Restriction Codes in Turkey: Meanings, Effects and Legal Review

What Does a Restriction Code in Turkey Mean?

Restriction codes generally represent decisions and findings made under Law No. 6458 on Foreigners and International Protection in immigration records. The Law does not list each code individually; the Presidency of Migration Management uses them in its internal practice under administrative instruments such as Circular No. 2020/17 on Restriction Codes, dated 30 June 2020. Although entry bans and restriction codes are often discussed together, they are legally different.

Restriction records may concern a breach of immigration rules, a public-order or security assessment, or a condition attached to entry. Several different records may appear in the same file. Their significance depends on the recorded reason, the responsible authority and related decisions, as well as the letters and numbers used.

A code should not be treated as a criminal conviction. Administrative immigration measures and criminal proceedings are different processes. Equally, the absence of a conviction does not, by itself, show that every immigration restriction is unlawful.

In practice, a restriction code is often called a “deportation code” or a “blacklist” entry. Saying “I have a deportation code” does not provide enough information: first establish the action on which the code is based. An online list can provide background, but cannot confirm a person’s current status. The right starting point is the relevant decision and up-to-date information available from the competent authority.

What Does Each Restriction Code Mean?

The directory below explains codes described in published legal commentary and, where indicated, court records. It is not an official or exhaustive codebook. Some descriptions have not been independently confirmed in current official records; they are a starting point for identifying the issue, rather than a determination of your status.

The letter matters: G-87 and V-87 concern different issues, as do N-82 and G-82. The Turkish letter Ç is often written as C in English-language searches. A code associated with an alleged offence does not establish guilt, and a procedural record does not necessarily impose an entry ban.

Alongside the reported meanings, these descriptions identify practical questions for reviewing a file. These review points are explanatory guidance; they are not additional official definitions or a list of documents required in every case.

Ç Codes: Breaches of the Lawful Stay Period

Ç-101 Code (Visa, Residence or Work-Permit Breaches)

Ç-101 is commonly described as a three-month entry restriction associated with a permitted-stay breach. The useful starting point is a timeline showing entry, the last day of lawful stay and departure, rather than an estimate based on passport stamps alone. Compare that timeline with the notice and payment records before deciding whether the restriction was calculated correctly.

Ç-102 Code (Visa, Residence or Work-Permit Breaches)

Ç-102 is commonly associated with a six-month restriction following a stay-related breach. A six-month ban should not be confused with a finding that the person overstayed for six months. The review should establish which permission expired and whether the recorded dates and departure circumstances support the decision.

Ç-103 Code (Visa, Residence or Work-Permit Breaches)

Ç-103 is generally described in commentary as a one-year entry restriction connected with a stay breach. For someone planning to return for family or business reasons, the important dates are those in the actual decision, not an anniversary calculated from memory. Review any previous permission and departure documents together before arranging another trip.

Ç-104 Code (Visa, Residence or Work-Permit Breaches)

Ç-104 is commonly described as a two-year entry restriction arising from a permitted-stay breach. Where a person held successive visas or permits, a useful review separates each authorised period from the period treated as unlawful. This can identify whether the disagreement concerns the underlying dates, the assessment itself or another restriction in the same file.

Ç-105 Code (Visa, Residence or Work-Permit Breaches)

Ç-105 is commonly associated with a five-year restriction following a stay-related breach. Because this can affect long-term family and commercial plans, the original decision deserves closer examination than the code label alone. Establish the stated reasons, the relevant permission history and any other active records before assessing a request for review.

Ç-167 Code (Permitted-Stay Breaches)

Ç-167 is reported as a one-month restriction following a permitted-stay breach. Its shorter reported duration does not mean that every other immigration issue has been resolved. Before treating the matter as closed, compare the departure record, payment receipt and stated end date, and check whether the notice identifies any additional obstacle.

The periods for Ç-101 to Ç-105 are reported in published legal commentary; Ç-167 appears in broader code directories. These are not a formula for calculating a ban from the length of an overstay. Voluntary departure, detection and payment may affect the outcome. Confirm the dates in the decision; the relationship between duration and fines is also explained in the guide to overstaying, fines and entry bans.

Ç Codes: Entry, Work and Enforcement Records

Ç-113 Code (Irregular Entry or Exit)

Ç-113 concerns irregular entry into or departure from Turkey. The first question is which crossing or incident the record refers to, particularly where a person has travelled on different passports. Border records, the incident report and the person's account should be compared before deciding whether the issue is a factual mistake or a disputed legal assessment.

