Foreigners can challenge G-87 and other security restriction codes in Turkey. Learn how restriction codes, entry bans, deportation decisions and court proceedings work in 2026.

Yes. Foreigners can challenge a G-87 or another security-related restriction code in Turkey. A security restriction entered into immigration records is an administrative measure and is not automatically immune from judicial review merely because the authorities describe the information as related to national security or public order.

G-87 is particularly important because Turkish court decisions have associated this restriction with foreigners considered a potential threat to public security. It may be accompanied by an entry ban, deportation decision, residence permit cancellation or administrative detention. However, these measures are not necessarily one single administrative act, and challenging only one of them may not remove all the others.

The Council of State has expressly examined a case in which a foreigner brought one action against a deportation decision based on a G-87 record and another action against the G-87 entry restriction itself. The Council of State held that the two cases were legally connected because the outcome of one could affect the other.

For foreigners in Ankara, Istanbul, Izmir, Mersin, Bursa and throughout Turkey, the first step is therefore to determine exactly what has been entered into the immigration record and which formal administrative decisions have been issued.

What Is a G-87 Restriction Code?

G-87 is a security-related administrative restriction appearing in Turkish judicial decisions concerning foreign nationals.

Constitutional Court case records show that G-87 has been used as a general security restriction in cases where authorities considered a foreigner potentially connected with activities affecting public security. In some cases, a G-87 record was accompanied by an entry ban and deportation proceedings.

However, a G-87 code should not be confused with a criminal conviction.

It is an administrative immigration record.

The existence of the code does not by itself establish that the foreigner has committed a criminal offence.

Can a G-87 Code Be Challenged in Court?

Yes.

Council of State case law demonstrates that a foreigner may bring an annulment action against a G-87-based entry restriction. In the 2023 decision concerning connected cases, one lawsuit sought annulment of the foreigner’s deportation decision, while another sought annulment of the G-87 entry restriction itself.

This is particularly important because a foreigner may successfully challenge a deportation decision while the underlying restriction remains recorded unless the restriction itself is also addressed.

The exact legal strategy depends on which administrative acts exist.

Is G-87 the Same as a Deportation Decision?

No.

This distinction is essential.

A G-87 restriction may provide part of the factual or administrative basis for a subsequent deportation decision, but the restriction and the deportation decision can be legally separate administrative acts.

The Council of State has confirmed this distinction in litigation involving:

a G-87 entry restriction;

and

a deportation decision issued under Article 54(1)(d) of Law No. 6458 because of the G-87 record.

The Council of State found the two lawsuits connected but still treated them as separate proceedings.

Therefore, a foreigner should not assume that challenging deportation automatically deletes the G-87 record.

Is G-87 the Same as an Entry Ban?

Not necessarily, although the two may operate together.

Law No. 6458 allows immigration authorities to impose an entry ban against foreigners whose entry is considered objectionable for reasons of public order, public security or public health.

Court cases involving G-87 show that the security restriction may be used together with an entry ban.

The lawyer should therefore determine whether the foreigner has:

a restriction code only;

a separate entry-ban decision;

a deportation decision;

residence permit cancellation;

or several of these measures simultaneously.

Is a Criminal Conviction Required Before G-87 Can Be Entered?

No final criminal conviction is necessarily required for an immigration security assessment.

However, that does not mean authorities can rely purely on speculation.

The Constitutional Court has emphasized that, although the administration cannot always be expected to disclose all confidential national-security intelligence or obtain a criminal conviction before taking immigration measures, an abstract allegation that a foreigner presents a national-security threat is not sufficient. Authorities must submit sufficiently serious information showing, in the circumstances of the individual case, why the person’s activities create the alleged threat.

This principle can be central in G-87 litigation.

Can a Foreigner Win a Case If There Is No Concrete Evidence?

Potentially, yes.

A Constitutional Court decision records a case in which an administrative court annulled a deportation order because there was no concrete finding or evidence connecting the foreigner with terrorist organizations or conflict zones and no sufficient basis to regard the person as a public-security threat.

Another Constitutional Court case records an administrative court’s annulment of a deportation decision where the authorities’ assessment that the foreigner might be a foreign terrorist fighter was not based on sufficiently concrete information.

These cases do not mean every G-87 restriction must be annulled. They do show that evidence and individualized reasoning matter.

What Should a Foreigner Challenge?

The answer depends on the immigration file.

A foreigner may need to challenge separately:

the G-87 or other restriction code; the related entry ban; the deportation decision; residence permit cancellation; and administrative detention.

These measures can arise from the same factual allegations but are governed by different procedural rules.

A complete legal strategy should identify each administrative act rather than filing one general complaint about the foreigner’s immigration status.

