The non-removal policy has ended and 2(a)(5) licenses aren't renewed. What individual routes remain — a practical guide for Ethiopian nationals and families.
If you are an Ethiopian national who has lived in Israel for years, applied for political asylum, and as a result received a temporary visitor's residence license under section 2(a)(5) of the Entry into Israel Law — and in recent months that license has not been renewed, you have been told to leave Israel, or a family member has been detained in an enforcement action — this page is written for you, and also for Israeli employers and family members trying to understand what happened to a document that was presented to them for years as a valid license.
The background is a change in the Population and Immigration Authority's policy toward Ethiopian nationals, upheld by the courts in 2025-2026. The change does not retroactively cancel the license you held, but it removes the basis on which its periodic renewal rested. Many people find themselves, for the first time in years, classified as staying unlawfully — and sometimes discover this only when they report to the local office to renew the license.
Section 2(a)(5) of the Entry into Israel Law, 5712-1952, authorizes the Minister of the Interior to grant a temporary visitor's residence license. The document that sets out when such a license is issued to an asylum seeker is Procedure 5.2.0012 (the Procedure for Handling Applicants for Political Asylum in Israel and Persons Recognized by the Minister of the Interior as Eligible for Political Asylum in Israel), edition 11 of 15 October 2024.
Section 1ה of the Procedure provides that an asylum seeker who, at the time of filing, has been in Israel for more than a year and does not hold a lawful license will receive a 2(a)(5) license bearing a notation that they may not work, and the ban on employing them will be enforced for six months from the date the application was filed. Once six months have passed without a decision, a license without that notation will be issued, and no further enforcement action will be taken over their employment. Section 1ו sets out a parallel arrangement, with a three-month period, for someone who has been present for less than a year. Under both tracks the license is renewed ‘from time to time until a decision is reached on the application, so long as the applicant cooperates while the matter is being examined.’
This is the root of most of the misunderstanding. A 2(a)(5) license is not a status, but a byproduct of a pending asylum proceeding; the District Court sitting as the Court for Administrative Affairs in Jerusalem noted that, in practice, it means ‘only the prevention of removal’ (Adm. Petition (Jerusalem) 8375-02-24 (6 Jun 2024)).
From November 2021, asylum seekers from Ethiopia whose applications had not yet been decided received a temporary residence license under section 2(a)(5) until their case was resolved — as described in Leave to Appeal (Supreme Court) 52089-05-26 (26 May 2026).
On 8 Jan 2024, the Minister of the Interior decided, relying on a review by the Asylum Seekers Unit and on an opinion of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, that there was no obstacle to returning Ethiopian nationals — including those from the Tigray region — to their country. Petitions against the decision were dismissed on 6 Jun 2024 (Adm. Petition (Jerusalem) 8375-02-24), which held that a general non-removal policy toward all Ethiopian nationals had never been established.
On 18 Dec 2025, the appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court (Adm. Appeal (Supreme Court) 5041/24). As quoted from that judgment in a decision of the Central-Lod District Court, it was held that the Minister's decision would stand and that the organising period (grace period to arrange departure) would be four months; at the same time, it was clarified that nothing in the ruling detracts from the right of anyone who believes they have a claim of a right to remain in Israel to initiate proceedings to assert it. The period was extended to 30 Apr 2026, and afterward — because of office closures and the shutdown of the online system during Operation ‘Lion's Roar’ — to 30 May 2026 (Adm. Petition (Central) 35775-04-26 (30 Apr 2026)). An application for leave to appeal was dismissed, on the ground that the existence of individual routes weakens the justification for collective interim relief.
Once you no longer hold a valid license, the rules in Procedure 10.3.0001 (the Procedure for Issuing Removal and Detention Orders under the Entry into Israel Law, 5712-1952), edition 4 of 15 March 2023, apply. Clause ג.1 establishes a presumption that anyone who cannot produce a residence license, without a reasonable explanation, is staying unlawfully.
Clause ג.4 requires the border-control officer to hold a hearing no later than seven hours after arrival at the unit's facility, and clause ד.1.7 requires that you be informed in advance of the right to consult a lawyer and be represented. Clause ו.1.1 provides that a decision on removal must be given no later than 24 hours from the start of detention, and clause ו.1.5 provides that a person against whom a removal order has been issued will not be removed before three days have passed from the order being handed to them.
Note clause ג.8: merely filing an application or an internal appeal, or even scheduling an appointment to file one, does not by itself prevent the issuance of a removal or detention order — unless a specific procedure provides otherwise or a judicial decision bars enforcement. The timing of any application is therefore critical.
Following the Supreme Court's judgment, panels of the Appeals Tribunal for immigration matters apply a clear rule: anyone seeking to prevent their removal must present individual circumstances justifying treating their case differently from that of other Ethiopian nationals. A general claim about the situation in the country, or about the situation of those from the Tigray region, does not meet that burden — as held in Appeal (Tel Aviv) 3146-26 (6 Aug 2026) and Appeal (Tel Aviv) 2935-26 (10 Aug 2026). Those decisions emphasized that the Authority never undertook to reconsider every rejected asylum application without individual circumstances and evidence being presented.