Ç-114 Code (Judicial Proceedings)

Ç-114 concerns a person subject to judicial proceedings and does not, by itself, establish a conviction. A useful review identifies the criminal file, its present stage and any decision ending or changing the proceedings. The immigration assessment should then be examined alongside that outcome, rather than treating an old allegation as a complete account of the case.

Ç-115 Code (Release from Prison)

Ç-115 records release from prison in an immigration context. Release from custody and permission to remain in or return to Turkey are different questions. Obtain the release document and any immigration notice issued around the same time so that the consequences of each decision can be assessed separately.

Ç-116 Code (Suspected Unlawful Means of Livelihood)

Published commentary links Ç-116 with an assessment that a person supports themselves through unlawful means. That description does not establish which activity was alleged or what evidence supports it. A focused review should identify the incident relied on and consider whether employment, income or other relevant records contradict the factual basis of the assessment.

Ç-117 Code (Unauthorised Work)

Ç-117 concerns work undertaken without the required authorisation. The relevant review should identify the activity, employer and dates involved, then compare them with any work permission or claimed exemption. This is especially important where the dispute concerns whether the activity amounted to work or whether permission covered the period in question.

Ç-118 Code (Communicable Disease and Public Health)

Ç-118 is associated with communicable-disease and public-health concerns. The medical information underlying the record should be distinguished from the administrative decision made on its basis. Where the person's health has changed or the diagnosis is disputed, current medical evidence can be assessed as part of a request to review the record.

Ç-119 Code (Unpaid Unauthorised-Work Fine)

Ç-119 concerns an unpaid fine connected with unauthorised work. The practical question is whether the financial record accurately identifies the person, the assessment and the outstanding amount. If payment has already been made, the receipt should be matched to that particular liability rather than assumed to cover every work-related measure.

Ç-120 Code (Unpaid Visa or Residence Fine)

Ç-120 concerns unpaid fines arising from visa or residence breaches. A person may remember paying at departure while the file still shows a different or outstanding assessment. Review the receipt, reference number and dates together to establish whether the disagreement concerns payment, allocation of the payment or the original charge.

Ç-135 Code (Unpaid Immigration Fine)

Ç-135 is associated with unpaid administrative fines under immigration legislation. The code does not explain the conduct alleged or the calculation of the amount. Obtain the assessment itself so that a possible challenge to the fine is not confused with a request to update a payment record.

Ç-136 Code (Outstanding Removal Travel Costs)

Ç-136 concerns outstanding travel costs associated with removal. These costs should be distinguished from an overstay fine, even if both arose during the same departure. Request an itemised account and compare it with any payments before considering how the financial issue affects a proposed return.

Ç-137 Code (Failure to Depart after an Invitation to Leave)

Ç-137 concerns failure to depart following an invitation to leave Turkey. The review should begin with the document setting the departure period and the evidence of when it was communicated. Actual departure records and any explanation for the delay then help identify the factual issues that an application would need to address.

Ç-138 Code (Inadmissible Passenger)

Ç-138 concerns an inadmissible passenger, often identified in travel records by the abbreviation INAD. For the passenger, the immediate issue is the reason admission was refused and whether the file also contains an earlier restriction. The refusal notice, travel documents and any previous permission should be reviewed together before another journey is planned.

Ç-141 Code (International Security and Entry Clearance)

Ç-141 is associated with international-security assessments and prior clearance for entry. A general reference to security does not reveal which information or event was attributed to the person. The review should establish the responsible authority and the scope of the clearance requirement before assessing the available administrative or judicial route.

Ç-149 Code (Public-Security Assessment)

Ç-149 concerns an entry restriction based on a public-security assessment. A useful examination asks what event, travel history or other information the decision actually relies on, rather than inferring the allegation from the code. The person's account and supporting records should address those specific reasons, including any mistaken identity or inaccurate chronology.

Ç-150 Code (False or Misused Travel Documents)

Ç-150 concerns allegedly false travel documents or the use of another person's documents. The review should distinguish the authenticity of the document from the separate question of how it came to be used. Passport history, issuing-authority correspondence and any criminal-file findings can help clarify the precise allegation without assuming that every discrepancy amounts to deliberate forgery.

