Background
Zarina Lotfolaeva, an Uzbek citizen, entered Israel in 2019 on a B/1 visa to work in caregiving. After that visa expired, she unsuccessfully sought status on several grounds, including asylum, conversion-based eligibility for immigrant status, and humanitarian considerations. During proceedings over the humanitarian application, the Appeals Tribunal ordered her to leave Israel. The District Court denied leave to appeal, and the Supreme Court subsequently required her to depart by December 23, 2025.
On December 8, 2025, shortly before that deadline and while the earlier administrative appeal remained pending, Lotfolaeva applied for status based on her asserted relationship with Israeli citizen Yehonatan Gutin. The Population and Immigration Authority declined to examine the application until she complied with the decisions requiring her departure. The dispute implicated the Authority’s procedure governing status for unmarried partners of Israelis and its general procedure for applications by persons already subject to a judicial departure order.
The applicants appealed to the Appeals Tribunal and requested interim relief preventing Lotfolaeva’s removal. The Tribunal denied relief, finding that the underlying appeal did not appear likely to succeed, that the balance of convenience favored the Authority, and that no irreparable harm had been shown. The Beersheba District Court, sitting as an Administrative Affairs Court, denied leave to appeal, emphasizing Lotfolaeva’s prolonged unlawful stay and repeated failure to comply with departure orders.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Daphne Barak-Erez denied leave to appeal. The Court applied the restrictive standard governing a “third-round” challenge to an Appeals Tribunal decision, noting that the standard is especially stringent when the challenged ruling is an interlocutory decision concerning temporary relief. The asserted issue concerning the relationship between the Authority’s procedures did not justify further review because prior applications raising that issue had already been rejected and the present case involved only its application to the parties’ particular circumstances.
The Court also found no miscarriage of justice in light of Lotfolaeva’s prolonged self-help—her continued presence in Israel despite multiple decisions requiring her departure. It added that the partnership-based application was filed after the Supreme Court had directed her to leave so that her status request could be considered from outside Israel, and during a grace period granted specifically to permit her to prepare for departure while a different status proceeding remained pending. Because no response had been requested, the Court made no order for costs.
Key Takeaways
- Leave to appeal in a third round from an Appeals Tribunal ruling is granted only narrowly, particularly when the ruling concerns interim relief.
- Presenting a previously raised procedural issue through case-specific facts does not necessarily establish a question of principle warranting Supreme Court review.
- Continued noncompliance with departure orders can weigh heavily against temporary protection from removal and against a claim of miscarriage of justice.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that filing a new status application based on a relationship with an Israeli citizen does not automatically suspend an existing obligation to leave Israel. Where authorities rely on procedures requiring an applicant subject to a departure order to pursue the matter from abroad, interim protection will be difficult to obtain absent strong prospects of success and proof of irreparable harm.
The Court did not resolve the applicants’ substantive challenge to the amended unmarried-partner procedure. Instead, it treated the dispute as a fact-specific request for interlocutory relief and reinforced the high threshold for Supreme Court intervention at that stage.