What should a foreigner do when a deportation decision in Turkey is based on a security or public-order restriction code? Learn about G-87-type cases, the 15-day appeal deadline, evidence, detention, entry bans and urgent legal remedies in 2026.

A foreigner who receives a deportation decision based on a security or public-order restriction code should act immediately. These cases are particularly serious because the authorities may rely on Article 54 of Law No. 6458 on Foreigners and International Protection, including the provision concerning foreigners regarded as a threat to public order or public security.

A security-related restriction code is not necessarily the same legal act as the deportation decision itself. A foreigner may need to challenge the deportation decision, the underlying restriction or entry-ban record, and administrative detention separately, depending on the case.

This distinction is important. In a 2023 decision, the Council of State examined proceedings involving both a G-87 restriction code and a separate deportation decision based on Article 54(1)(d), recognizing that the two proceedings were sufficiently connected that the result of one could affect the other.

For foreigners in Ankara, Istanbul, Izmir, Mersin, Bursa and throughout Turkey, the first priority should therefore be identifying exactly which administrative decisions have been issued and which deadlines are already running.

What Is a Security or Public-Order Restriction Code?

Immigration authorities maintain administrative records concerning foreigners whose entry, stay or activities are considered relevant to immigration control, public order or public security.

One well-known example appearing in Constitutional Court and Council of State decisions is G-87, which has been used in connection with persons considered to present public-security concerns.

However, the practical issue is not simply the code printed or recorded against the foreigner’s name.

The central questions are:

Why was the code entered? What information supports it? Has an entry ban also been imposed? Has a deportation decision been issued? Is the foreigner in administrative detention?

Each of these can require separate legal analysis.

Can a Security Code Lead to Deportation?

Yes.

Article 54 of Law No. 6458 includes foreigners considered to pose a threat to public order or public security among those who may be subject to deportation. Current official guidance expressly lists this ground under Article 54(1)(d).

Authorities therefore may rely on security information or a public-order assessment as the basis for a deportation decision.

A final criminal conviction is not necessarily required.

But that does not mean a restriction code automatically proves that deportation is lawful.

Is the Restriction Code Alone Enough to Prove a Security Threat?

Not necessarily.

This is one of the most important arguments in many security-code cases.

The Constitutional Court’s case law demonstrates that meaningful judicial examination of the factual basis behind security allegations is important. In one case, an administrative court annulled a deportation decision after finding that there was no concrete evidence establishing the foreigner’s alleged connection with terrorist organizations or conflict zones and noting the absence of a G-87 security code among other factors.

Other Constitutional Court materials concerning G-87 cases show that disputes may revolve around whether intelligence or administrative material provides a sufficiently concrete basis for treating the individual as a public-security threat.

Accordingly, a challenge should not simply state, “I am not dangerous.”

It should attack the factual basis of the security assessment.

What Should the Foreigner Obtain Immediately?

The foreigner or lawyer should obtain the complete written deportation decision and notification documents.

The decision should be examined for:

the specific statutory ground relied upon;

the restriction or security code involved;

the date of notification;

the factual allegations;

any reference to intelligence, police or criminal records;

the destination country;

and whether administrative detention has also been imposed.

Official immigration guidance requires the deportation decision and its reasons to be notified to the foreigner, legal representative or lawyer.

The notification date is critical because the judicial deadline is extremely short.

How Long Does a Foreigner Have to Challenge the Deportation Decision?

Only 15 days from notification.

Current Presidency of Migration Management guidance states that the foreigner, legal representative or lawyer may challenge the deportation decision before the administrative court within 15 days.

Missing this deadline can create extremely serious consequences.

The foreigner should therefore not wait for:

a criminal investigation to finish;

a residence permit decision;

a family member to collect documents;

or informal negotiations with immigration authorities.

The court case should be assessed immediately.

Does Filing the Lawsuit Automatically Stop Deportation?

This issue is especially important in security-code cases.

For many deportation cases, judicial review prevents removal while the appeal period or court proceedings continue. However, current official guidance expressly identifies exceptions involving Article 54(1)(b), 54(1)(d) and 54(1)(k), which include terrorism-related and public-order or public-security cases.

Therefore, a foreigner whose deportation decision is specifically based on a public-order or public-security ground should not assume that filing an administrative court case automatically prevents removal.

Urgent protective judicial measures may need to be considered depending on the circumstances.

Where removal would expose the person to death, torture or prohibited ill-treatment, constitutional protections and urgent judicial remedies can become particularly important.

Can the Constitutional Court Become Relevant?

Yes.

Official migration guidance expressly recognizes the right of foreigners subject to deportation measures to make an individual application to the Constitutional Court where the legal requirements are satisfied.

The Constitutional Court has emphasized that foreigners facing removal must have an effective opportunity to present claims concerning serious risks in the destination country and that such claims must receive genuine judicial examination.

In an urgent case where deportation may create an irreversible risk to life or expose the foreigner to torture or prohibited ill-treatment, the timing and availability of constitutional protection can therefore become crucial.

What If the Foreign Country Would Be Dangerous for the Foreigner?

Article 55 provides important protection against removal.