Ç-151 Code (Migrant-Smuggling or Human-Trafficking Allegations)

Ç-151 is associated with migrant-smuggling or human-trafficking allegations, which concern distinct offences. A legal review should establish the alleged conduct and the person's role rather than treating the two descriptions as interchangeable. Any criminal proceedings and the immigration measure should be compared to identify the evidence relied on in each.

Ç-152 Code (Precautionary Entry Restriction)

Ç-152 is described as a precautionary restriction on entry. The word precautionary does not explain the event prompting the measure, its duration or whether it remains active. Obtain the decision and its stated basis before deciding whether the priority is clarification, correction of information or a challenge to the restriction.

Ç-166 Code (Insufficient Visit Justification or Funds)

Ç-166 concerns insufficient justification for entry or insufficient financial means. For review purposes, the proposed visit should be explained through a consistent account of its purpose, duration and funding. Travel arrangements, invitations or financial records may help address the particular concern, but should not be presented as an automatic entitlement to admission.

Ç-179 Code (Organ- or Tissue-Trafficking Allegations)

Ç-179 is associated with an organ- or tissue-trafficking allegation or record. This is a serious description, so the review should identify the alleged conduct and the person's connection to it rather than rely on the label. Relevant criminal-file and medical records should be considered through an appropriate confidential channel, with attention to any separate immigration decision.

A recorded allegation and a legally justified restriction are separate matters.

G Codes: Security Assessments and Alleged Offences

G-26 Code (Alleged Unlawful Organisation Involvement)

G-26 concerns alleged involvement in unlawful organisations. The key review question is what conduct is attributed to the person and whether the information identifies them accurately. A response should address that alleged connection and the current state of any related proceedings, rather than rely only on a general denial.

G-34 Code (Forgery-Related Information)

G-34 concerns forgery-related information. The file should identify the document or transaction in question and distinguish an allegation from a finding reached in criminal proceedings. Where authenticity or identity is disputed, the relevant originals and issuing records should be assessed before selecting the grounds of an application.

G-42 Code (Alleged Narcotics Offences)

G-42 concerns alleged narcotics offences. A review should establish whether the information comes from an investigation, a prosecution or a concluded case, and what role is attributed to the person. The date and outcome of those proceedings are important to understanding whether the immigration record reflects the present position.

G-43 Code (Alleged Smuggling Offences)

G-43 concerns alleged smuggling offences. The practical review should identify the shipment, journey or transaction relied on, particularly where a commercial role has been interpreted as personal involvement. Customs records and the criminal file can then be compared with the reasons given for the immigration measure.

G-48 Code (Alleged Facilitation of Prostitution)

G-48 concerns alleged facilitation of prostitution or provision of premises for it. The review should distinguish the specific conduct alleged from a person's mere connection with an address, business or other individual. The incident report and any later judicial findings provide a more useful basis for assessment than the code's short description.

G-58 Code (Homicide-Related Information)

G-58 concerns homicide-related information. Because the label is serious, it is particularly important to verify the identity of the person concerned and the status of the underlying proceedings. The file should clarify whether the information remains an allegation or reflects a judgment, and how that information supports the separate immigration measure.

G-64 Code (Alleged Threats)

G-64 concerns alleged threats. A useful review identifies the complaint or incident, its date and any subsequent decision rather than treating the original report as the whole case. If the surrounding facts are disputed, the response should explain those facts with relevant records and address the reasons stated by the immigration authority.

G-65 Code (Alleged Theft)

G-65 concerns alleged theft. The assessment should begin with the incident and the criminal-file outcome, including whether the person identified in that file is the same individual affected by the restriction. This helps distinguish a dispute about the allegation from a problem involving outdated information or an identity mismatch.

G-66 Code (Alleged Robbery)

G-66 concerns alleged robbery. A review should preserve the distinction between the offence described in the immigration record and the conduct actually examined by the criminal authorities. The relevant judgment or procedural decision should be read in full before its effect on the immigration assessment is evaluated.

G-67 Code (Alleged Fraud)

G-67 concerns alleged fraud. In a commercial dispute, it is useful to identify the precise allegation, the transaction and the role attributed to the person rather than assume that non-payment explains the record. Contracts, correspondence and criminal-file documents can help establish which facts are disputed and which have already been determined.

