Background
The applicants, Russian citizens born in 2004 and 2007, entered Israel in 2022 under temporary-residency A/5 permits granted pursuant to a procedure governing status for the minor child of the spouse of a person eligible under the Law of Return. Their family had immigrated to Israel: their father’s partner received status under the Law of Return, and their father received status as her spouse. The applicants’ permits expired when they turned 18.
The Population and Immigration Authority denied their request to regularize their status under that procedure because their family, including their father and his partner, no longer lived in Israel. After an internal appeal was denied, the applicants appealed to the Entry into Israel Appeals Tribunal and sought an interim order preventing their removal. The Tribunal found that they were not lawfully present, that an order allowing them to remain would not preserve the status quo, and that their appeal had weak prospects because the procedure’s purposes—preserving the family unit and protecting family life—no longer applied. It nevertheless temporarily barred enforcement until September 22, 2026, subject to each applicant depositing NIS 15,000, because of their circumstances, ages, and anticipated humanitarian-status application.
The Tel Aviv-Jaffa District Court, sitting as a Court for Administrative Affairs, denied leave to appeal. It found no basis to disturb the Tribunal’s broad discretion over interim relief, concluded that neither the appeal’s prospects nor the balance of convenience favored the applicants, and noted that they could pursue both the appeal and a humanitarian application from Russia. The applicants then sought third-tier leave to appeal in the Supreme Court.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Yael Wilner denied leave to appeal without requesting a response. The Court reiterated that third-tier review of an Appeals Tribunal decision is available only in exceptional cases presenting a legal question of general importance or a risk of miscarriage of justice. That standard is especially demanding when the challenged ruling concerns interim relief, an area committed to the first-instance tribunal’s broad discretion.
The application concerned only the applicants’ individual circumstances and the application of the governing procedure to their case. It raised no broader legal question, and the Court found no risk of injustice warranting review.
The Court added that the balance of convenience did not justify relief. Leaving Israel would not prevent continued consideration of the applicants’ pending appeal, and removal was not irreversible because they could return if status were later granted. Their separate humanitarian-status application was outside the scope of this proceeding; the Court expressed no view on its merits or on any interim relief that might be available in that process. Because no response had been requested, the Court made no costs order.
Key Takeaways
- Third-tier review of an Entry into Israel Appeals Tribunal ruling is reserved for exceptional cases involving a generally important legal question or a risk of miscarriage of justice.
- Appellate intervention is particularly rare when the challenged decision concerns interim relief against removal.
- Departure from Israel ordinarily does not prevent continued adjudication of a status claim and is not considered irreversible if the applicant may return after obtaining status.
- A separate humanitarian-status application must be pursued in its own proceeding and does not, by itself, determine interim relief in an appeal based on another status procedure.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the formidable threshold for obtaining Supreme Court review of interlocutory immigration rulings after both the Appeals Tribunal and the District Court have rejected relief. Case-specific disagreement over a status procedure generally will not support a third appeal.
It also confirms that applicants seeking to remain in Israel during status litigation cannot ordinarily establish irreparable harm merely by arguing that removal will require them to pursue the case from abroad. Humanitarian grounds may still support a separate application and a separate request for interim protection, but the Court left those questions open.