RESIDENCE PERMIT OBTAINED FROM A REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST (GYO) – ISTANBUL 9TH ADMINISTRATIVE LITIGATION DIVISION

rejection of the residence permit application based on housing acquired from a REIT in the lawsuit filed thereupon, the 9th Administrative Law Division of the Istanbul Regional Administrative Court reversed the court of first instance's decision dismissing the case and annulled the rejection procedure established by the Presidency of Migration Management. The ruling dated September 30, 2026, numbered 2026/3293 E. and 2026/4604 K., serves as an important example of legal analysis regarding how valuation report exceptions applicable during the acquisition of real estate by foreigners should be evaluated in subsequent residence permit applications.

The plaintiff, an Iranian national, purchased a residence from a real estate investment trust on October 21, 2022, and applied for a short-term residence permit in 2025 within the scope of foreigners owning immovable property in Turkey. The Migration Administration rejected the application on the grounds that the valuation report pertaining to the date the residence was purchased was not submitted. Although the court of first instance found the rejection procedure lawful, the appellate court made a different legal assessment and ruled that a report that was not mandatory to be issued due to the REIT exception in effect at the date of acquisition of the immovable property cannot be demanded from the applicant years later has determined.

Among the plaintiff's counsels Atty. Batın YILMAZ in this dispute, which was also followed by ___, the acquisition date of the immovable property, the legal nature of the sale, relevant land registry circulars, residence permit conditions, and the scope of appellate review in the administrative judiciary have gained joint significance.

Core outcome of the decision: The 9th Administrative Chamber of the Istanbul Regional Administrative Court determined that, as of the date the real estate was purchased, a valuation report was not required for sales by real estate investment trusts, and found the denial of the residence permit based on the failure to submit a retroactive report to be unlawful. It reversed the first instance court's dismissal and ruled for the annulment of the subject administrative act. The decision was rendered as final, with no further appeal recourse available.

Annulment Decision of the Istanbul Regional Administrative Court Regarding the Real Estate Residence Permit

Scroll horizontally to view the full table

The judgment solely assesses the legality of the residence permit denial action established against the plaintiff. Personal information, foreign national identification numbers, addresses, and other records sufficient for identification contained in the decision have not been disclosed in this review.

Origin of the Dispute: Purchase of Residential Property from a Real Estate Investment Trust (GYO) in 2022

The foreign plaintiff purchased a residential immovable property from a real estate investment trust operating in Turkey on October 21, 2022.

Although regulatory provisions concerning the preparation of a valuation report during the acquisition of immovables by foreigners were in effect at the date the immovable was acquired, a specific exemption exists regarding sales transactions to which real estate investment trusts are a party was being applied.

When evaluated together with its amendments dated November 12, 2021, the General Circular No. 2019/1 of the General Directorate of Land Registry and Cadastre contained a regulation stipulating that a real estate valuation report shall not be required for sales made by real estate investment trusts.

Therefore, in the acquisition transaction executed by the plaintiff in 2022, the preparation and submission of a real estate valuation report to the land registry directorate was not made mandatory.

The title deed transfer of the real estate was also executed within this legal framework.

However, years later, when an application for a residence permit was made, the fact that a report had not been prepared on the date of sale resulted in an administrative dispute arising for the plaintiff.

What is the Valuation Report Exception in REIT Sales?

Real estate investment trusts are companies operating subject to capital markets legislation and carrying out real estate investments.

The fact that a real estate sale was made by a real estate investment trust led to the application of special transaction procedures in certain land registry regulations in effect in the past.

In the 2022 sale, which is the subject of the examined dispute, the transaction performed by the REIT was evaluated within the scope of the exception, and no real estate valuation report was required during the sale.

This matter was also explicitly acknowledged in the decision of the Istanbul Regional Administrative Court.

To access the regulation of the relevant period the official text of the General Circular No. 2019/1 of the General Directorate of Land Registry and Cadastre may be examined.

Important: This exception is significant with regard to the legislation in effect at the time the specific real estate was purchased. It should not be overlooked that the regulation numbered 2019/1 has changed in subsequent years and been superseded by new regulations. It should not be assumed that the former exception can be applied to current transactions without any review.

Application for Real Estate Residence Permit in 2025

Approximately three years after purchasing the real estate, on June 27, 2025, the plaintiff short-term residence permit under the scope of foreigners owning immovable property in Turkey has applied.