G-78 Code (Communicable Disease or Public Health)

G-78 concerns communicable-disease or public-health information. The practical review should identify the medical material relied on and the date of the resulting administrative assessment. Updated medical evidence may be relevant where the condition or diagnosis has changed, but its legal significance should be considered alongside the actual decision.

G-82 Code (National-Security Assessment)

G-82 concerns a national-security assessment. The label alone does not identify the alleged activity or establish a criminal conviction. A legal review should examine the reasons that can be obtained from the file, the person's response to those reasons and the specific measure affecting entry or residence.

G-87 Code (General-Security Assessment)

G-87 concerns a general-security assessment, not a finding of criminal guilt. Its practical significance should be examined through the particular entry, residence or removal decision associated with the record. The review should focus on the information attributed to the person and whether it is accurate and current, without assuming that all G-87 files raise the same issue.

G-89 Code (Foreign Terrorist Fighter Assessment)

G-89 concerns an assessment identifying a person as a foreign terrorist fighter. The review should establish the information used to make that identification and whether the personal details and relevant events have been recorded correctly. Because the allegation is specific and serious, any response should address its factual basis rather than infer a remedy from the code alone.

The general-security description of G-87 and the judicial-proceedings description of Ç-114 also appear as the administration’s own statements in the Constitutional Court’s individual-application judgments. Neither the label nor the alleged offence provides a ban period that applies in every case.

V Codes: Residence, Protection and Procedural Records

V-68 Code (Ministerial Approval for Residence)

V-68 is reported where residence permission requires ministerial approval. For an applicant, the first question is whether approval is pending, has been refused or has already been given but not reflected in the file. Review the application correspondence and any approval decision before treating the record as a final refusal.

V-69 Code (Residence-Permit Cancellation)

V-69 records the cancellation of a residence permit. The relevant review concerns the cancellation decision and its reasons, not simply whether the person still holds a physical permit card. Establish the date of notification and check whether the file also contains a separate decision about departure, removal or future admission.

V-70 Code (Suspected Marriage of Convenience)

V-70 concerns a suspected marriage of convenience. A legal review should identify why the marriage was questioned and consider evidence relevant to the actual relationship. Marriage registration and the assessment of the relationship should be examined separately, with the response directed to the specific reasons given in the file.

V-71 Code (Unconfirmed Whereabouts or Address)

V-71 is associated with a finding that the person's whereabouts or declared address could not be established. The useful evidence is a dated address history showing where the person lived and when any change was reported. Compare this with the address-check record to identify whether the disagreement concerns notification, the visit itself or the accuracy of the recorded address.

V-74 Code (Departure Notification)

V-74 is reported where departure must be notified to the relevant authorities. A notification requirement should not automatically be read as either a prohibition on travel or permission to depart. The individual instruction should be checked to establish which authority must be informed and whether any separate permission requirement applies.

V-77 Code (Disputed Ahiska Turkish Status)

V-77 concerns a dispute over claimed Ahiska Turkish status. The review should establish the status relied on in the application and the identity or family records submitted in support of it. This allows a possible evidential misunderstanding to be distinguished from a substantive disagreement about the application.

V-84 Code (Conditional Entry and Residence Application)

V-84 concerns admission conditional on a subsequent residence application. The practical priority is to read the condition and deadline in the actual admission document, rather than rely on a general description of conditional entry. Application receipts and dated correspondence should then be checked to establish whether the required step was taken and recorded.

V-87 Code (Voluntary Return under Temporary Protection)

V-87 records voluntary return in a temporary-protection context. A review should compare the return documentation with the person's account of departure and the current protection record. Anyone seeking to return should have that present position assessed rather than assume that an earlier identity document remains sufficient.

V-88 Code (Work-Permit Invalidation)

V-88 records the invalidation of a work permit. The important questions are which permission was affected, when it ceased to be valid and what reason was given. The work-permit decision should be reviewed alongside the person's other immigration documents before conclusions are drawn about continued work or lawful stay.

V-89 Code (Readmission Procedures)

V-89 concerns readmission procedures. The record should be linked to the actual transfer or readmission documents so that the countries, dates and identity details are clear. This is particularly useful where the person's travel history and the administrative account of their return do not match.

V-91 Code (Departure Permission under Temporary Protection)

V-91 is associated with a departure-permission requirement under temporary protection. The review should establish whether a particular journey was authorised and what conditions accompanied that authorisation. Keep the permission and travel records together, especially where the intended destination or travel dates changed after the application.

