

Learn how foreigners and Turkish employers can challenge a work permit rejection based on employer eligibility criteria in Turkey in 2026, including the 30-day objection period, five-Turkish-employee rule, financial thresholds, exemptions, reapplication and administrative court remedies.
A foreigner whose Turkish work permit application is rejected because the employer allegedly fails to satisfy the Ministry’s employment, financial eligibility or other employer-related criteria can challenge the decision.
In 2026, the first step is usually an administrative objection to the Ministry of Labour and Social Security within 30 days from notification of the rejection. The objection is submitted electronically through the work permit application system together with a reasoned petition and supporting documents. If the Ministry rejects the objection, judicial review before the administrative courts becomes available.
A rejection should not automatically be treated as the end of the process. In many cases, the real question is whether the Ministry applied the correct employer eligibility rule, overlooked an applicable exemption, relied on incomplete corporate or financial records, or evaluated the wrong employment category.
Work permit applications are evaluated according to criteria determined by the Ministry of Labour and Social Security together with Turkey’s international labour force policy. The Ministry confirmed in July 2026 that the current general evaluation framework remains in force and consists principally of employment, financial eligibility and salary criteria.
For many ordinary employers, the central criteria include:
A rejection based on employer eligibility should therefore be analyzed against the specific criterion cited in the Ministry’s decision.
Under the general 2026 criteria, a balance-sheet-basis workplace normally must employ at least five Turkish citizens for each foreign employee for whom a work permit is sought.
For example, absent an exemption:
A work permit rejection may therefore state that the employer failed to satisfy the employment criterion.
However, this is only the general rule. A rejection may be challengeable where the Ministry failed to take an applicable exemption into account.
Yes.
This is one of the strongest potential grounds of objection where the foreigner or employer falls within a specific exemption.
For example, the general five-employee rule does not apply in the same way where the employer’s previous-year net sales are at least TRY 50 million for applications concerning up to five foreigners.
Similarly, other exemptions may arise because of:
An objection should therefore identify the exact exemption and show why the Ministry’s ordinary employment calculation was legally inapplicable.
Under the current rules, the employment criterion is not applied to work permit applications for up to five foreigners where the workplace had previous-year net sales of at least TRY 50 million.
This can be highly relevant in a rejection.
For example, if a company with TRY 80 million in previous-year net sales applies for two foreign specialists and the application is rejected solely because the company employs fewer than ten Turkish citizens, the employer should examine whether the turnover exemption was properly reflected in the application and Ministry records.
The objection can include:
The objective is to prove that the five-employee rule should not have been applied.
For a newly established balance-sheet-basis workplace, the general rule requires at least TRY 500,000 paid-in capital.
For an existing balance-sheet-basis workplace, the financial criterion can generally be satisfied where at least one of the following exists:
A work permit can be rejected where the Ministry concludes that none of these conditions is met.
But a challenge may be appropriate if the company actually satisfies one of these alternatives and the records were incomplete, outdated or incorrectly interpreted.
Potentially.
The Ministry’s appeal procedure expressly allows the relevant person to upload an explanatory objection petition and supporting documentation through the electronic work permit system.
The objection should not merely state that the rejection is unfair.
It should directly address the reason for refusal.
For example, where the rejection states that paid-in capital is insufficient, the employer may submit:
The stronger the documentary record, the stronger the objection.
This requires strategic consideration.
An objection is strongest where it demonstrates that the original rejection was wrong on the facts or law existing at the relevant time.
If the employer did not meet the criterion when the application was filed but later increased its capital or reached the necessary employment level, filing a new work permit application may sometimes be more appropriate than arguing that the original decision was unlawful.
The Ministry expressly states that a rejected work permit application does not prevent a new application after the deficiency causing the rejection has been eliminated.
It depends on why the application was rejected.
An objection is generally more appropriate where:
A new application may be more efficient where:
Because the Ministry expressly permits reapplication after the deficiency is removed, the two remedies should be compared before proceeding.
The deadline is 30 days from notification of the rejection decision.
The Ministry’s current guidance states that decisions rejecting a work permit or extension, cancelling a work permit or terminating a work permit may be challenged within thirty days from notification.
This deadline should be treated seriously.
The applicant or employer should record:
Waiting until the final days can make preparation of the objection unnecessarily difficult.
The relevant parties may challenge the decision.
Depending on the application structure, this may include the employer and the foreign applicant.
Because employer eligibility rejections concern corporate data, Turkish employment numbers and financial thresholds, the employer will usually need to provide substantial supporting documentation even where the foreigner is directly affected by the rejection.
The Ministry states that objections to rejected work permit applications are submitted online through the work permit application system.
A reasoned petition and supporting documents must be uploaded electronically.
