Inter-country adoption or adoption before immigrating — two tracks, two procedures, two appeal routes. A guide for adoptive parents; we assist at every stage.
If you adopted a child outside Israel and want to bring the child home, the first question the Population and Immigration Authority will ask is which track you are on. The answer determines everything else: who files the application, which documents you will have to produce, what status the child will receive on entry, and when — if at all — the child will become an Israeli citizen.
There are two entirely separate tracks. The first is inter-country adoption: citizens or permanent residents of Israel who adopt a child from a foreign country through a recognised adoption agency or the Central Authority for inter-country adoption. The second is fundamentally different: a person entitled to immigrate under the Law of Return who adopted a child abroad before immigrating and seeks immigrant status for the child. The two tracks are governed by different procedures, examined under different criteria, and, when an application is refused, end up before different tribunals. Confusing the two is a common cause of refusal.
Since 1 January 1998, inter-country adoption has been governed by sections 28A to 28AM of the Adoption of Children Law, 5741-1981, which were added to the Law following the 1993 Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption. On the entry-to-Israel side, this arrangement is implemented by Procedure 5.1.0009 (the procedure for granting an entry visa to a child adopted abroad).
The procedure describes the chain: every citizen or resident seeking to adopt a child is referred to a recognised adoption agency supervised by the Central Authority, and the agency handles the application with the competent authority of the foreign country. Section 4 provides that only after all the approvals required by law have been obtained does the agency approach the Population and Immigration Authority with a request to approve the child's entry for permanent residence; section 6 clarifies that the Central Authority itself may also act in place of an agency.
There is no way around this track. The Authority and the tribunals rely on section 28AL of the Adoption Law, under which a child's entry into Israel for the purpose of inter-country adoption will not be approved unless the requirements of the Law have been met. Parents who complete an adoption in a foreign country on their own often discover that the Authority has no tools to validate the move after the fact.
Clause ב.1 requires an application for an entry visa for permanent residence, together with the foreign country's central authority's approval of the adoption and a physician's certificate from the agency confirming that the child is not ill. Clause ב.2 sets the connection requirement: the applicant must be a citizen or permanent resident, and it must be confirmed that the applicants resided in Israel for three of the five years preceding the adoption order, or twelve of the eighteen months preceding the order (clause ג.3 frames this check in relation to the filing of the application). Filing is done through an authorised agency or the Central Authority (clause ב.3), and there is no fee for the service (clause ב.4).
The application is forwarded to the Service for the Child and from there to the Visa Department at Population Authority headquarters (clause ג.1), and once approved, an approval is sent to Israel's mission in the country where the adoption is proceeding (clause ג.4). At the consular stage, the parents and the child are identified from their travel documents, and the parents must produce confirmation from the competent authority in the foreign country that they are permitted to take the child out of it (clauses ג.5.1–ג.5.3). Only then is the minor granted an entry visa for permanent residence, valid for six months (clause ג.5.4). In the declaration form attached to the procedure, the parents undertake to enter Israel with the child within six months of receiving the visa, and to file, within six months of entry, an application to register the adoption in the Adoption Register under section 29 of the Adoption Law, or an application for an adoption order.
This is where the most common misunderstanding arises. Section 5 of the general part of Procedure 5.1.0009 provides that a child whose entry has been approved will receive an entry visa for permanent residence, and that the child's eligibility for Israeli citizenship will also be examined in Israel. The visa granted at the consulate is not citizenship and does not create it automatically — it opens the door, and the citizenship examination takes place in Israel after entry.
The next stage is registration: clause ג.5.5 refers to registering the child under Population Registry Procedure 2.13.0003, and clause ג.5.6 refers to Procedure 2.12.0004 regarding how the adoption is to be registered. The sequence, then, is: approval of entry, a permanent-residence visa, entry within six months, formalising and registering the adoption in Israel, and only then examination of citizenship. The procedure sets no deadline for granting citizenship, so as a rule you should not rely on an estimated timetable.
Section 4A(a) of the Law of Return, 5710-1950, extends a Jew's rights also to his or her child and grandchild, and case law has established that a child adopted by a Jew falls within the meaning of "child" for this purpose — provided the adoption is genuine. The administrative examination is governed by Procedure 5.2.0007 (the procedure for handling status for a minor adopted by a person entitled under the Law of Return before immigrating), whose clause ד.1 refers to section 4(a) of the Law of Return.