V-92 Code (Duplicate Temporary-Protection Registration)

V-92 concerns duplicate temporary-protection registration. Different identity details or registration numbers should be reconciled before relying on one record for an application. A useful review traces when each registration was created and asks the competent authority to clarify the current record rather than assuming that the newest document automatically governs.

V-137 Code (Invitation to Leave Turkey)

V-137 records an invitation to leave Turkey. The individual notice is important because it sets out what the person was told to do and the period allowed. Keep evidence of notification and any subsequent departure so that compliance can be assessed without confusing the invitation with a separate entry restriction.

V-144 Code (Meaning Requires File Review)

Published descriptions of V-144 are inconsistent, so a single definitive meaning cannot responsibly be given here. The underlying release or immigration decision should identify the actual measure and any continuing obligations. In particular, release from detention should not be assumed to establish a residence entitlement without examining the person's separate immigration status.

V-145 Code (Voluntary Return in International-Protection Cases)

V-145 is reported in connection with voluntary return in an international-protection context. The departure record should be examined together with the decision concerning the protection file. This avoids treating evidence of travel as a complete explanation of the person's present status or the requirements for a later application.

V-146 Code (Turkish Passport Annotation)

V-146 concerns an annotation affecting a Turkish passport. It should not be interpreted as an ordinary foreign-national entry ban merely because it appears in a code directory. The review should identify the passport decision, its issuing authority and the particular transaction or travel restriction involved.

V-147 Code (Spouse of an Annotated-Passport Holder)

V-147 concerns the spouse of a person whose Turkish passport carries an annotation. A review should establish the measure actually affecting the spouse rather than assume that both individuals have identical restrictions. The relevant passport decisions and identity records should be compared to clarify the link between the files.

V-148 Code (Temporary Accommodation Centre Record)

V-148 records residence in a temporary accommodation centre. If the person has since moved, the practical question is whether the administrative record accurately reflects that change. Centre documentation, departure information and the current address can help establish the chronology without treating accommodation status as an entry-ban decision.

V-153 Code (Constitutional Court Interim Measure)

V-153 is reported in connection with a Constitutional Court interim measure concerning removal to a third country. The operative court document matters more than the short code description because it identifies the measure's actual scope. Review the decision and subsequent procedural developments before assuming that it addresses every destination or every immigration issue.

V-154 Code (Court Challenge against Removal)

V-154 records a court challenge against a removal decision. It indicates a procedural development and should not be read as proof that the case has succeeded. The case reference, challenged decision and current court orders should be checked to establish what has been filed and what protection presently applies.

V-155 Code (European Court of Human Rights Interim Measure)

V-155 is reported in connection with an interim measure from the European Court of Human Rights. The court's communication should be read for its precise scope and any conditions or further directions. An interim measure should not be confused with a final judgment or assumed to resolve the person's residence position.

V-156 Code (Attorney-Fee Liability Record)

V-156 is described in commentary as an attorney-fee liability record. That label alone does not establish the creditor, legal basis or amount, and should not be treated as proof of an unpaid private engagement fee. Obtain the underlying assessment or decision and compare it with any payment documents before deciding what correction or response may be appropriate.

V-157 Code (Residence-Permit Refusal)

V-157 records refusal of a residence-permit application. The review should focus on the application category, the stated refusal grounds and the date of notification. Where the applicant believes documents were overlooked or facts misunderstood, those points should be connected to the reasons in the actual refusal rather than addressed through a generic new application.

V-158 Code (Foreign-Mission Identity Card Cancellation)

V-158 concerns cancellation of an identity card issued to foreign-mission staff or a family member. The review should establish the date and basis of cancellation and the person's position after that change. Mission correspondence and any separate immigration documents should be considered together before making assumptions about continued stay.

V-159 Code (Transit to a Third Country)

V-159 concerns transit to a third country. The practical review should establish the intended destination, the travel arrangement and any conditions recorded for the stay in Turkey. If the onward journey has changed or cannot proceed, the consequences should be assessed from the actual documents rather than inferred from the transit label.

These are reported descriptions, rather than findings about a particular person. For V-84, comply with the period stated in the actual entry document. Different descriptions of V-144 should not be treated as a confirmed right of residence.