The application was made for the period between June 25, 2025, and June 25, 2026.

Article 31/1-b of the Law on Foreigners and International Protection No. 6458 regulates the granting of short-term residence permits to foreigners who own immovable property in Turkey.

However, owning the real estate does not automatically make the issuance of a residence permit mandatory. The residential nature of the property, the purpose of the application, the real estate value required in the relevant period, and other general residence permit conditions are also evaluated.

We have detailed the general conditions regarding this matter, along with the acquisition date of the real estate and the USD 200,000 application, Real Estate Residence Permit 2026: Conditions and the 200,000 USD Rule in our guide titled.

The court decision discussed herein pertains to a dispute much more specific than the general residence conditions, namely the requirement of a valuation report—which was not mandatory to be prepared at the time of sale—upon a subsequent application pertains to.

Why Did the Directorate of Migration Management Reject the Residence Permit Application?

The plaintiff submitted a current valuation report regarding the immovable property in their residence permit application.

However, the Istanbul Provincial Directorate of Migration Management, not being content with the report showing the current value of the property, also requested the submission of the valuation report pertaining to the acquisition transaction dated October 21, 2022. requested.

No such report was issued by the plaintiff on the date of sale, because the sale fell within the scope of the exemption regarding real estate investment trusts in effect at that time.

The Directorate of Migration Management decided to reject the short-term residence permit application on the grounds that the requested retrospective GABIM report was not submitted within the specified period.

In this case, the central legal question under debate is as follows:

Can a valuation report, which was not mandatory under the legislation at the time the real estate was purchased, serve as the basis for a rejection decision on the grounds that it was not submitted during a residence permit application made years later?

The 9th Administrative Law Division of the Istanbul Regional Administrative Court answered this question in the negative in the concrete case.

Istanbul 18th Administrative Court Dismisses the Case at First Instance

Upon the rejection of the residence permit application, a lawsuit was filed by the plaintiff in the Istanbul 18th Administrative Court requesting the annulment of the administrative act.

The court dismissed the case with its ruling dated February 26, 2026, numbered 2025/3510 E. and 2026/875 K.

According to the evaluation of the court of first instance, the value of the real estate required for the residence permit had to be determined based on the conditions at the date of acquisition.

The court considered that the submission of the valuation report belonging to the purchase date was requested in order to make this determination, and that the plaintiff failed to submit the document in question within due time.

Therefore, the rejection act by the Directorate of Migration Management was found to be lawful on the grounds that the applicant failed to complete the documents supporting the purpose of stay within the legal period.

However, in this approach of the court of first instance, the legal consequence of the exemption of real estate investment trust (GYO) sales from the valuation report requirement at the time the real estate was purchased was not conclusively evaluated.

This deficiency constituted one of the primary legal disputes of the appeal application.

Appeal Application in the Case Followed by Atty. Batın YILMAZ

Following the dismissal of the case by the court of first instance, the judgment was brought before the appellate court by the plaintiff party.

Among the plaintiff's counsels in the case file, Atty. Batın YILMAZ in the legal proceedings also conducted by , the legislation in effect at the time the immovable property was acquired, the transaction exemption, and the legal basis of the documents requested in the application came to the forefront.

In the summary of the appeal request, the following matters were specifically asserted:

• At the time the immovable property was purchased, submitting a valuation report was not mandatory in sales involving real estate investment trusts.
• Therefore, a retrospective valuation report had not been obtained at the time of purchase.
• Information had been obtained from GABİM authorities that it would not be possible to obtain a retrospective valuation report.
• An up-to-date valuation report had been submitted during the application stage.
• It was asserted that the current report covered the relevant amount and that the sale price of the immovable property was 210,000 USD.
• It was requested that the dismissal decision of the court of first instance be reversed and the administrative act subject to the lawsuit be annulled.

It is necessary to underline a distinction here: The sale price of 210,000 USD is a matter asserted by the plaintiff in the appeal application. The decision of the regional administrative court should not be construed as an independent finding that this value is corroborated in all respects or that the immovable satisfies all other residence permit conditions.

The decisive assessment of the appellate court pertains to the legal basis for requesting a backdated valuation report.