A deportation decision should not be implemented where there are serious indications that the foreigner would face:

the death penalty;

torture;

inhuman treatment;

or degrading treatment or punishment

in the destination country.

The Constitutional Court has also stressed that authorities and courts must conduct a thorough examination where a sufficiently serious and documented claim of such risk is raised.

Evidence may include country conditions, individualized threats, previous persecution, arrest warrants, political or religious circumstances and other material showing a personal risk.

Does G-87 Automatically Mean the Foreigner Is a Terrorist?

No.

A restriction code is an administrative immigration measure. It is not itself a criminal conviction.

Constitutional Court materials show cases in which a G-87 code was entered based on security information even though criminal proceedings did not result in prosecution.

This distinction matters enormously.

Authorities may rely on intelligence or administrative security information for immigration purposes, but the code should not simply be treated as equivalent to a final criminal judgment.

The legal challenge should examine what factual information actually underlies the code.

What If the Criminal Investigation Ended Without Prosecution?

That can be powerful evidence.

If a security code was entered because of allegations that also formed the basis of a criminal investigation, a prosecutor’s decision not to prosecute may undermine the factual reasoning behind the immigration measure.

Constitutional Court materials include a case where a criminal investigation concerning suspected organizational involvement ended without prosecution, while a G-87 code and deportation proceedings continued on the basis of related information.

A favorable criminal decision therefore should be submitted promptly, but it should not be assumed that the immigration code disappears automatically.

The underlying administrative measure may need a separate challenge.

Should the Foreigner Challenge the Security Code Separately?

Potentially, yes.

A deportation decision and an underlying restriction or entry-ban decision can constitute different administrative acts.

The Council of State has expressly dealt with a situation where one lawsuit challenged a deportation decision based on Article 54(1)(d), while another challenged the G-87 entry restriction itself. The court regarded the proceedings as connected because the outcome of one could affect the other.

This means that challenging only the deportation decision may not always resolve the entire immigration record.

The lawyer should determine whether a separate restriction or entry-ban measure must also be challenged.

Can a Security Code Result in an Entry Ban?

Yes.

Law No. 6458 authorizes entry bans for foreigners whose entry is considered objectionable for public order or public security reasons.

Official guidance states that an ordinary entry ban generally cannot exceed five years, but where there is a serious public-order or public-security threat, it may be extended by up to an additional ten years.

The same guidance also confirms that the immigration authority may revoke an entry ban or permit entry for a specified period despite the continuing restriction.

Therefore, the future-entry consequences should be examined separately from the immediate deportation case.

Can the Foreigner Be Detained in a Removal Centre?

Yes, potentially.

Current official guidance states that administrative detention may be ordered for foreigners subject to deportation where specified conditions exist, including where the person is considered a threat to public order, public security or public health.

However, a deportation decision and detention decision remain separate legal measures.

The foreigner should obtain both documents.

How Can Administrative Detention Be Challenged?

Administrative detention can be challenged before the competent criminal court of peace.

Official guidance states that the foreigner, legal representative or lawyer may apply for judicial review of detention and that the court should complete its assessment within five days.

The detention challenge does not itself automatically suspend detention.

Importantly, where the circumstances justifying detention disappear or materially change, another application may be made for review.

Thus, a foreigner may simultaneously need:

a case against the deportation decision;

a challenge to the restriction code or entry ban;

and a separate challenge to administrative detention.

What Evidence Can Be Used Against a Security-Code Deportation Decision?

The defense should be evidence-based.

Potentially useful material includes the absence of any criminal record, favorable prosecutor or criminal court decisions, long-term lawful residence, work and social security records, family relationships, children’s records, property and business connections, evidence contradicting alleged organizational links, travel records, passport entries, telephone or location records, financial records and any document showing that the security allegation is factually incorrect.

If the administration relies on alleged association with another person, the nature of that relationship should also be explained.

Where the alleged activity occurred years earlier, subsequent lawful conduct may also be relevant to the proportionality assessment.

Can Family Life Help Challenge the Decision?

Potentially.

A foreigner may have a Turkish spouse, Turkish citizen children, children attending school, long-term lawful residence or other substantial private and family ties.

Those circumstances do not automatically defeat a genuine national-security ground.

However, they can form part of the individualized judicial assessment, particularly when the evidence supporting the alleged threat is weak.

Family documents should therefore be included rather than treating the case exclusively as a technical restriction-code dispute.

Practical Example: G-87 Code but No Criminal Conviction

A foreign professional in Istanbul discovers that a G-87 restriction code has been entered following a security investigation.

No criminal conviction exists and the prosecutor later terminates the criminal investigation.

The foreigner nevertheless receives a deportation decision under Article 54(1)(d).

The defense should examine both the deportation decision and the underlying G-87 measure, submit the favorable criminal decision and require meaningful scrutiny of the evidence said to establish a current public-security threat.

Practical Example: Foreign Worker Taken to a Removal Centre

A foreign employee in Ankara is stopped during a routine identity check and learns that a security restriction exists.

The governorate issues a deportation decision and administrative detention is imposed.

