My asylum application has been pending for years — what can I do?
Asylum application undecided for years? A practical guide: the duty to decide, appealing the failure to decide, and what courts order. We assist asylum seekers.
Written by Attorney Idan Moldavski — law office in Tel Aviv.
When an asylum application remains pending for years
You filed an application for political asylum — that is, a request for recognition as a refugee — with the Population and Immigration Authority. A year goes by, three years, sometimes eight years, and there is still no decision. In the meantime you hold a permit under section 2(a)(5) of the Entry into Israel Law, 5712-1952 — a temporary residence permit that has to be renewed again and again. The Supreme Court has noted that such a permit does not confer social rights such as national health insurance, and that a person whose application remains undecided lives in serious uncertainty.
This guide is for anyone whose asylum application has been pending for a long time, and also for anyone whose request to reopen a rejected file has gone unanswered. We explain what the authority's duty is, what to do before turning to the Appeals Tribunal for immigration matters, what proceeding to file, what the Appeals Tribunal can order, and what could work against you.
The duty to decide with due expedition
Section 11 of the Interpretation Law, 5741-1981, provides that when an authority is empowered or required to do something and no time has been set for it, it must do so with due expedition. In HCJ 4630/17 Tagal v. Minister of Interior (25 Apr 2021) (hereinafter: the Tagal case), the Supreme Court relied on this provision and held that the duty to act within a reasonable time is one of the foundations of proper administration (para. 16). In Leave to Appeal (Supreme Court) 17388-05-26 (10 Jun 2026), the Supreme Court reaffirmed this duty with respect to asylum applications (para. 11).
Handling of applications is governed by Procedure 5.2.0012 (the Procedure for the Treatment of Applicants for Political Asylum in Israel and of Those Recognized as Eligible for Political Asylum in Israel by the Minister of Interior), edition 11 of 15 Oct 2024: registration, an interview at the Refugee Status Determination unit (RSD), a hearing before the Advisory Committee on Refugee Affairs, and a decision by the Minister of Interior. In the Tagal case the Court noted that Israel has not set a binding time limit for examining asylum applications. A "reasonable time" is therefore assessed according to the circumstances: the authority's practical constraints against the importance of the decision to the person awaiting it (para. 18 ibid). The duty is general, and therefore, as a rule, it also applies to a request to reopen a file.
Before the Appeals Tribunal: written reminders and a warning letter
The first step is documentation. Keep the confirmation that you filed the application, the dates of your interviews, and every permit you have received. Contact the authority in writing and ask what stage the application has reached and when a decision is expected. If there is no response, send a detailed warning letter: the date the application was filed, the stages you have already gone through, the harm to you and your family, and a demand for a decision within a reasonable time — failing which an appeal will be filed with the Appeals Tribunal.
Such approaches carry weight. In Adm. Appeal (Jerusalem) 69768-12-24 (4 May 2025), the Court held that even when the authority is delaying unreasonably, an applicant is expected to act to advance his case and, at the very least, to find out where the handling stands, particularly when represented. In that same case, it was a detailed letter from counsel to the authority's management that moved the handling forward after years of stagnation.
An appeal against the failure to decide: where to turn
In asylum matters, the standard procedure is an appeal to the Appeals Tribunal — a judicial forum that hears decisions on matters of entry into Israel and status in it. Section 13כד(א) of the Entry into Israel Law allows an appeal against "a decision of an authority." Section 13כב refers to the definition in the Administrative Affairs Courts Law, 5760-2000, under which a decision also includes "the absence of a decision." Therefore, an appeal against the failure to decide may be filed. This was done in Appeal (Tel Aviv) 1218-23 (10 Mar 2024) and Appeal (Tel Aviv) 1056-26 (6 May 2026).
The Appeals Tribunal's judgment may be appealed by filing an administrative appeal (Adm. Appeal) with the District Court sitting as the Court for Administrative Affairs, within 45 days. From there, leave to appeal may be sought from the Supreme Court (Leave to Appeal). A direct petition to the District Court is appropriate for matters outside the Appeals Tribunal's jurisdiction. Anyone who bypasses the Appeals Tribunal on a matter within its jurisdiction risks having the petition dismissed for failure to exhaust remedies. That is what happened in Adm. Petition (Haifa) 25355-06-25 (16 Nov 2025), which admittedly concerned a visitor's visa application rather than an asylum application.
