There is one rule in Turkish immigration law that operates regardless of what else is true about a person: they may not be sent somewhere they would face death, torture or inhuman treatment. It applies to people with security assessments against them, to people who entered irregularly, to people whose applications have failed. This article explains that rule, where it sits in Turkish law, and how it is invoked.
The principle
Non-refoulement prohibits returning a person to a territory where they would face persecution or serious harm. It appears in the 1951 Refugee Convention, in Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights, and in the Convention against Torture.
Türkiye is bound by all three, and under Article 90 of the Constitution international agreements on fundamental rights and freedoms prevail over conflicting domestic provisions.
The principle is expressed domestically in Article 55 of Law No. 6458, which lists persons in respect of whom a removal decision shall not be taken.
What Article 55 covers
A removal decision shall not be taken in respect of, among others:
- persons for whom there are serious indications that they will be subjected to the death penalty, torture, or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in the country to which they would be sent;
- persons who would face risk in travelling owing to serious health problems, age or pregnancy;
- persons whose treatment for a life-threatening condition is ongoing and cannot be obtained in the country of return;
- victims of human trafficking receiving support;
- victims of psychological, physical or sexual violence, during their treatment.
Note the drafting: shall not be taken. This is not a factor to be weighed against others. Where the provision applies, the decision is unlawful at its foundation.
Why it matters more than any other argument
Most immigration arguments are about balance — the strength of ties, the proportionality of a measure, whether an assessment was reasonable. Article 55 is different in kind. It does not ask whether removal is justified; it says it may not happen.
That has a practical consequence: a person with an adverse security assessment, an entry ban, a criminal record and a failed application still has this argument. It survives everything else.
Where the provision applies and removal is nonetheless barred, the lawful outcome is not that the person disappears from the system. It is frequently a humanitarian residence permit under Article 46, which exists precisely to give lawful status to people who cannot be removed.
What "serious indications" requires
The threshold is not certainty and it is not speculation. What is required is evidence supporting a real risk to this individual.
The elements of a properly built case:
- Country evidence, from recognised sources — international organisations, established human rights bodies, credible reporting — establishing the general situation.
- Individual evidence connecting the applicant to that situation: their profile, activities, associations, family, ethnicity, religion, political position, sexual orientation, or whatever places them at risk.
- Documentary support: arrest warrants, court documents, summonses, media reports naming the person, correspondence, threats.
- Evidence of past treatment, including medical and psychological reports where torture or violence is alleged. A medico-legal report addressing the consistency of findings with the account given is particularly significant.
- Evidence about relatives who have suffered similar treatment.
The commonest weakness is a case built entirely on general country conditions. Country evidence establishes what happens to people like the applicant; individual evidence establishes that the applicant is such a person. Both halves are needed.
Health cases
The second and third limbs of Article 55 protect people whose situation is medical rather than political, and they are underused.
A person receiving treatment for a life-threatening condition that cannot be obtained in the country of return falls within the provision. So does a person who would be at risk in travelling because of serious illness, age or pregnancy.
What makes these cases is medical evidence that answers the statutory questions specifically: the diagnosis and its seriousness, the treatment and its duration, the consequence of interruption, the availability of that treatment in the country of return, and fitness to travel. A general letter does not engage the provision; a report addressing those five points does.
How it is invoked
- Before a decision: in submissions to the migration authorities, with evidence, so that no removal decision is taken.
- After a removal decision: in the application to the administrative court within seven days of notification. The person may not be removed during that period or while proceedings continue, unless they consent. The court decides within fifteen days.
- In detention proceedings: before the magistrate's court, since detention to effect a removal that cannot lawfully occur is difficult to justify.
- In a humanitarian residence permit application under Article 46, where removal is barred and no other status is available.
- Before the Constitutional Court, by individual application where domestic remedies have been exhausted and fundamental rights are engaged — a route with its own conditions and time limits requiring specific advice.
The consent trap
The protection against removal during proceedings has one exception: the person's own consent.
A signature on a voluntary departure document removes it. People sign these documents in detention, in a language they do not read, on an explanation that does not describe their effect.
Anyone in this position should sign nothing without advice, and anyone advising a family should make this the first thing they say.
Frequently asked questions
Does it apply if I have a security code against me? Yes. Article 55 does not exclude people on that basis.
Do I have to claim asylum to rely on it? It is a bar on removal, distinct from the international protection procedure. Whether to claim protection is a separate question requiring advice.
What if I entered irregularly? The manner of entry does not disapply the provision.
What evidence do I need? Country evidence plus individual evidence connecting you to the risk. Both.
Does it give me a residence permit? It bars removal. A humanitarian residence permit under Article 46 is the mechanism that provides status.
How long do I have to act? Seven days from notification of a removal decision.
Can my family act for me if I am detained? Yes, and the detained person can also instruct a lawyer directly, which is faster.
The argument that survives everything
Article 55 is the most important provision in Turkish immigration law for the people who need it most, and it is regularly not raised — because the case looks hopeless on every other ground, and nobody looks at the one ground that does not depend on the others.
Dural Hukuk raises non-refoulement in removal proceedings, builds the country and individual evidence these cases require, obtains medico-legal reports where past treatment is alleged, and applies for humanitarian residence where removal is barred. Call +90 535 260 74 54 or use the contact form on this site.
This article is general information on Turkish law as at August 2026 and is not legal advice. These cases turn on evidence and carry extremely short deadlines; obtain advice immediately.