Editorial standards

Legal information about people's status is the kind that has to be right. These are the rules the casebook is written under.

Sourced to statute, not to forums

Every entry states the provisions it rests on: Law No. 5901 and its implementing regulation for citizenship, Law No. 6458 for residence, Law No. 6735 for work permits, and the procedural statutes where remedies are involved. Where a position reflects administrative practice rather than a published rule — the half-rate credit for student permits is the clearest example — the entry says so explicitly instead of presenting practice as law.

Where practice varies by province, that is stated too. An entry that reads as though every provincial directorate behaves identically would be easier to write and less useful to rely on.

Written and reviewed by practising lawyers

Entries are drafted and reviewed by the citizenship team at Bayraktar Attorneys in Istanbul — lawyers who file these applications, attend the commission stage and litigate refusals. Review is substantive rather than cosmetic: a reviewer's job is to say where an entry is wrong, where it is out of date, and where it is technically correct but will mislead a reader in a common situation.

Each entry carries the date it was last reviewed. That date means the entry was read against the current law and current practice on that day. It does not promise that nothing has changed since; where something has, the firm's notes on legal changes usually record it first.

Numbers, deadlines and the discipline about them

Deadlines and limits are stated only where they are set out in law: sixty days for the remedies after a refusal, twelve months and six months for absences, five years for the qualifying period. Processing times are given as ranges drawn from practice and labelled as such, because there is no statutory decision deadline and any single figure would be false precision.

Thresholds that change — investment figures, fees, minimum wage-linked expectations — are deliberately kept out of the entries or described qualitatively, so that a page cannot quietly become wrong between reviews. Where a figure genuinely matters to your decision, ask rather than rely on a website. The contact page explains what to send.

Corrections and limits

Errors are corrected on the page, and the review date is updated when they are. If you believe something here is wrong, say so — corrections from readers who have just been through a provincial directorate are among the most valuable input this casebook gets.

The standing limits: this is general information, not advice; reading it creates no lawyer–client relationship; and no entry can tell you whether your own five years qualify, because that depends on records only a review of your file can establish. About this casebook sets out what it covers and what it leaves to other sources.