The objection should be structured as a legal and factual response rather than as a general request for reconsideration.
A strong objection should normally identify:
The petition should focus directly on the Ministry’s stated reason rather than discussing unrelated facts.
Yes.
Where the employment criterion depends on the number of Turkish citizens employed at the workplace, social security records become highly important.
Problems may arise where:
An objection may therefore need to reconcile corporate and social security records.
The correct employment calculation may depend on the applicable work permit criterion and sector.
A company should not automatically assume that every Turkish employee across all related workplaces can be counted.
However, certain sector-specific rules may expressly consider enterprise-wide employment.
Where a rejection concerns headcount, the objection should explain:
Normally, employees of a separate group company should not automatically be counted toward another employer’s work permit criteria.
Corporate groups should carefully distinguish between:
If the Ministry rejected the application because workers belonging to another company were used in the calculation, a new corporate structuring strategy may be required rather than a simple objection.
Yes, potentially.
A major criterion effective 3 August 2026 provides that for domestic work permit applications involving foreigners who have legally remained in Turkey for at least one year during the previous three years under a work permit, residence permit or international protection, the ordinary employment and financial eligibility criteria are generally not applied for up to three qualifying foreigners.
This is particularly important when challenging an employer eligibility rejection.
If the applicant qualifies under this provision but the application was rejected because the employer lacked five Turkish employees or did not meet the ordinary financial criterion, the objection should expressly raise the exemption.
Yes.
The number of foreigners working under this rule should generally not exceed the number of Turkish citizens employed at the same workplace.
Where more than three qualifying foreigners will work at the workplace, the fourth and subsequent foreign workers generally become subject again to the five-Turkish-employee rule and financial eligibility criteria.
Therefore, an objection must verify that all conditions of the exemption are satisfied rather than citing only the one-year lawful-stay requirement.
Potentially, yes.
Long-term residence permit holders are among the categories for whom the Ministry’s ordinary employment, financial eligibility and salary criteria are generally not applied.
If a long-term resident’s application was rejected only because the employer allegedly failed the ordinary five-employee or financial criterion, the rejection should be examined carefully.
The objection should include official evidence of the foreigner’s long-term residence status.
The Ministry’s current criteria provide general exemptions from employment, financial eligibility and salary criteria for several categories, including certain foreigners who:
An employer eligibility rejection involving one of these applicants may therefore be based on the wrong evaluation framework.
No.
The Ministry expressly states that falling within an exempt category does not create an absolute right to receive a work permit.
Other rejection grounds may remain, including:
An objection should therefore confirm that employer eligibility was genuinely the operative reason for rejection.
Yes, where the Ministry’s calculation or classification is incorrect.
The current general salary thresholds are:
A challenge may be possible where the foreigner’s position was misclassified.
For example, an ordinary specialist should not automatically be treated as a senior executive merely because the job title contains the word “manager.”
Yes, but whether an objection or a new application is preferable depends on the facts.
If the originally declared salary was actually below the applicable minimum threshold, the legal basis of the original rejection may have been correct.
In that situation, correcting the salary and filing a new application may often be more appropriate.
If the Ministry applied the wrong salary category, an objection may instead challenge the classification.
Yes.
Foreign company shareholders are subject to specific evaluation rules.
A particularly important exemption applies where the foreign shareholder’s capital share is USD 100,000 or more. In that situation, the Ministry states that certain ordinary shareholder capital, shareholding and Turkish employment criteria do not apply.
If the Ministry rejected a shareholder application based on those ordinary criteria despite the foreigner’s qualifying capital share, that issue may form a strong objection ground.
Potentially.
Certain specialist IT applications benefit from sector-specific exemptions from ordinary employment and financial eligibility criteria.
Where the foreigner is genuinely employed in a qualifying IT specialist role, the employer should examine whether the application was incorrectly evaluated under ordinary criteria.
This can be particularly relevant to:
The objection should demonstrate both the employer’s relevant sector and the actual technical nature of the foreigner’s role.
Depending on the rejection reason, useful evidence may include:
The evidence should be organized around the specific rejection ground.
Yes, where those documents establish facts that were overlooked or insufficiently proven.
The Ministry’s procedure specifically permits supporting documents to be uploaded with the objection.
However, the applicant should distinguish between:
evidence proving the original application already met the rules, and
documents showing the deficiency was corrected only after rejection.
This distinction can affect whether an objection or new application is strategically stronger.
The Ministry re-examines the rejection in light of the objection grounds and documents.
If the objection is accepted, the original rejection may be reconsidered.
If the objection is rejected, the Ministry confirms that the applicant may seek judicial review before the administrative courts.
The ordinary process is not designed for endless administrative objections.
Once the Ministry rejects the objection, the next legal remedy is generally judicial review.