What Is the Deadline for Challenging the Restriction Code?

A restriction-code challenge is generally governed by the administrative litigation rules unless a special statutory period applies.

Under Article 7 of the Administrative Judicial Procedure Law, the general period for bringing an action before an administrative court is 60 days where a special law does not establish another period. Council of State materials confirm this general 60-day rule and state that the period ordinarily runs from written notification of the administrative act.

However, calculating the deadline in a restriction-code case can be complicated if the foreigner learned of the restriction only later, was not properly notified, or became aware of it through a separate immigration decision.

The notification and knowledge history should therefore be reviewed carefully rather than automatically assuming that 60 days remain.

Is the Deadline the Same for a Deportation Decision?

No.

A deportation decision has a much shorter special period.

Current official immigration guidance states that the foreigner, legal representative or lawyer may challenge a deportation decision before the administrative court within 15 days from notification.

Therefore, a case involving both G-87 and deportation may contain different deadlines at the same time.

The 15-day deportation deadline should never be confused with the general administrative litigation period applicable to many other administrative measures.

What If the Foreigner Never Received Written Notice of G-87?

This can become an important procedural issue.

Under Turkish administrative litigation principles, written notification is significant in calculating the ordinary time limit for challenging an individual administrative act. Council of State case law confirms that the general administrative litigation period ordinarily begins following written notification.

In practice, foreigners sometimes discover a security restriction only when:

their visa is refused;

they are stopped at the border;

their residence permit is rejected;

they are detained;

or a deportation decision is issued.

The exact date and manner in which the foreigner became legally aware of the restriction can therefore become important to the admissibility of the lawsuit.

Can the Foreigner Request Information About Why the Code Was Entered?

Yes, although national-security confidentiality can limit disclosure of certain material.

A court reviewing the administrative measure may request information from the administration concerning the basis for the restriction.

Constitutional Court case records show administrative courts asking authorities to explain the grounds underlying restriction records and requesting information concerning related criminal investigations.

The administration may argue that some intelligence material is confidential, but confidentiality does not eliminate the need for effective judicial scrutiny.

Can Secret Intelligence Be Used Against a Foreigner?

Potentially, but its use is not unlimited.

The Constitutional Court recognizes the legitimate need to protect confidential information obtained during national-security intelligence activities. It has also stated that authorities cannot always be required to produce every confidential document or first obtain a criminal conviction.

At the same time, authorities cannot merely state in abstract terms that the foreigner is dangerous. They must provide the courts with sufficiently serious information supporting the alleged national-security risk, and the courts must explain why they accept or reject those reasons.

This is one of the most important principles for challenging G-87 and similar security restrictions.

What If a Criminal Investigation Ended Without Prosecution?

That may substantially strengthen the case.

Constitutional Court records include situations in which a foreigner was subject to a security restriction and deportation proceedings while a related criminal investigation later ended with a decision not to prosecute.

A non-prosecution decision does not automatically delete a G-87 code because immigration and criminal proceedings are legally different.

However, where the restriction depends heavily on the same alleged conduct, the favorable criminal decision can be highly relevant evidence.

What If the Foreigner Was Acquitted?

An acquittal can similarly be important.

The foreigner should obtain a certified copy of the judgment and submit it in any pending administrative proceedings.

The critical question becomes whether the administration still has independent and sufficiently serious information supporting the security assessment after the criminal allegations have failed.

If not, continuation of the restriction may become more difficult to justify.

Does Having No Criminal Record Help?

Yes, but it is rarely sufficient by itself.

A clean criminal record can support the argument that the foreigner has no history suggesting a current public-security threat.

However, immigration authorities may argue that their security assessment is based on intelligence rather than criminal convictions.

The stronger defense normally combines a clean record with additional evidence contradicting the underlying allegations.

What Evidence Should Be Collected?

The foreigner should collect the deportation decision, entry-ban documents, residence permit decisions, any document mentioning G-87 or another restriction code, criminal investigation records, non-prosecution decisions, acquittal judgments, passport and travel history, lawful residence records, employment documents, social security records, family documents, children’s school records and any evidence contradicting alleged organizational, security or conflict-zone connections.

Where the foreigner believes there has been mistaken identity, documents proving identity, travel location and personal history can become particularly important.

Can Family Life Be Relevant?

Yes.

Security-related immigration measures may interfere with family life where the foreigner has a spouse, children or long-established family relationships in Turkey.

Constitutional Court cases show that family-life consequences can be relevant to immigration restrictions and deportation proceedings. In one G-87-related case, the foreigner had a Turkish spouse and four children, and the administrative court considered family unity among the circumstances relevant to the lawfulness of removal.

