Newsletters
Only days after authorities detained 51 suspects in connection with 441 residence permits obtained through falsified documents, Türkiye’s Directorate General of Migration Management announced a sweeping regulatory shift.
As of April 20, 2026, the notarized sponsorship undertaking system in Istanbul has been abolished.
The timing is not coincidental.
The sponsorship mechanism—originally designed to allow a Turkish citizen or lawful foreign resident to host a non-relative foreign national at their registered address—had become the epicenter of abuse.
Unscrupulous intermediaries monetized the system, selling notarized undertakings for sums ranging from $1,000 to $2,000. Because first-time applicants were not yet visible in the address registration system before filing, there was effectively no enforceable cap on how many foreigners could be linked to a single address at the initial application stage.
This loophole collided with a 2023 regulatory principle requiring that unrelated foreign nationals cannot be registered at the same address unless each is listed on the lease agreement. In practice, enforcement lagged.
Fraudulent consultancies exploited the gap, filing unlimited first-time applications under notarized sponsorship letters. Predictably, renewals would later fail—by which point the intermediary had already been paid.
The government’s response has been categorical: sponsorship undertakings are no longer accepted in Istanbul unless the sponsor proves a familial relationship through an apostilled and notarized genealogy document.
University students and language-course attendees are exempt, but for most applicants, the path has narrowed considerably.
On paper, the measure aims to restore integrity to the system. In reality, it risks collateral damage.
Consider a common scenario: a Turkish citizen has lived for years with a foreign partner at the same address, without hosting any other foreign nationals.
Previously, a notarized sponsorship sufficed; however, the new measure dictates that migration authorities now require the foreign partner to be formally added to the lease agreement—either through a newly notarized lease or, for renewals, via the e-government (e-devlet) system.
That administrative adjustment may sound simple. It is not.
Türkiye’s rental market is notoriously volatile.
Landlords frequently demand rent increases when contracts are amended. Some may refuse to revise a lease entirely, particularly where long-term tenant protections are in play. Others may misinterpret the amendment as resetting the statutory 10+1-year tenancy clock.
For first-time applicants, the situation is further complicated by the absence of a temporary foreign ID number, making notarized contracts logistically difficult—especially if the landlord resides in another city.
In attempting to neutralize roughly 500 identified fraudulent applications, the administration has introduced a measure that may affect tens of thousands of legitimate residents and sponsors.
The core policy question is whether abolition was the only viable tool.
A more calibrated compliance regime might have preserved the sponsorship system while tightening evidentiary standards.
Where the sponsor is a foreign national, requiring an apostilled genealogy document makes legal sense.
But where the sponsor is Turkish, migration authorities could have demanded enhanced proof of cohabitation: historical address records, evidence of prior shared residence, documented duration of stay at the declared address, or even corroborative social evidence establishing a genuine relationship.
Such layered scrutiny would mirror “relationship-based residence permit” frameworks in jurisdictions such as the Netherlands and Germany, where authorities examine the authenticity and continuity of personal relationships before granting status.
These systems do not eliminate sponsorship; they regulate it rigorously.
Administrative prohibition is often simpler than administrative oversight. Yet simplification can externalize costs onto lawful residents.
Thousands of foreigners in Türkiye reside with partners, fiances, or long-term companions for legitimate, non-commercial reasons. When enforcement mechanisms fail to distinguish between fraudulent commodification and bona fide cohabitation, trust in regulatory fairness erodes.
There is no dispute that the prior system was exploited—a reality last week’s arrests made abundantly clear—but regulatory reform must balance fraud prevention with proportionality. Eliminating a legal mechanism without constructing a robust alternative risks shifting the burden from illicit operators to compliant individuals.
The Directorate’s challenge now is not merely to close loopholes but to design a framework that deters organized abuse without criminalizing ordinary domestic arrangements.
One hopes this latest decision is not the final word but an interim corrective step—followed by a more nuanced regulatory model that restores sponsorship under stricter, enforceable safeguards.
Because in immigration governance, the goal is not simply to prevent abuse. It is to do so without penalizing legitimacy.
About the author: Kagan Orhan is a human resources and immigration consultancy expert at Expat Solutions Turkey, dedicated to facilitating the adaptation processes of foreigners in Türkiye with the expertise and knowledge in managing legal procedures such as residence permit applications, work permits, business establishment, real estate, and citizenship processes for foreigners settling in Türkiye with their team of lawyers and consultants.
Set as preferred source
Set as preferred source
6 min read