On What Legal Grounds Did the Istanbul Regional Administrative Court Revoke the Decision?

While examining the case file, the 9th Administrative Chamber of the Istanbul Regional Administrative Court primarily evaluated the relevant title deed regulations in effect at the time the immovable was acquired.

The Chamber referenced the provisions of General Circular No. 2019/1 of the General Directorate of Land Registry and Cadastre, as applied alongside the amendment dated November 12, 2021.

According to this regulation, sales by real estate investment trusts are among the transactions for which a real estate valuation report shall not be required.

It is also established in the case file that the plaintiff purchased the immovable from a real estate investment trust on October 21, 2022.

Therefore, the fact that a real estate valuation report was not requested as of the purchase date does not stem from a breach of any obligation by the plaintiff.

On the contrary, it is the result of applying the regulatory act in force at the time the transaction was executed.

For this reason, the court concluded that the applicant could not be expected to subsequently submit a valuation report corresponding to the date on which they purchased the immovable.

Decisive Rationale of the Decision

“The plaintiff cannot be expected to submit a real estate valuation report pertaining to the date on which they purchased the immovable”

Upon this evaluation, the Regional Administrative Court concluded that the administrative act denying the residence permit application lacked lawfulness, and the first-instance court's judgment dismissing the lawsuit lacked legal accuracy.

The reasoning of the court does not mean that the foreigner is exempt from submitting a valuation report in all circumstances. The decision pertains to the fact that a report, which was not mandatory to be issued at the time of a real estate investment trust (GYO) sale realized on a specific date and under certain legal conditions, was subsequently asserted as a missing document. does not mean that the foreigner is exempt from submitting a valuation report in all circumstances. The decision pertains to the fact that a report, which was not mandatory to be issued at the time of a real estate investment trust (GYO) sale realized on a specific date and under certain legal conditions, was subsequently asserted as a missing document.

Ruling of the Appellate Court: The Act of Rejection Was Annulled

The 9th Administrative Law Division of the Istanbul Regional Administrative Court, in its ruling dated September 30, 2026, has

1. Accepted the plaintiff's appeal,
2. Vacated the judgment of the Istanbul 18th Administrative Court dated 26.02.2026, numbered E.2025/3510 and K.2026/875,
3. Annulled the administrative act denying the application for a short-term residence permit for property ownership purposes,
4. Ordered that the total litigation expenses of 3,451.30 TL incurred during the first-instance and appellate stages be collected from the defendant administration and paid to the plaintiff,
5. Ordered that the attorney's fee of 30,000 TL be collected from the defendant administration and paid to the plaintiff

unanimously.

The ruling, definitively and without recourse to appeal has been rendered.

The subject matter of this decision is the annulment of the administration's residence permit rejection procedure. The Court has not established a ruling directly regarding the issuance of a residence card. Therefore, the execution of the annulment decision by the administration and the actual issuance of the residence permit on behalf of the foreigner must be evaluated as separate stages.

Legal Conditions for Short-Term Residence Permits for Real Estate Purposes

The legal basis for short-term residence permit applications by foreigners who own real estate in Turkey is Law No. 6458 on Foreigners and International Protection along with the regulations concerning the implementation of this Law.

Article 31/1-b of the Law stipulates that short-term residence permits may be granted to foreigners who own real estate in Turkey.

Article 32 of the Law sets forth the general conditions for a short-term residence permit.

These include the submission of information and documents supporting the purpose of the application, meeting the required accommodation conditions, providing address information, and fulfilling other relevant conditions.

Article 33 of the Law governs the rejection, cancellation, or non-extension of the short-term residence permit in cases such as the failure to fulfill or the disappearance of the conditions.

Related official information from the Residence General Information page of the Presidency of Migration Management accessible.

Detailed legal explanations regarding application types are Short-Term Residence Permit 2026: Requirements and Grounds for Refusal is included in our article.

Does Ownership of Real Estate Grant an Automatic Right of Residence?

No. Owning real estate in Turkey does not, by itself, grant an unconditional right of residence.

The application must be made in compliance with the relevant legislation and the requirements for a residence permit must be fulfilled.

Nevertheless, the administration's authority to request documents and review the application is also subject to legal limitations.

The significance of the specific case emerges precisely at this second point. Whether the document requested by the administration is legally expected from the applicant and of a nature that may be required for the relevant transaction has been subjected to judicial review.