In March 2026, the Constitutional Court also found a violation of the right to respect for family life in a case concerning a deportation decision, confirming that this remains an active area of constitutional review.

Family life does not automatically override a genuine serious-security concern, but it should not be ignored.

Can an Entry Ban Based on Public Security Last for Many Years?

Yes.

Official immigration guidance states that an entry ban generally cannot exceed five years. Where there is a serious public-order or public-security threat, it can be extended for a maximum of an additional ten years.

The same framework allows the immigration authority to revoke an entry ban or permit the foreigner to enter for a specified period despite an existing restriction.

Accordingly, the foreigner’s strategy may involve both litigation and, depending on the circumstances, administrative remedies concerning the entry restriction.

Can a Residence Permit Be Rejected Because of a Restriction Code?

Yes, potentially.

Security or public-order records can affect visa, residence and entry decisions.

Constitutional Court proceedings have included cases where a restriction record affected extension of a foreigner’s residence status. For example, a 2024 Constitutional Court matter concerned an N-82 restriction that resulted in refusal of a temporary residence extension and raised family-life complaints.

Therefore, even where no immediate deportation occurs, leaving a restriction code unchallenged may create future immigration difficulties.

Can the Restriction Affect Re-Entry After the Foreigner Leaves Turkey?

Yes.

Public-order and public-security grounds can support refusal of entry or an entry ban. Official guidance expressly states that foreigners considered undesirable for reasons of public order or public security may be refused entry and that immigration authorities may impose entry bans for the same reasons.

A foreigner should therefore determine the legal consequences of the code before voluntarily leaving Turkey if future return is important.

What If the Foreigner Is Already Outside Turkey?

A restriction-code challenge may still be relevant.

A foreigner abroad may discover G-87 or another restriction only after:

a visa application is refused;

entry is refused at the border;

a consular application fails;

or the foreigner is told that prior approval is required.

The person should identify the underlying administrative decision and determine whether an entry ban or advance-clearance requirement has been imposed.

The litigation strategy can differ from a case involving a foreigner currently detained inside Turkey.

Can G-87 Be Challenged Without Challenging the Deportation Decision?

Potentially, but doing only that may be insufficient if a separate deportation decision exists.

The Council of State’s 2023 decision is especially useful here. It shows that a lawsuit concerning a G-87 entry restriction and another lawsuit concerning a deportation decision based on that same G-87 record can proceed separately but are legally connected.

When both measures exist, both should be assessed immediately.

What If Administrative Detention Has Also Been Ordered?

Administrative detention is a separate measure from the G-87 restriction and deportation decision.

Official immigration rules allow administrative detention in specified removal cases, including certain public-order and public-security circumstances.

The detention measure requires its own judicial review procedure.

A foreigner should therefore not assume that an administrative court lawsuit challenging G-87 automatically ends detention.

Can a Foreigner Apply to the Constitutional Court?

Potentially, after satisfying the legal requirements for an individual application.

The Constitutional Court Act allows individuals to apply where they allege that public authority has violated a constitutional right falling within the scope of the European human-rights framework, generally after available administrative and judicial remedies have been exhausted. Foreign nationals can use the individual-application procedure regarding rights that are not restricted exclusively to citizens.

In removal cases involving an imminent risk of death, torture or prohibited ill-treatment, constitutional remedies may become particularly important.

What If Return to the Country of Origin Is Dangerous?

A security code does not eliminate protection against prohibited removal.

Official immigration law provides protections where serious indications show that return would expose the foreigner to the death penalty, torture, inhuman treatment or degrading treatment or punishment.

The Constitutional Court similarly emphasizes that authorities must meaningfully examine serious allegations of ill-treatment risk in the destination country.

Country conditions and individualized risk evidence should therefore be collected immediately.

Practical Example: G-87 Based on Weak Intelligence

A foreign employee in Istanbul learns that a G-87 code was entered after intelligence information suggested a possible organizational association.

The foreigner has no conviction, no prosecution and documents showing that the supposed contact was an ordinary commercial relationship.

The legal challenge should focus not merely on the absence of a conviction but on whether the administration possesses sufficiently serious and individualized information establishing a genuine public-security risk.

That is the standard emphasized in Constitutional Court case law.

Practical Example: Criminal Case Ends Without Prosecution

A foreign professional in Ankara is investigated following a security allegation. A G-87 restriction is entered and a deportation decision follows.

Several months later, the prosecutor decides not to prosecute.

That decision does not automatically remove G-87, but it may significantly undermine the factual basis of the security assessment and should be submitted immediately in proceedings challenging both the restriction and deportation.