At the same time, filing a completely new work permit application may remain possible where the underlying deficiency has been corrected.
The applicant should therefore compare:
Yes.
The Ministry expressly states that where the administrative objection is rejected, an administrative judicial remedy is available.
A judicial challenge may argue that the Ministry decision is unlawful because of matters such as:
The exact grounds depend on the rejection decision and administrative file.
No.
A challenge to a work permit rejection should not be confused with work authorization.
Unless the foreigner already holds another valid authorization, the person should not begin working merely because an objection or lawsuit has been filed.
Unauthorized employment can create separate administrative and immigration problems.
Not automatically.
Work permit procedure and immigration status must be monitored separately.
A foreigner whose residence permit is approaching expiry should not assume that a pending objection gives automatic residence rights.
The applicant should maintain lawful stay through the appropriate immigration route.
The Ministry states that rejection itself does not prevent a new work permit application once the deficiency causing the rejection has been remedied.
Therefore, an employer may sometimes choose a fresh application rather than pursuing a lengthy dispute.
Examples include:
A new application may be more practical where the rejection is clearly based on a real deficiency that has since been corrected.
For example:
A company had TRY 400,000 paid-in capital when it applied and therefore failed the TRY 500,000 threshold. It later properly increases and pays in its capital to TRY 750,000.
In such a case, challenging the original rejection may have limited value because the original application may genuinely have failed the criterion.
A corrected new application can be more efficient.
An objection may be stronger where:
In these circumstances, the issue is not correcting the employer but correcting the administrative assessment.
They should be.
The Ministry’s decisions are communicated electronically, and the result is also visible in the work permit system.
Before drafting the objection, the employer should compare:
An objection drafted without reviewing the original application can inadvertently contradict the employer’s previous submissions.
Frequent problems include:
Many of these problems can be avoided through a pre-application eligibility review.
Before submitting another application, the employer should create an eligibility matrix covering:
The objective is to ensure that every criterion relied upon can be proved through official records.
A work permit rejection based on employer eligibility should be approached in three stages.
First, identify the exact rejection criterion. Determine whether the Ministry relied on employment numbers, financial capacity, salary, shareholding structure or another employer-related requirement.
Second, test whether an exemption applies. The 2026 framework contains significant exemptions, including the TRY 50 million turnover rule, the lawful-stay exception effective from 3 August 2026 and personal exemptions for specified foreigners.
Third, choose the correct remedy. Where the rejection is legally or factually incorrect, file an administrative objection within 30 days. Where the employer genuinely failed the criterion but can now correct it, a new application may be more effective. If the objection is rejected and the decision remains unlawful, administrative litigation is available.
The Ministry permits an objection within 30 days from notification of the rejection decision.
The objection is filed electronically through the work permit application system together with a reasoned petition and supporting documents.
Yes, particularly where the employer’s headcount was calculated incorrectly or an employment-criterion exemption applies.
Where previous-year net sales are at least TRY 50 million, the employment criterion is not applied for work permit applications involving up to five foreigners.
Yes, if the employer actually met the financial eligibility criterion and can document it. If the criterion was not met at the original application date but has since been corrected, a new application may be more appropriate.
No. The Ministry expressly states that a new application can be filed after the deficiency underlying the rejection has been eliminated.
Potentially. Since 3 August 2026, qualifying domestic applicants who have lawfully remained in Turkey for at least one year during the previous three years may be exempt from employment and financial eligibility criteria for up to three qualifying foreigners, subject to additional conditions.
Potentially. Long-term residence permit holders are generally exempt from employment, financial eligibility and salary criteria.
The applicant may seek judicial review before the administrative courts.
No. Filing an objection does not itself create a valid work permit or authorization to work.
Employer eligibility rejections frequently depend on technical distinctions between Turkish employee headcount, paid-in capital, net sales, export levels, salary categories and exemptions. A rejection may be legally correct because the employer genuinely failed a criterion, or it may result from an incorrect calculation, missing evidence or failure to apply an available exemption.
Fırat Fesih Kaya Law Office assists foreign professionals, company shareholders, investors, start-ups, multinational companies and Turkish employers with work permit rejection objections and employer eligibility disputes in Turkey.
Lawyer Fırat Fesih Kaya provides legal assistance concerning work permit objections, five-Turkish-employee requirements, employer financial eligibility, TRY 50 million turnover exemptions, 2026 lawful-stay exemptions, foreign shareholder applications, reapplications and administrative court proceedings following rejected objections.
Phone: +90 312 434 22 22
Mobile: +90 532 769 22 22
Email: info@firatfesihkaya.av.tr
Address: Mevlana Boulevard No:221, Yıldırım Tower, Office No:148, 06520 Balgat, Çankaya, Ankara, Turkey