How Should the $75,000 and $200,000 Requirements Be Evaluated in This Case?

The minimum value requirements applied to short-term residence permit applications by foreign nationals who own real estate have been modified over time.

Within the scope of the Presidency of Migration Management's regulation dated April 26, 2022, a threshold of USD 75,000 was applied in metropolitan cities, including Istanbul.

With the regulation dated October 16, 2023, an amount of USD 200,000 became applicable regarding residence permits based on real estate.

showing the current application requirements in the official application form of the Presidency of Migration Management There is a statement regarding the value of the immovable property at the acquisition date as 200,000 USD.

However, there are two distinct legal issues in the examined court decision:

1. Whether the immovable property meets the monetary threshold required for residence permit purposes,
2. Whether a valuation report, which was not mandatory to be issued at the date of purchase, can be requested retroactively.

The grounds for annulment by the Regional Administrative Court are essentially based on the second issue. pertains to.

The Court evaluated that a valuation report was not required for the real estate investment trust (GYO) sale in 2022, and therefore, it cannot be expected that a report corresponding to the purchase date be submitted years later.

This decision has not resolved, in a general and abstract manner, the issue of under what conditions the 200,000 USD practice will apply to all past acquisitions of immovable property.

How the acquisition date of the immovable property, previous regulations, transitional provisions, and application conditions will apply must be evaluated separately in each case file.

Why Is the Issue of Retroactive Valuation Reports Important?

Real estate valuation reports are technical documents intended to determine the economic value of an immovable property as of a specific valuation date.

The determination of the market value of an immovable property in 2025 and the determination of its value in 2022 are not the same transaction.

Real estate prices may change over time due to exchange rates, market conditions, regional developments, the age of the structure, and many other factors.

Therefore, it cannot be assumed that a current valuation report automatically reflects the value on a past date.

However, this technical distinction does not constitute a legal basis for the administration to demand from the applicant, in every case, a document that was not mandatory to be issued in the past.

The significance of the reviewed decision lies precisely here.

The Court has not completely rejected the administrative necessity of determining the past valuation; it has accepted that the plaintiff cannot be expected to submit a valuation report that was not issued at the time of the REIT (GYO) sale in 2022, .[TRANSLATION_NOTE: Combined with id 4]

Therefore, the decision should not be interpreted as meaning that the same outcome will result in all disputes concerning the value of immovable properties.

Limits of Requesting Subsequent Documents in Administrative Law

Administrative authorities have the authority to request information and documents from foreign nationals regarding residence permit applications.

However, during the exercise of this authority, the legal basis of the administrative act, the nature of the application, and whether the requested document can be provided by the relevant person must be evaluated.

Particularly when a legally completed transaction in the past must be re-evaluated due to subsequently changed documentary and procedural requirements, examining the legal regime in effect at the time of the transaction is of great importance.

The principles of legal certainty and predictability in administrative law aim to enable individuals to evaluate their legal status within the framework of predictable rules.

These principles do not mean that every new regulation cannot be applied to past events; however, in the evaluation of past transactions, the temporal scope of the new and old regulations must be taken into account.

In the specific case, the court has established that the REIT exemption applied in 2022 cannot be disregarded with respect to the residence permit application in 2025.

The Relation of the Principles of Legal Certainty and Predictability to the Case

It is important that the obligations foreign investors must fulfill during the acquisition of real estate in Turkey are ascertainable at the date of the transaction.

If the legislation in force at the date when a transaction is completed does not mandate a specific document, this historical status must be taken into account in subsequent administrative audits.

Nevertheless, rather than a general evaluation of the said principles, the explicit reasoning of the court is based on the specific regulation stipulating that a valuation report was not required for the REIT sale dated 2022, relying thereon.

Therefore, these two issues must be distinguished from one another in order not to exceed the scope of the decision.

Why Must the Legislation in 2026 Be Additionally Examined for Foreigners Purchasing Residences from a REIT?

The subject real estate was purchased in 2022. The court's decision date is 2026.

Significant amendments have occurred in the legislation concerning real estate valuation reports between these two dates.

Circular No. 2024/2 of the General Directorate of Land Registry and Cadastre has established new procedures and principles regarding the valuation reports to be used in real estate acquisitions by foreigners and in certain transactions.