N Codes: Prior Permission, Fines and Costs

N-67 Code (Fraud-Related Entry Clearance)

N-67 concerns fraud-related prior-clearance requirements. The underlying fraud allegation and the administrative condition on entry should be identified as separate parts of the file. A useful review considers the status of the related proceedings and what the competent authority requires before deciding whether entry can be authorised.

N-82 Code (Prior Permission for Entry)

N-82 indicates that entry is subject to prior permission; it is not synonymous with a permanent entry ban. The practical issue is whether the required approval exists for the proposed journey and what it covers. Any approval, refusal or pending request should be reviewed before a visa or travel booking is treated as sufficient clearance.

N-95 Code (Fine for Breaching an Entry Ban)

N-95 concerns a fine associated with breaching an entry ban. The first step is to compare the entry date with the ban that the authority says was in force. The fine assessment and any payment record should then be examined separately from the question of whether a restriction still applies.

N-96 Code (Fine for Failure to Leave on Time)

N-96 concerns a fine for failing to leave within the time allowed. The relevant documents should establish the departure deadline, how it was communicated and when the person actually left. This helps distinguish a disputed timeline from a financial obligation that has been assessed but not correctly recorded as paid.

N-97 Code (Address-Declaration Fine)

N-97 concerns a fine connected with address-declaration obligations. A dated record of registrations, changes of address and notifications can clarify what happened. Compare that record with the assessment before assuming that the issue is simply the person's current address rather than an alleged earlier failure to report it.

N-99 Code (Interpol-Related Entry Clearance)

N-99 concerns an Interpol-related record and entry clearance. The review should identify the actual international alert, the requesting country and the Turkish measure based on that information. Because notices serve different purposes, the code should not be used to infer either a conviction or the precise action requested internationally.

N-119 Code (Unauthorised-Work Fine)

N-119 concerns a fine for unauthorised work. The assessment should be matched to the work period and the person against whom it was issued, particularly where employer and worker records are both involved. Any dispute about the alleged work should be distinguished from a request to correct an outstanding balance after payment.

N-120 Code (Unpaid Stay or Work-Permission Charges)

N-120 concerns unpaid charges or fines associated with stay or work-permission breaches. A useful review separates the different amounts rather than assuming that a single receipt accounts for the entire file. Compare the assessment references, payment dates and recorded balance to determine which financial issue still needs attention.

N-135 Code (Fine for Irregular or Attempted Entry)

N-135 concerns a fine for irregular entry or attempted entry. The incident giving rise to the assessment should be identified and compared with the person's travel documents and account. A fine arising from that incident should be distinguished from any separate entry restriction, including a related Ç-code record.

N-136 Code (Outstanding Removal Travel Costs)

N-136 concerns outstanding travel costs associated with removal. The review should identify which journey and expenditure the authority attributes to the person. An itemised account and payment evidence help establish whether the issue is an unpaid amount, a disputed charge or an administrative record that has not been updated.

N-168 Code (Fine for Escape during Detention or Removal)

N-168 concerns a fine associated with escape during detention or removal. The relevant review should establish the event alleged, the person's status at the time and the decision imposing the fine. Release documents and the incident chronology are particularly important if the person disputes that the recorded event occurred as described.

N-169 Code (Fine for Breaching Ministerial Obligations)

N-169 concerns fines for breaching administrative obligations set by the ministry. The file should identify the particular obligation and how it was communicated to the person. Evidence of compliance, a change in circumstances or an incorrect notification record should be assessed against that specific requirement rather than against the code in isolation.

N-170 Code (Administrative Fines under Misdemeanour or Other Legislation)

N-170 concerns fines under misdemeanour or other legislation. The immigration record may not itself explain the provision applied or the conduct alleged. Obtain the underlying assessment and payment history so that advice addresses the actual liability instead of treating all N-170 records as the same immigration breach.

N-171 Code (Fine for Failure to Fulfil Obligations)

N-171 concerns fines for failure to fulfil imposed obligations. The description overlaps with other administrative-obligation records, making the individual assessment especially important. Establish the instruction, relevant dates and alleged non-compliance before deciding whether the response concerns the fine itself or the accuracy of the resulting record.

N-172 Code (Outstanding Voluntary-Return Travel Costs)

N-172 concerns outstanding travel costs associated with voluntary return. These should be distinguished from costs attributed to a compulsory removal or an unrelated journey. Review the return arrangements, the financial assessment and any receipts to clarify the basis of the amount recorded against the person.