The requirements are set out in Chapter ב: documents under the immigrant-application procedure (clause ב.1); original, authenticated adoption documents — an adoption certificate, the court's decision on the adoption including the hearing record, and a birth certificate issued close to the time of the adoption (clause ב.2); a notarised translation (clause ב.3); evidence of a genuine adoption (clause ב.4); and confirmation that the child was a minor at the time of the adoption (clause ב.5). Personal attendance is mandatory (clause ב.6) and there is no fee (clause ב.7).
After the file is examined and the head of the Visa Branch gives an opinion, the application is forwarded to the district committee and for approval by the head of the desk (clause ג.4). If the application is approved, the adopted child is registered as an immigrant; if not, an A/5 licence will be granted, provided the minor meets the conditions of Procedure 5.2.0024 as an accompanying minor (clause ג.5). A further review may be required after a year (clause ג.7). Clause ג.8 clarifies that if the adopted child's religion and nationality differ from those of the adoptive parents, the adoption does not change that.
The heart of the examination in the second track is clause ב.4 of the procedure: evidence of a genuine adoption — a continuous relationship with the adopting parent, a genuine intention to form a parent-child relationship, and a genuine marriage between the adopting spouses. Clause ג.3 adds two warning signs: an adoption carried out shortly before the immigrant application is filed, or an adoption where the minor is close to reaching majority. In both cases, the procedure directs a thorough examination of the genuineness of the adoption, to ensure it was not done in order to confer eligibility for status, and requires that the adopting parents be summoned to a hearing — and, if the adopted person is over 12, that person as well.
Case law has added an evidentiary framework. In HCJ 5517/16 (2018), it was held that the right of the non-Jewish family member derives from the right of the Jewish family member, and will therefore be granted only to someone who maintains a real and substantive family unit — "an examination of a shared fate, not a formal examination." As to the burdens: the applicant must first present evidence that prima facie establishes eligibility; once that is done, a "presumption of eligibility" arises, which the Authority may rebut with administrative evidence giving rise to a well-founded suspicion. Where one of the warning signs in clause ג.3 is present — and certainly where both are present — the burden becomes heavier.
The practical conclusion: a file of this kind is built from evidence, not declarations — a continuous relationship over the years, involvement in education and health matters, visits, and documented communication.
The first step is almost always an internal appeal, filed within the time limit set in the Authority's procedures. This is also the stage for completing documents and correcting deficiencies, and in practice a substantial share of cases are resolved here.
From here it is important to identify the correct forum, and it is not the same for the two tracks. Decisions on visas and residence licences under the Entry into Israel Law, 5712-1952 — including a refusal to approve a child's entry or a refusal of a visitor's visa — are challenged by an appeal to the Appeals Tribunal for immigration matters, and its judgment may be appealed to the District Court sitting as the Court for Administrative Affairs within 45 days. By contrast, a claim of eligibility for status under the Law of Return does not fall within the Tribunal's subject-matter jurisdiction: Appeal (Jerusalem) 2826-21 (30 Mar 2022) held so expressly, and in that same matter an earlier appeal had previously been struck out on this ground, while the challenge to the refusal was heard in an administrative petition.
There is also a third, all-too-common situation: the Authority simply does not decide. There is a remedy for that too. Adm. Petition (Haifa) 67773-05-25 (11 Jun 2025) concerned an application for status under Procedure 5.2.0007 that had been filed in September 2022 and remained undecided for years; this was already the second petition in that matter, and the petition was granted, with a fixed deadline set for a decision. In urgent cases, interim relief may also be sought: in Appeal (Jerusalem) 4636-19 (15 Jun 2020), although the appeal itself was dismissed, an order was issued preventing the removal of an eight-year-old girl, which was extended subject to the applicants acting with due diligence vis-à-vis the Central Authority.
Bypassing the Central Authority does not work. In Appeal (Jerusalem) 4636-19 (15 Jun 2020), a couple sought status for a girl they had adopted in Ukraine, arguing she was an accompanying minor of the spouse. The Tribunal held that the file had to be examined specifically through the adoption procedure; that the failure to address the case of an adopted child in the accompanying-minor provisions of the foreign-spouse procedure was not a gap but a deliberate omission; and that neither the Authority nor the Tribunal has the tools to examine an adoption itself. The lesson: an adoption component in a file will be examined under the adoption rules, even if the application was filed under a different track.