Furthermore, on September 29, 2026, by the General Directorate of Land Registry and Cadastre announcement regarding the update of Circular No. 2024/2 has been published.

Therefore, the legal regime of a real estate investment trust (GYO) sale that took place in 2022 and the conditions for a new real estate acquisition to be made in 2026 should not be confused with one another.

For an explanation of the changes regarding current real estate valuation and citizenship procedures Removal of the GEDAŞ Requirement in Citizenship Applications our article titled may also be reviewed.

However, valuation documents used in real estate investments for citizenship purposes and documents requested in short-term residence permit applications based on the ground of property ownership should not be evaluated as the same legal transaction.

How Are the Concepts of REIT, GABİM, and Valuation Report Distinguished from Each Other?

This dispute involves concepts that appear similar to each other yet possess distinct legal meanings.

Scroll horizontally to view the full table

Regarding GABİM and real estate valuation processes Official statement of the General Directorate of Land Registry and Cadastre can also be examined.

The issue in the examined lawsuit is that the immovable property purchased by the plaintiff from the real estate investment trust was not subject to a report requirement as of the date of acquisition, and therefore a retroactive GABİM report could not be submitted.

The Difference Between the Rejection of a Residence Permit Application and the Revocation of an Existing Residence Permit

In immigration and aliens law, there are two types of administrative procedures that resemble each other yet produce different legal consequences.

Rejection of the residence permit application, refers to the denial of the residence permit requested by the foreigner.

Annulment of residence permit , on the other hand, is the termination of a previously granted and ongoing residence permit through an administrative act.

The dispute in this case pertains to the rejection of a new application for a residence permit for real estate purposes.

On the other hand, in another dispute handled by our office, the revocation of the residence permit came to the agenda due to the allegation that the foreigner leased out their residence. For the evaluation of the Istanbul 15th Administrative Court on this matter, Annulment of Real Estate Residency Permit and Annulment of V-69 Entry Ban our case review can be utilized.

In another review, the effect of inadequate address verification on the residency permit cancellation procedure was evaluated. On this subject, Residency Permit Cancellation Decision Due to Inadequate Address Verification we have an article titled.

These decisions demonstrate that different residency procedures are subject to judicial review based on distinct material facts and evidence.

How Is an Annulment Action Against the Rejection of a Residence Permit Evaluated?

In the event of the rejection of a residency permit application, filing an annulment lawsuit in the administrative judiciary may come to agenda depending on the nature of the rejection procedure and the date of service.

Pursuant to the general provisions of the Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577, the statute of limitations to file a lawsuit in administrative courts is sixty days, unless there is a special regulation.

However, the applicable period for the specific transaction must be evaluated together with the application type, notification, and any special statutory provisions.

If a lawsuit is to be filed against a decision of rejection, it must first be determined on what grounds the administrative act was established.

For example:

• Is it alleged that there is a lack of documentation supporting the applicant's purpose of stay?
• Is the submitted real estate appraisal report deemed insufficient?
• Is there a dispute regarding the residential status of the property?
• Are the regulations in effect at the date of acquisition of the property in question?
• Was the applicant notified of any missing documents?
• Is it legally possible to issue or obtain the requested document?

The answers to these questions may be significant in evaluating the legality of the rejection act in the case file.

For general information regarding residence permit rejection decisions, administrative application remedies, and annulment lawsuits Residence Permit Denial 2026: Appeal and Litigation Process our article titled can be reviewed.

The Importance of Appellate Review in Administrative Law

Decisions rendered by courts of first instance in administrative jurisdiction may be subjected to appellate review under certain conditions.

The appeal pathway is a legal remedy that enables the re-evaluation of a court of first instance's decision from both legal and factual aspects.

Article 45 of the Administrative Judiciary Procedure Law No. 2577’nun, regulates the basic legal framework for appellate review.

In the specific case, the court of first instance deemed the failure to submit the report sufficient to find the rejection procedure lawful.

The appellate court, however, did not find this assessment appropriate and demonstrated the legal significance of the fact that a valuation report was not required for REIC (GYO) sales at the date the real estate was purchased.

Therefore, the appellate review resulted in the evaluation of the file not only in terms of procedure, but also in terms of the statutory exception constituting the merits of the dispute .

Does Every Appeal Overturn the First Instance Decision?