The prior-permission meaning of N-82 is documented in Constitutional Court judgments, and Council of State judgments establish that a prior-permission decision is not an entry ban. Check the assessed amount and payment record: payment does not automatically resolve every separate restriction.

O Codes: International Protection Files

O-100 Code (Protection-File and Entry-Restriction Record)

O-100 is reported in international-protection files involving withdrawal, refusal or unconfirmed whereabouts, alongside entry restrictions. Those circumstances raise different factual questions, so the actual decision concerning the protection file should be obtained. The review should establish whether the disagreement concerns the application outcome, the account of the person's whereabouts or a separate measure affecting admission.

O-176 Code (Adverse International-Protection Decision)

Published commentary associates O-176 with an adverse international-protection decision and a three-year restriction. The reported period should be checked against the individual decision rather than treated as an automatic consequence of every unsuccessful protection application. Review the protection outcome, its notification and any separate entry-ban notice together to identify the measures requiring attention.

O-177 Code (Protection Refusal or Status Cancellation)

O-177 is described in commentary in connection with an adverse protection decision or cancelled status and a five-year restriction. The underlying reason matters, particularly where the person disputes that their protection file was properly concluded. A legal review should separate the status decision from any entry restriction and confirm the dates and grounds of each.

Reported periods must be confirmed in the individual decision. Protection status, removal and entry must be assessed separately.

K, M and Y: Wanted-Person and International Notice Records

K Codes (Smuggling-Related Search Records)

The K-code family is associated with persons sought in smuggling matters, but the letter alone is not enough to identify the record. Obtain the full code and the underlying search or case reference before assessing its effect. The review should establish whether the information concerns the same person and whether the related proceedings remain active.

M-67 Code (Interpol-Related Fraud Record)

M-67 is reported as an Interpol-related fraud record. A review should establish the international notification and the domestic decision that relies on it, rather than treat the immigration code as the original alert. The person's identity, the requesting authority and the status of the fraud proceedings should be checked before deciding which record needs to be addressed.

Y Codes (Interpol Green Notice Records)

Y-code records are associated in commentary with Interpol green notices. Interpol describes a green notice as a public-safety warning about a person's criminal activities, which is a different function from a red notice seeking location and arrest. The actual notice and any Turkish immigration measure should therefore be examined separately, rather than assuming that the colour alone determines the person's position.

The practical review points distinguish an international notice from an immigration decision in Turkey; they do not establish that any of these records exists or is valid in a particular case.

How Can a Restriction Code Affect Entry to or Residence in Turkey?

In practice, a restriction code may result in refusal at the border, an obstacle to a residence application or a need for further examination. A restriction record, an entry ban, a residence permit refusal and a removal decision are not interchangeable. Each measure must be identified separately, even if they arise from the same events.

The Law sets different rules for these measures. An entry ban ordinarily lasts no more than five years; where there is a serious threat to public order or public security, this may be extended by up to a further ten years (Law No. 6458, Article 9/3). A visa does not provide an unconditional right to enter Turkey either: the Law allows even visa-exempt foreign nationals to be treated as inadmissible passengers and turned away in certain circumstances.

Marriage, property ownership or a business interest may be relevant to the assessment, but none automatically removes an existing restriction. The underlying measure must be considered together with the reason advanced for entry to or stay in Turkey.

Is the N-82 Code an Entry Ban on Turkey?

Which Facts Matter in a Restriction-Code Case?

What matters in a restriction-code case is the decision underlying the record and that decision’s current status, rather than simply the code’s letters and numbers. The initial review should connect the identity record to the decision and its consequences. A passport change, different spelling of a name or incomplete travel history may make this harder. These details should be checked without assuming that the restriction results from an administrative error.

Two records bearing the same code may need different approaches because their underlying decisions differ. You do not need to identify the code before seeking legal advice. Explain what happened, when it happened and whether you are in Turkey or abroad. Access to particular information may depend on the nature of the record and the applicable procedure.

How Can You Check and Find Out Your Restriction Code?

A restriction code is often discovered through a notified decision, a border procedure or refusal of a visa or residence application. Lists and tools advertised online as “restriction code checks” do not confirm a person’s current record. The contents of the record should be obtained through the official decision or the competent authority.

