2025. Go to source
[7] UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine, Forced Displacement from Territory of Ukraine Occupied by the Russian Federation, 20.03.2026; reporting period 24.02.2022–31.12.2025. Go to source
[8] UNHCR Türkiye, Situation in Ukraine, information on residence and protection options in Türkiye. Go to source
[9] Presidency of Migration Management, Temporary Protection Frequently Asked Questions; provisions on identity documents, travel and status. Go to source
[10] UNHCR, International Protection Considerations with Regard to Asylum-Seekers from the Syrian Arab Republic, HCR/PC/SYR/2026/1, May 2026; in particular the executive summary and risk profiles. Go to source
[11] UNHCR, Guidance Note on Afghanistan, Update II, September 2025; risk profiles and international protection assessment. Go to source
[12] Constitutional Court, Nodira Mustafayeva, App. No. 2020/6545, 07.03.2024, in particular §§ 30–37; official case reference. Go to source
[13] Full-text copy of the Constitutional Court's Nodira Mustafayeva judgment on Librum; used in comparing the facts, procedure and reasoning. Go to source
[14] European Court of Human Rights, Grand Chamber, Jeunesse v. the Netherlands, No. 12738/10, 03.10.2014, in particular §§ 109, 118–122; assessment of family life and children's interests. Go to source
[15] The same Implementing Regulation, Article 44, LEXPERA consolidated text; in particular the relationship between the past-overstay fee and humanitarian residence. Go to source
[16] Law No. 6735 on International Labour Force, Articles 6–10, 12, 15, 21–23. Official Gazette 13.08.2016/29800; text adopted by the Grand National Assembly. Go to source
[17] Presidency of Migration Management, Deportation: judicial remedies, administrative detention and alternative obligations (undated). Go to source
Footnotes
Source [1]: Law No. 6458 on Foreigners and International Protection; Source [2]: Presidency of Migration Management.
[1] [2]↩Source [1]: Law No. 6458 on Foreigners and International Protection; Source [3]: Nuray Ekşi.
[1] [3]↩Source [1]: Law No. 6458 on Foreigners and International Protection; Source [2]: Presidency of Migration Management.
[1] [2]↩Source [1]: Law No. 6458 on Foreigners and International Protection; Source [4]: Temporary Protection Regulation.
[1] [4]↩Source [1]: Law No. 6458 on Foreigners and International Protection.
[1]↩Source [5]: Regulation on the Implementation of the Law on Foreigners and International Protection.
[5]↩Source [6]: UN Human Rights Council.
[6]↩Source [1]: Law No. 6458 on Foreigners and International Protection.
[1]↩Source [7]: UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine; Source [8]: UNHCR Türkiye.
[7] [8]↩Source [1]: Law No. 6458 on Foreigners and International Protection.
[1]↩Source [1]: Law No. 6458 on Foreigners and International Protection; Source [4]: Temporary Protection Regulation; Source [9]: Presidency of Migration Management.
[1] [4] [9]↩Source [10]: UNHCR.
[10]↩Source [1]: Law No. 6458 on Foreigners and International Protection.
[1]↩Source [11]: UNHCR.
[11]↩Source [1]: Law No. 6458 on Foreigners and International Protection.
[1]↩Source [1]: Law No. 6458 on Foreigners and International Protection.
[1]↩Source [12]: Constitutional Court; Source [13]: Full-text copy of the Constitutional Court judgment on Librum.
[12] [13]↩Source [14]: European Court of Human Rights, Grand Chamber.
[14]↩Source [1]: Law No. 6458 on Foreigners and International Protection.
[1]↩Source [1]: Law No. 6458 on Foreigners and International Protection; Source [2]: Presidency of Migration Management.
[1] [2]↩Source [1]: Law No. 6458 on Foreigners and International Protection; Source [5]: Regulation on the Implementation of the Law on Foreigners and International Protection.
[1] [5]↩Source [5]: Regulation on the Implementation of the Law on Foreigners and International Protection; Source [15]: The same Implementing Regulation.
[5] [15]↩Source [1]: Law No. 6458 on Foreigners and International Protection; Source [2]: Presidency of Migration Management.
[1] [2]↩Source [1]: Law No. 6458 on Foreigners and International Protection; Source [5]: Regulation on the Implementation of the Law on Foreigners and International Protection; Source [16]: Law No. 6735 on International Labour Force.
[1] [5] [16]↩Source [1]: Law No. 6458 on Foreigners and International Protection; Source [17]: Presidency of Migration Management.
[1] [17]↩Source [1]: Law No. 6458 on Foreigners and International Protection.
[1]↩