No. Depending on the specific dispute, the regional administrative court may dismiss the appeal, overturn the first instance decision under the necessary conditions, or render different decisions within the framework of the relevant procedural provisions.

In the examined case, the issue leading to the reversal of the decision is that the valuation report exception in effect at the date of the sale of the real estate is decisive regarding the legal assessment of the rejection procedure.

Therefore, a general assessment cannot be made to the effect that the same appellate outcome will be achieved in other residence permit rejection lawsuits.

What Actions Must the Directorate of Migration Management Take Following a Decision of Annulment?

Annulment decisions rendered by administrative judiciary authorities give rise to obligations for the administration to remedy the consequences of the transaction found to be unlawful.

Pursuant to Article 28 of Law No. 2577, the administration is obliged to comply with the court decision without delay. The law stipulates that this period shall not exceed thirty days starting from the service of the decision upon the administration.

In this file, the administrative act concerning the rejection of the residence permit application has been annulled.

However, the annulment judgment and the physical issuance of a residence card to the applicant are not the same administrative act.

The administration must evaluate the legal status of the application by taking into account the annulment grounds of the court and fulfill the requirements of the decision.

Since there is no verified information in the specific case regarding the date on which the residence permit was issued or the administrative actions taken after the decision, it is not asserted in this article that the residence card was physically delivered.

Furthermore, the filing of an annulment lawsuit or the annulment of the rejection act does not mean that the entry ban resulting from another administrative act is automatically lifted.

Is This Decision Applicable to All Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT) Housing Buyers?

The decision rendered by the Istanbul Regional Administrative Court produces legal effects solely with respect to the administrative act subject to the lawsuit and the parties.

However, the reasoning of the decision serves as a precedent that can be examined when conducting legal assessments in disputes of a similar nature.

The legal approach underlying the decision may gain significance, particularly in cases where the following conditions are met concurrently:

• The foreigner having purchased the real estate during the period when the relevant exemption was in effect,
• The seller being a real estate investment trust within the scope of the regulation during the relevant period,
• The preparation of a valuation report not being mandatory for the acquisition of the real estate,
• The request for a valuation report corresponding to the purchase date during the residence permit application,
• The rejection of the application solely due to the failure to submit this retrospective report.

However, the existence of even one of these conditions may not always yield the same result.

The characteristics of the immovable property, acquisition date, valuation regulations, other residency requirements, and the administration's grounds for refusal must be evaluated together.

The decision does not mean that an indefinite and general exemption from the valuation report is granted for all Real Estate Investment Trust (GYO) sales.

Scope of Legal Review in Immigration Law Files

Examining a single statutory provision may not always be sufficient in foreigners' residence, property acquisition, and citizenship procedures in Turkey.

Particularly in disputes arising from real estate, multiple legal regulations may come into question simultaneously.

Among these:

• The Law on Foreigners and International Protection No. 6458,
• The regulation concerning the implementation of the Law,
• Regulatory acts published by the Presidency of Migration Management,
• Relevant circulars of the General Directorate of Land Registry and Cadastre,
• The legislation in effect at the time the immovable property was acquired,
• Provisions on administrative adjudication and remedies

may be found.

Establishing the relationship between these regulations becomes particularly important when applying rules that entered into force on different dates.

Our Office's Legal Practice Approach to Such Disputes

In immigration law practices conducted by Atty. Batın YILMAZ it is essential to evaluate residence permit applications not only on the basis of the final grounds for refusal, but also with respect to the administrative and legal processes that gave rise to the transaction.

Particularly in real estate-based residence disputes, establishing a legal connection between the sale date, the nature of the title deed transaction, the application date, the legislation in effect on the relevant dates, administrative correspondence, and the documents requested from the applicant is of significant importance.

In the reviewed court decision, the resolution of the dispute was based not merely on whether a document specified as missing existed, but rather on whether that document was legally required at the time the real estate was purchased, thereby forming the basis of the decision.

In this respect, the case serves as an illustrative example regarding the investigation of the grounds for the administrative act, the joint interpretation of different legislative provisions, and the judicial review of the court of first instance decision during the appellate stage.

Legal matters concerning residence permits, citizenship, deportation, and other administrative proceedings of foreigners immigration law are handled within the scope of our practice areas.