What the Appeals Tribunal can order
The standard remedy is an order directing the authority to decide within a fixed period. This was held in the Tagal case (para. 26), and the Supreme Court reaffirmed it in Leave to Appeal (Supreme Court) 17388-05-26.
Sometimes the order is conditional: if the authority does not decide by the deadline, an interim remedy takes effect. In the Tagal case it was held that asylum seekers from Darfur who had filed an application by a certain date, and whose application would not be decided by 30 Dec 2021, would receive an A/5 residence permit (a temporary resident permit) pending the decision, subject to the absence of a criminal or security impediment. Such a permit is not recognition as a refugee, and it can be revoked if the application is rejected.
Requiring the authority to grant an A/5 permit before a decision is made, even as an interim remedy, is, in the Supreme Court's words, an extreme and exceptional remedy reserved for special cases (Leave to Appeal (Supreme Court) 17388-05-26, para. 11). We discuss separately, in a dedicated guide on our site, when status is granted during the waiting period and under what conditions.
The Appeals Tribunal may also order the authority to pay costs. In Appeal (Tel Aviv) 1056-26, costs of 2,000 ₪ were awarded, and in Appeal (Tel Aviv) 1218-23, 2,500 ₪. In an old humanitarian case, described in Adm. Appeal (Jerusalem) 69768-12-24, the authority was ordered to pay 16,500 ₪ because of the length of the handling.
The authority's explanations for delay — when they are accepted
In the Tagal case it was held that the authority's practical constraints must be weighed against the importance of the decision to the person (para. 18). It was further held that an authority cannot refrain from deciding for a long time merely because it is waiting for a change in external circumstances. Uncertainty about the situation in the country of origin may make the decision more difficult, but it does not justify total inaction for years.
By contrast, one substantive explanation was accepted: waiting for a Supreme Court ruling in principle on the legal question underlying the application. In Leave to Appeal (Supreme Court) 17388-05-26 it was held that the authority should not be reproached for choosing to wait for such a ruling, and that its conduct therefore did not amount to "serious delay" (para. 12). The practical lesson: if your ground for asylum differs from the question of principle, make that clear in writing. The Appeals Tribunal also emphasizes that delay is examined on a case-by-case basis and depends, among other things, on when the application was filed (Appeal (Tel Aviv) 1056-26, para. 8).
Your own delay: when it counts against you
Deadlines also apply to the applicant. An appeal to the Appeals Tribunal is filed within 30 days of the day the decision was published or became known to you, whichever is earlier (section 13כד(ב) of the Entry into Israel Law). A petition to the District Court is filed without delay and no later than 45 days, and the Court may dismiss a petition filed with delay (regulations 3 and 4 of the Administrative Affairs Courts (Procedure) Regulations, 5761-2000). In Adm. Petition (Haifa) 25355-06-25, a general explanation, unsupported by an affidavit, was not accepted for a petition filed roughly three years after the decision.
That said, delay by the petitioner does not automatically close the door. In Adm. Petition (Jerusalem) 20473-10-25 (28 May 2026), a petition concerning citizenship under the Law of Return, the Court distinguished between subjective delay — the petitioner's own failure to act in time — and objective delay, meaning actual harm caused to the authority or third parties by the delay. Since no such harm was proven, the delay argument was not decisive.
Two lessons follow. First, when the authority responds to you in writing that you are not entitled to the remedy you sought, act within the deadline. In Appeal (Tel Aviv) 1056-26, one appellant bore his own costs because the authority had already responded to him in May 2025 and he did not file an appeal in time. Second, keep approaching the authority from time to time: years of silence on your part could count against you.
What the case law shows
In Leave to Appeal (Supreme Court) 17388-05-26 (10 Jun 2026), an asylum seeker had filed her application in early 2018. The Appeals Tribunal ordered the authority to interview her and decide within eight months. The District Court set that decision aside and ordered that she be given an A/5 permit pending the decision. The Supreme Court set aside the District Court's judgment, reinstated the Appeals Tribunal's decision, and held that the eight months would run from the date of its own judgment. The lesson: the expected remedy is a timetable, not status.