• Notified decision: a removal decision must, by law, be notified together with its reasons.
• Border procedure: a passenger who is turned away is notified of the action, and the notification states the available ways to challenge it.
• Application to migration authorities: information about the record may be requested in writing from the provincial migration directorate or the Presidency of Migration Management.
• Application through a representative: a person abroad may also apply through a lawyer authorised by a power of attorney.

Access to some security-record information may be limited by confidentiality rules. However you learn of the record, keep evidence of the date and document through which it was notified: the time limit for court proceedings is calculated by reference to that date.

Can a Restriction Record Be Corrected or Challenged?

Yes. If a restriction record is incorrect, its correction may be requested; if the underlying administrative action is unlawful, an administrative application or an action for annulment may be possible. The appropriate route depends on the measure’s legal basis, the responsible authority and the evidence available. A request to correct a factual error differs from a challenge to a security assessment.

If an administrative application receives no reply within 30 days, the request is deemed refused; an action may then be brought before the administrative court within the applicable filing period (Law No. 2577, Article 10). Where there are several decisions, success against one should not be assumed to remove the others. A residence refusal, an entry ban or an administrative-detention decision may require a separate response. A responsible assessment cannot promise removal based only on the code’s name.

Can a Court Annul an Entry Ban Bearing the Ç-141 Restriction Code?

Can You Travel to Turkey While a Restriction Code Is Being Reviewed?

Travel while a restriction code is under review depends on whether an active measure is recorded. A pending application or court case does not, by itself, count as permission to travel to Turkey. Confirm the effect of any active restriction before making non-refundable bookings. If a decision or permission has been obtained, its scope and the status of any continuing measures still need to be checked.

Paying a fine and removing a restriction are separate matters. Unpaid administrative fines and public debts may lead governorates to make a foreign national’s admission subject to prior permission (Law No. 6458, Article 9/7). Payment should therefore be documented, but should not be presented as a universal solution for every code.

A new passport does not resolve the legal basis of a restriction. A new visa application should not replace review of a known ban or refusal either. The planned journey and the immigration record must be considered together.

What happens if a restriction code leads to a stop at passport control is explained in our guide to being detained at Istanbul Airport.

When Does a Restriction-Code Case Involve a Short Filing Deadline?

Short filing deadlines may apply where a restriction code is connected to a removal decision, a person is held at the border or is in a removal centre. A request about the code does not replace a separate challenge to removal or administrative detention. An action against a removal decision must be filed in the administrative court within seven days of notification (Law No. 6458, Article 53/3); this deadline must not be confused with the rules for other measures.

The court’s decision concerning removal is final. Unless the foreign national consents to removal, they are not removed during the filing period or while the case is pending. Appeal routes are also limited in cases concerning other immigration actions. Following the amendment made by Law No. 7589 of 16 July 2026, cases arising under Law No. 6458 cannot be appealed to the Council of State even where the regional administrative court sets aside the first-instance judgment and issues a new decision.

Any planned removal, recent notification or court judgment should be brought to the lawyer’s attention immediately. A routine information request does not extend the filing deadline or replace the protection that the appropriate legal procedure may provide.

Which Documents Matter When Reviewing a Restriction Code?

The key is not the number of documents, but whether a document answers the reason for the record. Dates are central to overstay codes; for security codes, the event underlying the decision matters; for fine-related codes, the assessment and payment records are relevant.

• Documents about the action itself: a refusal or entry-ban notice, removal decision, proof of notification or form issued at the border.
• Documents about stay and departure: visa and residence-permit history, entry-exit records, and an invitation-to-leave document.
• Documents about fines and debts: the administrative-fine decision, payment receipt and itemised calculation of costs.
• Documents about ties to Turkey: marriage and civil-registration records, work permit, title deed or company documents.
• Documents about criminal proceedings: investigation or prosecution documents, acquittal, non-prosecution or dismissal decisions.

Not all of these documents are required in every case: the same document may be decisive in one file and irrelevant in another. Reviewing the file establishes which document answers which reason.

Conclusion: A Restriction Code’s Meaning Cannot Be Established Without Reading the Underlying Decision

A restriction code is shorthand for a record in a foreign national’s immigration file. Its actual meaning and effect cannot be established without reading the underlying decision. Two codes beginning with the same letter can have very different consequences: one may concern only an unpaid fine, while another may indicate a five-year entry ban. First establish which action underlies the record, when it was notified and whether it remains active. Only then can the appropriate choice be made between correcting an inaccurate record, removing an entry ban and bringing an action for annulment.