How Does Nationality Affect Deportation and Removal-Centre Procedures? A Comparison of Uzbek, Russian, Turkmen and Kyrgyz Nationals

1. Entry rules differ among the four nationalities

A foreign national’s country of citizenship may affect the visa regime, the process for obtaining travel documents, and the assessment of risks in the country of return. Nationality is not, however, a reason to receive fewer rights in a removal centre or to be detained automatically for longer. A comparison of Uzbek, Russian, Turkmen and Kyrgyz nationals must distinguish entry rules from fundamental rights, and documented findings from individual accounts.

2. A deportation order and detention in a removal centre are separate measures

For ordinary-passport travel, Uzbek and Kyrgyz nationals are visa-exempt for up to 90 days in any 180-day period. Russian nationals are subject both to a 60-day limit per tourist or business-visit trip and to the overall 90/180-day limit. Turkmen nationals require a visa when travelling on an ordinary passport. This comparison does not replace a separate assessment of travel for purposes such as work or study.

The practical effect appears when a possible overstay begins. Two people on day 70 of an uninterrupted visit cannot be assessed only by noting that they entered Türkiye on the same date. For a Russian national, the 60-day per-visit cap matters; for an Uzbek or Kyrgyz national, the 90/180 calculation, including earlier stays, matters. For a Turkmen national, the visa conditions and any other basis for stay must be checked. This example identifies which document to review first; it is not a finding that an overstay occurred.

Different visa rules do not mean that fundamental rights differ to the same extent. The first step in a legal comparison is to determine whether the individuals are actually in comparable situations. Passport type, permit history, length of any overstay, service of decisions, family ties and health must be compared; nationality alone cannot establish the outcome.

3. Common remedies and time limits

Article 54 of Law No. 6458 sets out grounds for deportation, while Article 55 identifies people who must not be deported even if a ground under Article 54 may otherwise apply. A deportation decision issued by a governorate and an administrative-detention decision under Article 57 are separate legal acts. Being held in a removal centre is not a criminal conviction; the administrative measure restricting liberty must have its own legal basis.

Filing a case against a deportation order does not automatically end detention. Ending detention does not automatically cancel the deportation order either. The common question from relatives, “We applied to court, so why is the person still at the centre?”, often reflects this distinction. The file should clearly identify which decision each application challenges.

The law does not prescribe different general detention periods for Uzbek, Russian, Turkmen or Kyrgyz nationals. Nor can one conclude that a person of any of these nationalities must always be excluded from a removal centre. The grounds for detention must be connected to the person’s circumstances; nationality alone cannot replace an assessment of flight risk.

4. How should the practical effect of nationality be assessed?

A deportation decision may be challenged before the administrative court within seven days of service, and the authority that issued the decision must also be notified that the case was filed. Under Article 53(3), subject to the foreign national’s consent, deportation is not carried out during the filing period or while the proceedings are pending. This procedural safeguard applies equally to all four nationalities.

An application against administrative detention is made to the criminal judgeship of peace. The judge’s five-day period to review the application does not mean that the foreign national has only five days to object. Filing the application does not itself suspend detention; a new application may be made if the circumstances change or cease to exist. Correctly identifying the decision being challenged is more useful than making an unclear request simply for “release”.

The ordinary maximum period of detention is six months. It may be extended for up to a further six months if deportation cannot be completed because the foreign national fails to cooperate or does not provide accurate information or documents about their country. The need for detention must be reviewed monthly. A slow process for issuing documents in a country is not the same as the individual withholding information; any extension should explain the distinction on the facts.

5. Language support affects the ability to exercise rights

For Uzbek nationals, the stay record and scope of tourist visa exemption are among the first items to check. For Turkmen nationals, the visa and travel-document status matter. For Russian nationals, the reviewer should check whether the 60-day trip limit was confused with the total stay limit. For Kyrgyz nationals, the 90/180 calculation and previous trips should be reviewed. These are documentable differences arising from entry rules; they are not judgments about the character or conduct of any nationality.

In carrying out a return, identity verification, a valid travel document, correspondence with the relevant state authorities and travel arrangements may matter. But claims such as “Turkmens are detained longer” or “Russians are removed more easily” require current, comparable evidence. Without checking the centre, period, legal status, missing documents and individual circumstances, such generalisations are not established facts.

The concrete question for counsel is therefore not what outcome should be presumed from nationality, but why the process has stalled in this file. Is a passport available? When was the document request sent? Was there a reply? What cooperation was requested from the person, and was the request explained in a language they understand? The answers provide concrete material for reviewing proportionality and the continuation of detention.