The working approach outlined herein relates to the evaluation of specific legal issues and does not constitute a guarantee of a particular outcome for other applications.

Examination of Evidence in Property-Based Residence Permit Files

In real estate residence permit disputes, the joint evaluation of evidence and official records is of particular importance.

In this context, the acquisition date of the real estate, title deed records, the legal status of the parties to the sale transaction, documents regarding the property value, the application form, the missing document notification, and the grounds for rejection may be examined.

Where required by the circumstances of the specific case, valuation procedures of the same real estate on different dates and amendments to the title deed legislation may also be subject to evaluation.

In the case at hand, establishing the correct relationship between the title deed regulation in effect in 2022 and the residence permit application made in 2025 has been decisive in the resolution of the dispute.

Therefore, administrative lawsuits in the field of immigration law may rely not only on residence legislation, but also, where necessary, on real estate law, administrative law, and relevant technical legislation collectively.

Comparative Evaluation with Similar Residence Permit Decisions

The lawsuit examined in this article concerns the rejection of a real estate residence permit application on the grounds of a missing valuation report.

However, administrative disputes encountered by foreigners due to real estate ownership may arise from various reasons.

Scroll horizontally to view the full table

Different factual and legal issues were discussed in all three disputes.

Therefore, it is not appropriate to use the decisions interchangeably or to apply the same rationale to all real estate residence permit proceedings.

Comparing the decisions may help to understand how the legal and factual basis of the grounds asserted by the administration was examined.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can the residence permit application of foreigners purchasing housing from a GYO be denied?

Yes. Purchasing housing from a real estate investment trust does not, in and of itself, guarantee the issuance of a residence permit. However, the rejection procedure must comply with the relevant legislation and the specific conditions of the application. In the reviewed decision, the rejection based on the failure to submit a historical valuation report was found to be unlawful.

Was a valuation report mandatory for real estate purchased from a GYO in 2022?

According to the reviewed court decision, under the regulations in force on 21.10.2022, when the property was acquired, sales by real estate investment trusts were exempt from the valuation report requirement. Therefore, in this specific transaction, a valuation report was not requested at the time of sale.

Can a valuation report not obtained at the time of the sale be requested subsequently?

The scope of the authority to request documents is evaluated based on the relevant transaction and the applicable legislation. The Istanbul Regional Administrative Court ruled that, in this specific case, the applicant could not be expected to subsequently submit a report that was not required at the time of sale due to the GYO exemption.

Does a current valuation report replace a past valuation report?

For which transactions a current valuation report will be deemed sufficient depends on the type of application and the applicable regulations. In the reviewed lawsuit, the court did not establish a general rule that any current report automatically replaces a historical report.

Which decision was reversed by the Istanbul Regional Administrative Court?

It reversed the dismissal decision of the Istanbul 18th Administrative Court, dated 26.02.2026, numbered E.2025/3510 and K.2026/875.

Which action of the Directorate of Migration Management did the court annul?

It annulled the administrative act rejecting the short-term residence permit application filed by the Iranian national plaintiff under the provisions for those owning real property in Turkey, on the grounds that a GABİM report corresponding to the purchase date was not submitted.

Does the decision mean that the USD 200,000 value requirement has been abolished?

No. The decision does not generally abolish the USD 200,000 requirement. The basis for the annulment is that since no valuation report was required for the 2022 GYO sale, the submission of a historical report could not be expected.

Did the court definitively determine the value of the immovable property to be 210,000 USD?

The summary of the petition for appeal states that the plaintiff purchased the immovable property for a price of USD 210,000. However, the court's primary ground for annulment is not the independent determination of the sale price, but rather that a retrospective valuation report is not mandatory.

Is the decision of the regional appellate court final?

Yes. The 9th Administrative Chamber of the Istanbul Regional Administrative Court rendered its decision dated 30.09.2026, numbered E.2026/3293 and K.2026/4604, as final and closed to further appeal (temyiz).

Is a residence card issued directly to a foreigner upon the issuance of an annulment decision?

In this case, the court has ruled for the annulment of the rejection act. The execution of the decision and the conclusion of the application by the administration are separate procedures. The reasoned decision does not indicate the date on which the residence card was issued.

Can this decision regarding real estate investment trust (GYO) sales be used in other lawsuits?

