Türkiye, with its geographical position and dynamic structure, is both a major transit and destination country in international migration flows. With the increase in the number of foreigners legally residing in our country, the residence permit system, structured around the Law on Foreigners and International Protection of 2014, has become the cornerstone of regular migration management.
However, residence permit fees, as part of this system and despite being a legal requirement, have turned into a challenging area for foreigners and even for the administration due to legislative complexity, implementation gaps, and ambiguities in refund procedures.
Residence permit fees are not merely a technical administrative detail. Collected under the 1964 Law on Fees and its annexed tariff No. 6, these fees serve as a tool that guides foreigners toward lawful stay, makes regular stay accessible, and directly interacts with public revenues and integration objectives.
Considering that more than 1 million foreigners currently hold residence permits in Türkiye, the structure and implementation of these fees have tangible consequences both for foreigners and for public authorities.
The article proposes a reform package that is administratively feasible and legally consistent. For Türkiye Today readers, the key priorities are as follows:
Need for updated, detailed legislation
In practice, fees are calculated based on the foreigner’s nationality, the length of stay requested, and age, through country groups and foreign exchange rates. This calculation is complex, and even in the conversion from foreign currency to Turkish lira, there remain issues that need clarification. Such details should be more comprehensively regulated, and the fee table should be updated to cover all countries without omissions. Otherwise, the lack of uniformity risks opening the door to administrative arbitrariness.
Exemption agreements do not cover irregular migrants
It is observed that nationals of states granted fee exemptions are significantly represented among irregular migrants; therefore, fee exemptions should not create an advantage in cases of violation.
In cases of overstay, even nationals of exempted countries should be required to pay the fee at double the rate. Using fees in this way as a deterrent factor would provide an important tool in combating irregular migration.
Different fees for similar statuses hinder purpose-appropriate stay
Fee discrepancies among visas, residence permits, and work permits push foreigners toward the cheapest option, making a purpose-appropriate stay more difficult. In particular, the high cost of work permits encourages avoidance and can trigger informal employment by foreigners working only on residence permits.
One of the most significant gaps regarding fees is the question of whether fees paid in advance should be refunded if the residence permit terminates before its expiry.
If a foreigner’s residence permit application is rejected by the administration, there is no legal debate regarding the refund of fees paid in advance; they are refunded. However, in cases where a residence permit is terminated before expiry (due to annulment, cancellation, revocation, etc.), the fate of the fee corresponding to the unused period is uncertain. The legislation does not contain any explicit provision requiring refunds in such situations.
From the perspective of legal logic and fairness, recording the fee corresponding to the unused period as state revenue when the residence permit is terminated by an administrative act is not justifiable.
Therefore, a separate fee item—“residence permit application fee”—should be introduced, non-refundable, to cover the administrative costs of the procedure, and it should be separated from the time-based fee. In this way, proportional refunds would become possible in cases of termination.
These reforms are not merely technical adjustments. They provide predictability for applicants, reduce the burden of disputes, lower perverse incentives that trigger irregular stay, and enhance transparency in public finance. Admittedly, re-arranging exemptions may create diplomatic sensitivities. However, the long-term benefits clearly demonstrate the necessity of reforms.
In conclusion, refund obligations for fees should, as in the case of rejection of the application, be explicitly regulated by law so that in cases of early termination of the residence permit (cancellation, non-renewal), the amount corresponding to the unused period is refunded to the foreigner.
For this purpose, a non-refundable “residence permit application fee” should be established and separated from time-based fees. This would not only constitute a financial measure but also reflect Türkiye’s vision of justice and transparency in migration management.
Revising outdated provisions in the Law on Fees, detailing the rules of fee calculation, and clarifying refund mechanisms would be important steps for Türkiye in promoting regular migration and prioritizing legal certainty.
This article is adapted from the findings and recommendations of the academic study “Residence Permit Fees in Türkiye: Legal Framework, Implementation Principles, and Refunds in Cases Termination” published in 2025.