Practical Example: G-87 and Deportation Challenged Separately

A foreigner in Bursa has a G-87 entry restriction and receives a deportation decision based on Article 54(1)(d).

One lawsuit challenges the restriction and another challenges deportation.

This resembles the structure of the Council of State case in which the two proceedings were treated as connected because each could affect the other.

Practical Example: Foreigner Has Turkish Family Members

A foreign national in Izmir has lived lawfully in Turkey for many years, is married and has children.

A security restriction is imposed based on limited intelligence information.

The challenge should address both the alleged security basis and the consequences for established family life. Depending on the facts, proportionality and the quality of judicial examination may become important constitutional issues.

Practical Example: Foreigner Discovers Code at the Border

A foreign investor previously living in Mersin leaves Turkey and later attempts to return.

Entry is refused because a security restriction and entry ban exist.

The investor should obtain the available decision documents and determine whether the restriction, entry ban and any underlying deportation measure require separate challenges.

Simply submitting another visa application may not solve the underlying problem.

2026 Action Plan for Challenging G-87 or Another Security Restriction

The foreigner should immediately determine:

Which restriction code is recorded? → When and how did I first learn about it? → Is there a separate entry ban? → Has a deportation decision also been issued? → What is the exact statutory ground? → Is the 15-day deportation deadline running? → Is the general administrative litigation deadline relevant to the restriction itself? → What security information supposedly supports the code? → Is there a criminal investigation? → Has that investigation ended without prosecution or with acquittal? → Do I have evidence contradicting the allegations? → Has my residence permit also been cancelled? → Am I under administrative detention? → Do family-life considerations apply? → Would removal expose me to death, torture or prohibited ill-treatment?

Frequently Asked Questions

1. Can a foreigner challenge G-87 in Turkey?

Yes. Turkish judicial decisions demonstrate that foreigners can bring administrative litigation against G-87-related entry restrictions.

2. Does G-87 mean the foreigner has been convicted of terrorism?

No. It is an administrative security restriction, not a criminal conviction.

3. Is a criminal conviction necessary before a security restriction is imposed?

Not necessarily. However, the Constitutional Court states that authorities cannot rely only on abstract security allegations and must provide sufficiently serious information supporting the individual assessment.

4. Can G-87 and a deportation decision be challenged separately?

Yes. Council of State case law confirms that separate but connected proceedings may exist against the G-87 restriction and the deportation decision based on it.

5. How long is the deadline for challenging deportation?

A deportation decision must generally be challenged within 15 days from notification.

6. What is the general administrative court deadline for a restriction-code decision?

Where no special period applies, the general administrative litigation period is 60 days, ordinarily running following written notification. The particular notification history must still be examined carefully.

7. What if the criminal investigation ended without prosecution?

That can be important evidence against the security assessment, although the immigration restriction may still require a separate administrative challenge.

8. Can the entry ban also be challenged?

Potentially, yes. Entry bans are separate administrative measures and may require their own legal review.

9. Can a serious security entry ban exceed five years?

Yes. The general maximum is five years, but a serious public-order or public-security threat can support an additional extension of up to ten years.

10. Can family life or risk of torture be relevant?

Yes. Established family life may be relevant to the proportionality analysis, while removal cannot lawfully ignore a substantiated risk of death, torture or prohibited ill-treatment.

Legal Assistance for G-87 and Security Restriction Codes in Turkey

A G-87 or other security-related restriction can affect almost every aspect of a foreigner’s legal status in Turkey, including entry, residence permits, work permits, deportation and administrative detention.

The most important practical point is that a restriction code should not be viewed in isolation. There may be several legally separate administrative measures in the same immigration file. Council of State case law confirms that a G-87 entry restriction and a deportation decision based on the same code can require separate but connected litigation.

Equally important, national-security confidentiality does not give the administration unlimited discretion. Constitutional Court case law states that authorities may not rely only on an abstract allegation that a foreigner is dangerous. Sufficiently serious information must support the assessment, and courts must genuinely review the reasons relied upon.

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 G-87 and other security restrictions, entry bans, deportation decisions, residence permit cancellation and administrative detention.

Legal assistance may include identifying the restriction and related administrative measures, obtaining and reviewing the relevant records, challenging the restriction before the competent administrative court, filing a separate deportation case within the applicable 15-day period, presenting non-prosecution or acquittal decisions, challenging administrative detention and preparing evidence concerning family life 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 2026 rule is clear: G-87 and similar security restrictions can be challenged. A restriction code is not a criminal conviction, and the administration must have a legally sufficient factual basis for serious public-security measures. Because the restriction, entry ban, deportation decision and detention may each require different proceedings and deadlines, the entire immigration file should be reviewed immediately.