Background
The applicant, a Sri Lankan citizen, entered Israel in 2011 with a B/1 permit to work as a caregiver. Her authorized employment ended in 2016, but she remained in Israel without lawful status. In 2020, she applied for status based on a common-law relationship with an Israeli citizen and received a B/1 permit through the graduated spousal-status process in May 2021.
The couple married in January 2022. After they sought to transfer the application to the procedure for foreign spouses married to Israeli citizens, the applicant received an A/5 temporary-residence permit in May 2024. The couple separated in November 2025, and the applicant notified the Population and Immigration Authority in May 2026. The Authority then terminated the graduated process, revoked her permit, and directed her to leave Israel within 14 days. It rejected her internal appeal, finding that she had not completed the required period and had identified no humanitarian reason warranting further review.
The applicant appealed to the Appeals Tribunal and sought interim protection from removal. She argued that the Authority should have counted her years in the common-law-partner track and that, absent administrative delay, she would have obtained permanent status before the separation. She also raised an intimate-partner-violence procedure for the first time. The Tribunal denied interim relief, and the Haifa District Court denied leave to appeal, citing the low prospects of the appeal, the applicant’s delay, and the absence of demonstrated irreparable harm. She then sought leave to appeal and temporary relief from the Supreme Court.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Dafna Barak-Erez denied leave to appeal. Review in a “third round” of litigation originating in the Appeals Tribunal is narrow, especially where the challenged ruling is an interlocutory decision concerning temporary relief. The application was deeply tied to the parties’ particular circumstances and did not present a principled question about interpreting the Authority’s procedures.
The Court also found no concern of a miscarriage of justice warranting intervention. Even if the applicant had remained in the common-law-partner track, she had not completed the period required to obtain status; the same was true under the married-spouse procedure. She also identified no special humanitarian grounds and did not fall within the other exceptions specified in the procedure governing termination of the graduated process. The Court therefore denied both leave to appeal and the request for temporary relief, without an award of costs.
Key Takeaways
- Supreme Court review at the third level is especially restricted when the underlying ruling merely denies interim relief.
- The applicant had not completed the required period under either the common-law-partner or married-spouse track before the relationship ended.
- Absent a qualifying exception or special humanitarian ground, the Court found no basis to require further review after termination of the spousal relationship.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the demanding threshold for obtaining Supreme Court review of interim immigration rulings after both the Appeals Tribunal and the District Court have declined relief. Recasting fact-specific disputes over elapsed time and administrative handling as broader interpretive questions will not necessarily justify a third level of review.
It also underscores that applicants seeking continued consideration after a spousal relationship ends must establish that they completed the applicable period or come within a recognized exception, including a supported special humanitarian ground. The Court confined its conclusion to this applicant’s failure to satisfy those requirements.