In Appeal (Tel Aviv) 1218-23 (10 Mar 2024), an asylum seeker from Sudan challenged the fact that his 2016 application had not been decided. The Appeals Tribunal rejected his argument that he belonged to the group granted relief in the Tagal case, but since the authority admitted at the hearing that it was not, in practice, deciding applications of this kind, it gave the authority until 10 Nov 2024; otherwise the appellant would receive a temporary A/5 permit. The lesson: even without group-based entitlement, delay in an individual case can justify a conditional remedy.
In Appeal (Tel Aviv) 1056-26 (6 May 2026), a Sudanese national had filed his application in 2024. The Appeals Tribunal accepted the authority's position that blanket entitlement should not be set in advance for everyone whose application will not be decided, but found that no change had been shown that took the case outside the scope of the delay. Following the framework of the Tagal case, it gave the authority until 6 Jan 2027 to decide or find another solution, and only if it failed to do so would a temporary A/5 permit be granted. The lesson: first a deadline to remedy the default, and only then an operative remedy.
In Adm. Appeal (Jerusalem) 69768-12-24 (4 May 2025), the applicant had first approached the authority more than thirty years earlier, and the asylum application he filed at the time had been abandoned. The Court criticized the authority's repeated, unexplained delays, but dismissed the appeal against the refusal of his humanitarian application: delay by itself does not create a ground for status, and the appellant himself had not advanced his case for many years. The lesson: delay by the authority strengthens the demand for a decision, but it is not a substitute for arguments on the merits.
How our office can help
Our office assists asylum seekers whose applications have been pending for a long time: we help with documentation and approaches to the authority, file appeals against the failure to decide, and, where necessary, continue to the District Court and the Supreme Court. In May 2026, the Tel Aviv District Court ordered the state to grant two asylum seekers from Belarus, who had taken part in protests against the Lukashenko regime, temporary-resident status pending a decision on their asylum application, after finding that the Population and Immigration Authority had delayed handling the application for years. In August 2026, more than four years after they filed the application, the authority recognized them as refugees; according to the Haaretz report, it was the first time Israel had recognized Belarusian nationals as politically persecuted by the regime. Our office represented the two. We work in Hebrew, English, and Russian. Every case is examined on its own circumstances, and we cannot guarantee an outcome.
Frequently Asked Questions
How long counts as a 'reasonable time' for a decision on an asylum application?
The law does not set an exact number of months, and the Supreme Court noted in the Tagal case that Israel has not set a binding time limit for examining asylum applications. A reasonable time is assessed by balancing the authority's practical difficulties against the importance of the decision to you. Case law holds that waiting for many years without a substantive explanation exceeds due expedition.
Will I receive status just because the application hasn't been decided for years?
As a rule, no. The standard remedy is an order directing the authority to decide within a deadline, and in Leave to Appeal (Supreme Court) 17388-05-26 the Supreme Court held that requiring the authority to grant an A/5 permit before a decision is an exceptional remedy. In some cases an interim remedy was ordered, usually only if the authority failed to meet the deadline set for it. Even in a humanitarian application, it was held that delay by the authority alone is not a ground for granting status.
The authority says it is waiting for a Supreme Court ruling in principle. What should I do?
Courts have accepted such waiting as a legitimate explanation when the application raises the same legal question. If your ground for asylum is different, it is important to make that clear in writing. In Leave to Appeal (Supreme Court) 17388-05-26, the Supreme Court upheld a decision of the Appeals Tribunal directing the authority to examine such an application and decide it within eight months.
What happens if the authority does not decide by the deadline the Appeals Tribunal set?
Sometimes the judgment itself specifies what will happen: for example, that if no decision is given by the deadline, a temporary A/5 permit will be granted pending the decision, subject to the absence of a criminal or security impediment. If there is no such provision, you can generally return to the Appeals Tribunal and ask it to order compliance with its judgment. In a separate guide on our site, we explain what to do when the authority does not comply with a judgment.
Will the authority pay the costs of the proceeding?
The Appeals Tribunal may order the authority to pay costs when the appeal is granted, and amounts in the case law range from a few thousand shekels to more than 15,000 ₪, depending on the circumstances. Sometimes no costs are awarded at all, as in Leave to Appeal (Supreme Court) 17388-05-26. Your own conduct is also weighed: someone who did not act on time may end up bearing their own costs.
Read more about this practice area — Asylum & Refugees