An adoption completed abroad in breach of the Law cannot be validated after the fact. In Appeal (Tel Aviv) 1937-16 (13 Mar 2017), an application for a visitor's visa for a girl adopted in the Philippines not in accordance with the Adoption Law was denied. The Tribunal found the concern of an intent to settle to be clear, and held that where the visit application is nothing but a cover for advancing an adoption process, the Authority cannot be expected to lend itself to a bypass route that would present it with a fait accompli.
Under the Law of Return track, the actual family unit is decisive. In Adm. Petition (Nazareth) 60164-09-25 (10 May 2026), the petition of a man adopted as a minor by his mother's husband, a person entitled under the Law of Return, who had immigrated to Israel with them at the age of 15.5, was granted. The Authority argued that the timing was suspiciously close and that the original adoption documents were missing. The Court held that a demand for original documents is not among the "suspicious" indicators listed in clause ג.3; that the petitioner had been registered as a son on his parents' immigrant certificates and had relied on that for 25 years; and that the evidentiary harm caused by the failure to preserve the documents was to be attributed to the Authority. It was ruled that he was entitled to citizenship under the Law of Return.
Conversely, an absence of intent to immigrate and settle cuts against the applicant. In Adm. Petition (Tel Aviv) 29750-06-22 (18 Feb 2024), the petition of a person seeking immigrant status as an adopted son was dismissed; the Court held that the requirement to cumulatively prove both a genuine adoption and an intent to immigrate and settle is reasonable and justified, and that since the petitioner and his family had no wish to immigrate, there was no basis for eligibility. And in Appeal (Jerusalem) 2860-25 (19 Jul 2026), a challenge to the revocation of status that had been granted on the basis of false information was dismissed — a reminder that even status already granted is not immune.
We assist adoptive parents and immigrant families on both tracks: identifying the correct track, building an evidentiary file in the language the Authority uses to examine genuineness of the adoption and the family unit, liaising with the recognised adoption agency, the Central Authority and the mission abroad, preparing for a hearing, and drafting a reasoned internal appeal. When a decision is delayed or mistaken, we act before the correct forum and seek interim relief where there is a risk of removal. In every case we present an honest picture of the prospects and risks, without promises.
No. Under Procedure 5.1.0009, a child whose entry has been approved receives an entry visa for permanent residence valid for six months, and the child's eligibility for citizenship will also be examined in Israel. Citizenship is not granted automatically upon entry but is examined separately, after entry and registration. Until the process is complete, all the time limits set in the procedure must be strictly observed.
This is the most common point of failure. The Authority relies on section 28AL of the Adoption of Children Law, under which a child's entry for the purpose of inter-country adoption will not be approved unless the requirements of the Law have been met, and the tribunals have held that the Population Authority has no tools to examine an adoption on its own. The way forward is to approach the Central Authority for inter-country adoption or a recognised adoption agency. In Appeal (Tel Aviv) 1937-16 (13 Mar 2017), an application for a visitor's visa that was in fact intended to advance an adoption carried out in breach of the Law was denied.
It does not disqualify you, but it makes things harder. Clause ג.3 of Procedure 5.2.0007 directs a thorough examination of the genuineness of the adoption where the adoption was carried out shortly before the immigration application or shortly before the minor reaches majority, and requires the adopting parents to be summoned to a hearing. Case law has held that in such cases the burden of proving a genuine intention to form a parent-child relationship becomes heavier. A file built on a continuous, documented relationship over the years can meet that burden.
Yes. A failure to decide within a reasonable time is an independent ground for turning to the courts. Adm. Petition (Haifa) 67773-05-25 (11 Jun 2025) concerned an application under Procedure 5.2.0007 that had remained undecided for years; the petition was granted and a fixed deadline was set for a decision. Before turning to the court, it is advisable to document written approaches to the Authority and give it an opportunity to respond.
It depends on the ground. Decisions on visas and licences under the Entry into Israel Law are challenged by an appeal to the Appeals Tribunal, and its judgment may be appealed to the District Court sitting as the Court for Administrative Affairs within 45 days. A claim of eligibility for status under the Law of Return does not fall within the Tribunal's subject-matter jurisdiction and is challenged by way of an administrative petition. Filing with the wrong forum can lead to the case being struck out and a costly waste of time.