The employee should not treat these as one single procedure. The deportation decision has its own administrative court remedy, while detention may be separately challenged before the competent criminal court of peace.

Practical Example: Deportation to a High-Risk Country

A foreign national in Izmir receives a security-based deportation decision but claims that return would expose them to imprisonment and torture because of individualized political circumstances.

Evidence of that risk must be presented urgently.

Article 55 protection and Constitutional Court principles concerning the right to life and prohibition of ill-treatment can become central even where the administration relies on public-security grounds.

Practical Example: Security Code Creates an Entry Ban

A foreign investor in Bursa leaves Turkey after a deportation process and later discovers that an entry restriction prevents return.

The person should establish whether the restriction is merely a consequence of deportation or is supported by an independent public-security decision.

Official law allows security-related entry restrictions and also permits the authority, in appropriate circumstances, to revoke an entry ban or authorize temporary entry despite it.

2026 Immediate Action Plan

A foreigner confronted with a security or public-order deportation decision should immediately determine:

What restriction code is recorded? → What evidence supposedly supports it? → Has a formal deportation decision been issued? → Is Article 54(1)(d), 54(1)(b) or another provision relied upon? → When was the decision notified? → Is the 15-day court deadline running? → Does filing the case automatically protect against removal in this particular category? → Is urgent protective relief required? → Has an entry ban also been imposed? → Is administrative detention in force? → Should detention be challenged separately? → Did a criminal investigation end without prosecution or with acquittal? → Does Article 55 protection apply? → What family, residence, employment and security-related evidence contradicts the administrative assessment?

Frequently Asked Questions

1. Can a security restriction code lead to deportation in Turkey?

Yes. A foreigner considered a threat to public order or public security may become subject to deportation under Article 54(1)(d).

2. Does a G-87 code automatically prove that the foreigner is dangerous?

No. G-87 is an administrative security-related restriction appearing in court cases; the underlying factual basis can be examined and challenged.

3. Is a criminal conviction required?

Not necessarily. Immigration authorities may rely on an independent public-order or public-security assessment, although the evidence supporting that assessment remains important.

4. How long does the foreigner have to challenge deportation?

The administrative court challenge must be brought within 15 days from notification.

5. Does filing the case automatically stop deportation?

Not in every security-related case. Official guidance identifies Article 54(1)(b), 54(1)(d) and 54(1)(k) cases as exceptions to the ordinary non-removal protection during judicial proceedings.

6. Can the restriction code itself be challenged separately?

Potentially, yes. Council of State case law confirms that proceedings concerning a G-87 restriction and a related deportation decision can exist as separate but connected cases.

7. Can the foreigner challenge administrative detention?

Yes. Administrative detention can be challenged separately before the competent criminal court of peace.

8. Can security concerns create a long entry ban?

Yes. An ordinary entry ban generally does not exceed five years, but a serious public-order or public-security threat can support an additional extension of up to ten years.

9. What if the prosecutor decided not to prosecute?

That may materially strengthen the challenge, especially if the restriction and deportation decision rely on the same allegations, but the immigration measure may still require a separate legal challenge.

10. Can deportation occur if the person faces torture abroad?

Article 55 protects foreigners where serious indications show a risk of death penalty, torture, inhuman treatment or degrading treatment or punishment in the destination country.

Legal Assistance for Security Code and Public-Order Deportation Cases in Turkey

Security-code deportation cases require particularly fast action because several administrative measures can exist simultaneously. A foreigner may have a security restriction code, an entry ban, a deportation decision and an administrative detention decision, each potentially requiring a different legal remedy.

The most important 2026 practical point is that a foreigner generally has only 15 days from notification to challenge the deportation decision, and public-order or public-security cases fall within important exceptions to the ordinary rule preventing removal while judicial proceedings continue.

A restriction code should therefore never be treated as a complete explanation of the case. The actual intelligence, criminal, police or administrative information supporting the code should be examined wherever legally accessible, favorable criminal decisions should be submitted, and the proportionality and factual basis of the public-security assessment should be challenged where appropriate.

Firat Fesih Kaya Law Office provides legal assistance to foreign employees, investors, students, executives, professionals and families in Ankara, Istanbul, Izmir, Mersin, Bursa and throughout Turkey concerning security restriction codes, G-87-related cases, public-order deportation decisions, entry bans, administrative detention and urgent judicial proceedings.

Legal assistance may include reviewing the restriction and deportation records, filing the administrative court case within the applicable period, examining urgent measures against removal, challenging administrative detention separately, contesting the underlying entry restriction, presenting favorable criminal decisions and preparing evidence concerning family life, lawful residence and protection against removal.

Phone: +90 312 434 22 22
Mobile / WhatsApp: +90 532 769 22 22
Email: info@firatfesihkaya.av.tr
Office: Mevlana Boulevard No:221, Yildirim Tower, Balgat, Cankaya, Ankara, Turkey

The key rule is clear: a security or public-order code can have extremely serious consequences, but the code itself should not simply be accepted as conclusive proof that deportation is lawful. The underlying evidence, separate administrative measures, protection against removal and very short judicial deadlines must all be examined immediately.