6. Non-refoulement: naming a country is not enough

It must not be assumed that a person who speaks Uzbek, Turkmen, Kyrgyz or Russian understands legal documents in Turkish. Nor should Russian-language ability be treated as a shared characteristic of every person from these four countries. The result of a served decision, the available remedy and its deadline should be explained in a language the person can understand. A signature does not make the adequacy of information unquestionable in every case.

The Human Rights and Equality Institution of Türkiye’s 2024 National Preventive Mechanism report, published in August 2025, records concerns and recommendations at some visited removal centres regarding systematic information about rights, access-to-legal-aid information and confidential lawyer meetings. The same report also records positive physical conditions. These findings should not be generalised to every centre or date, and they are not direct proof of discrimination among the four nationalities.

Requests for interpretation and any obstacles should be recorded when documents are not understood. This is particularly important for documents said to contain consent to voluntary return, removal to a country, or withdrawal of an application. Genuine and informed intent cannot be assessed from the form’s heading alone. Access to counsel and obtaining copies of documents are therefore important.

7. Alternatives to detention and preparing the individual file

The non-refoulement rule in Article 4 and the protective circumstances in Article 55 must be assessed for every person. If the person faces a risk of torture or ill-treatment in the destination country, a serious health problem, or another protected circumstance, the facts should be made specific. Nationality alone neither guarantees protection nor rules out the possibility of protection.

A particular incident in Russia, a personal investigation in Uzbekistan, or a specific threat in Turkmenistan or Kyrgyzstan does not establish that every citizen of that country faces the same risk. Current country information should be connected to the person’s identity, history, alleged conduct and evidence. These examples explain individualised assessment; they are not current findings about country conditions.

The Constitutional Court’s Y.T. judgment emphasises the importance of an effective remedy in deportation cases involving an asserted risk of ill-treatment. The ECtHR judgment in Abdolkhani and Karimnia v. Türkiye addresses safeguards concerning return risk, legal assistance and the lawfulness of detention. Those cases concern earlier events and the law of their time; today’s time limit and competent authority must be determined from current legislation.

An application for international protection is not a residence category to be used simply to obtain a longer stay. If there is a genuine protection need, the claim and its grounds should be presented clearly. The distinctions among refugee, conditional refugee and subsidiary protection status cannot be decided from the passport alone. In particular, the geographical criterion and the nature of the events should be examined under Articles 61–63 of the Law.

Practical conclusion

Alternatives under Article 57/A, such as residing at a specified address or reporting regularly, may be requested where appropriate to the person’s circumstances. Evidence of a fixed address, family ties, health and care needs can explain why a less restrictive measure would be sufficient. Academic literature also discusses alternatives through the proportionality of restrictions on liberty; this is not an automatic release formula.

The file should bring together passport and permit history, all decisions and service records, medical records, and family and address documents. If discrimination or ill-treatment is alleged, state the date, place, specific conduct, witnesses and available evidence. A complaint to the Human Rights and Equality Institution or a report of a suspected offence does not replace court proceedings concerning deportation or detention. Each remedy must be pursued for its own purpose and within its own time limit.

Sources

Legislation and online sources reviewed on 12 September 2026. Source numbers are shown below.

• [1] Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Visa Regime for Foreign Nationals, relevant country entries (current online list). Access source
• [2] Embassy of the Republic of Türkiye in Tashkent, visa information note on tourist travel by Uzbek nationals. Access source
• [3] Consular Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia, visa and visa-free travel list, Türkiye entry and the 60-day note. Access source
• [4] Consular Procedures of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Türkiye, notice ending the visa exemption for Turkmen nationals, 14 September 2022; Presidential Decision No. 6034. Access source
• [5] Kyrgyz Republic overseas employment information portal, country guide for Türkiye, 90/180-day explanation. Access source
• [6] Law No. 6458 on Foreigners and International Protection, particularly Articles 4, 7–11, 19–33, 53–59 and 61–63; consolidated Ministry text. Access source
• [7] Presidency of Migration Management, Deportation: judicial remedies, administrative detention and alternative obligations. Access source
• [8] Human Rights and Equality Institution of Türkiye, 2024 National Preventive Mechanism Report, August 2025, printed pages 31–34. Access source
• [9] ECtHR, Abdolkhani and Karimnia v. Türkiye, Application No. 30471/08, 22 September 2009, in particular §§ 72–75, 108–117 and 125–135. Access source
• [10] Constitutional Court of Türkiye, General Assembly, Y.T., Application No. 2016/22418, 30 May 2019; effective remedy and pilot judgment. Access source
• [11] Elif Ağca, “Alternative Obligations to Administrative Detention in Turkish Foreigners Law”, EBYUHF Journal, 29(2), 2025, pp. 1145–1199, DOI:10.60002/ebyuhfd.1737567. Access source

This article is based on legislation and official sources reviewed as of 12 September 2026. It is for general information and does not constitute legal advice. Please consult a lawyer about your specific circumstances.