The legal reasoning of the decision may be examined in the assessment of disputes sharing the same period and similar operational conditions. However, each lawsuit must be evaluated separately based on the acquisition date of the immovable property, the characteristics of the seller, the relevant legislation, the application requirements, and the grounds for rejection.

Can an appeal be filed in a residency permit denial lawsuit?

An appeal (istinaf) against the decision of the court of first instance may be filed, provided that the conditions stipulated by law are met. The availability and deadline of the appeal are determined according to the nature of the decision and the applicable procedural rules.

Conclusion: The Valuation Report Exception in REIT Sales Was Decisive in the Residence Permit Lawsuit

The ruling of the 9th Administrative Chamber of the Istanbul Regional Administrative Court, dated 30.09.2026, numbered 2026/3293 Basis (Esas) and 2026/4604 Decision (Karar), has resolved a significant legal dispute concerning a short-term residence permit application based on real estate purchased from a real estate investment trust.

The plaintiff, an Iranian national, purchased a residence from a real estate investment trust on October 21, 2022, and applied for a short-term residence permit based on the immovable property in 2025.

The Directorate of Migration Management rejected the application on the grounds that the valuation report pertaining to the date of purchase was not submitted, and the Istanbul 18th Administrative Court found the rejection action to be lawful.

In contrast, the Istanbul Regional Administrative Court that a report, which was not mandatory to be issued due to the exemption regarding REIC (GYO) sales in effect in 2022, cannot be expected to be submitted in a subsequent application .[TRANSLATION_NOTE: Combined with id 4]

For this reason, the appeal was accepted, the decision of the court of first instance was reversed, and the administrative act denying the residence permit application was annulled.

This case, in which Atty. Batın YILMAZ is among the plaintiff's counsels,demonstrates that in residence disputes arising from the acquisition of immovable property by foreigners, not only the legislation in force at the application date, but also the legal regulations applicable at the date the immovable was acquired must be evaluated.

The explanatory aspect of the decision is that, prior to determining whether the document requested by the administration exists or not, whether the document was legally mandatory with respect to the past transaction must be investigated.

This legal approach may be useful in evaluating similar administrative actions. However, the decision does not guarantee that the same outcome will be reached regarding different immovable property acquisitions and residence permit applications.

Legal Resources and Related Reviews

Official Legislation and Institutional Resources

• 
  Law No. 6458 on Foreigners and International Protection – Specifically Articles 31, 32, and 33
  
• 
  Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577 – Action for annulment, execution of court decisions, and appeal
  
• 
  General Directorate of Land Registry and Cadastre – Regulation on historical valuation report numbered 2019/1
  
• 
  General Directorate of Land Registry and Cadastre – 2026 Update of Circular No. 2024/2
  
• 
  Presidency of Migration Management – Residence Permit General Information
  
• 
  Presidency of Migration Management – Short-Term Residence Permit Application Form and Required Documents
  
• 
  General Directorate of Land Registry and Cadastre – GABİM and Real Estate Valuation System
  

Related Legal Articles on Our Website

• 
  Real Estate Residence Permit 2026 – Conditions and the $200,000 Rule
  
• 
  Short-Term Residence Permit – Application Conditions
  
• 
  Residence Permit Denial – Objection and Annulment Action
  
• 
  Revocation of Residence Permit – Legal Grounds and Litigation Process
  
• 
  Court Decision Regarding the Annulment of Real Estate Residence Permit and V-69 Entry Ban
  
• 
  Residency Permit Cancellation Decision Due to Inadequate Address Verification
  
• 
  Abolishment of the GEDAŞ Requirement in 2026 and Valuation Reports
  
• 
  Immigration Law – Our Practice Areas
  
• 
  Sample Court Decisions and Legal Analyses
  

Author and Legal Information

Atty. Batın YILMAZ
Istanbul Bar Association – Bar Registry No: 77008

This article is a legal analysis of the decision of the 9th Administrative Chamber of the Istanbul Regional Administrative Court dated 30.09.2026, numbered E.2026/3293 and K.2026/4604. The plaintiff's identity and personal information have not been shared. The content has been prepared to explain the legal reasoning of the specific dispute. It does not contain any guarantee or claim of professional superiority that the same result will be achieved for other applications. Its publication must not be evaluated independently of obligations regarding client confidentiality and professional rules of legal ethics.