Two further considerations recur there. The first is delay: someone who claims a threat to life but approaches the Authority only shortly before the end of the organising period, and files an appeal weeks after the refusal decision, will be seen as someone seeking merely to extend their stay. The second is the availability of an alternative place to live and the possibility of leaving for another country: even where an ‘asylum-type claim’ is raised, the applicant for relief must persuade the Tribunal that they cannot leave for another country, or return to their own country even temporarily, pending a decision.
The first route is a new asylum application, or an application to reopen one that was rejected, based on an individual change of circumstances. There is a technical obstacle worth knowing about here: the online system automatically blocks a second asylum application from someone whose application was rejected, so filing must be done in person at the Asylum Seekers Unit (Appeal (Tel Aviv) 2632-23 (18 May 2026)).
The second route is an application to the Inter-Ministerial Advisory Committee for Determining and Granting Status on Humanitarian Grounds (Procedure 5.2.0022). Clause ו.1.7 of Procedure 10.3.0001 provides that someone who filed such an application before being placed in detention must contact the handling office immediately, and if no decision has been reached within 14 days of the removal order being issued, conditional release will be considered.
The third route is status based on a family relationship, as illustrated by Appeal (Tel Aviv) 2632-23. Finally, the hearing itself is also an opportunity to raise claims based on the non-refoulement principle and to make sure they are recorded in the minutes.
As a rule, a decision of a local office or headquarters body may be challenged by a written internal appeal, without delay and no later than 21 days, under Procedure 1.6.0001 (the Procedure for Receiving Applications and Appeals against Decisions of the Population and Immigration Authority's Offices and Headquarters) — only one internal appeal is allowed. Some procedures provide that the correct route is a direct appeal to the Appeals Tribunal under section 13כד of the Law. It is worth checking in advance which route applies.
Alongside the appeal, an application for interim relief and a temporary order is filed. Regulation 13(a) of the Entry into Israel Regulations (Procedure and Administration in the Appeals Tribunal), 5774-2014, authorizes the Tribunal to grant ex parte temporary relief where there is a concern of severe, irreparable harm. In practice, the Tribunal insists on a proper evidentiary basis — an application not supported by a separate affidavit counts against the applicant.
A decision of the Appeals Tribunal may be appealed, or leave to appeal may be sought, to the District Court sitting as the Court for Administrative Affairs, within 45 days. The same right of appeal, within the same time limit, also applies to decisions of the Detention Review Tribunal.
In Appeal (Tel Aviv) 1692-26 (2 Sep 2026), a longtime asylum seeker who had held a 2(a)(5) license for years while his application was pending sought to upgrade his license in light of how long he had waited. The appeal was dismissed: since the Authority had issued a license matching the status of the application's handling under the Procedure, and no special reason was shown, there was no flaw in the decision. The lesson: the length of the wait alone is not grounds for upgrading a license.
Appeal (Tel Aviv) 3146-26 (6 Aug 2026 and 25 Aug 2026) concerned an Ethiopian national who entered Israel in 2010, whose asylum application was rejected in 2016, and who received a 2(a)(5) license in 2021 because of the non-removal policy. When the Authority refused to reopen his application, both the temporary order and the interim relief were denied — the application rested on a general claim, and it was made only shortly before the end of the organising period.
A Detention Review Tribunal decision of 12 Aug 2026 (case 1278-07-26) illustrates the practical risk: an Ethiopian national whose license had been renewed for years and then expired reported to the local office to regularize his status and was arrested the next day. The Tribunal upheld continued detention and made three points — its jurisdiction does not extend to the validity of the removal order itself; a general claim about ‘war,’ raised at the hearing, is hard to view as an individual claim; and filing an asylum application while in detention does not by itself create grounds for immediate release.
By contrast, Appeal (Tel Aviv) 2632-23 (18 May 2026) shows the other side. There, the Authority told the appellant, an Ethiopian national, that she would not be removed pending a decision on her partner's asylum application. The appeal was struck out following the Supreme Court's judgment, but the Tribunal held that the Authority's undertaking still stood, set no organising period for her, and ordered that if no decision was reached on her partner's case within 90 days, she would be granted a 2(a)(5) license.
Our office guides Ethiopian nationals, their family members, and their employers from the stage when a license is not renewed through to detention and removal proceedings. We first examine the entire administrative file — when the asylum application was filed, the grounds for its rejection, and what was recorded in the hearing minutes — and from this identify the individual claim that can be supported by evidence. We then build the appropriate route: a new application or an application to reopen filed in person at the Asylum Seekers Unit, an application to the humanitarian committee, an application based on a family relationship, together with an appeal and interim relief where needed, as well as representation at hearings before the Detention Review Tribunal. As a rule, the earlier the application is made and the better the individual evidentiary basis is documented, the greater the room for action.
As a rule, yes. Clause ג.1 of Procedure 10.3.0001 establishes a presumption that anyone who cannot produce a valid residence license, without a reasonable explanation, is staying in Israel unlawfully. This means exposure to enforcement action, a removal order, and a detention order. If you have a pending application or a judicial decision barring enforcement, it must be presented immediately.
Not automatically. Clause ג.8 of Procedure 10.3.0001 provides that merely filing an application or an internal appeal does not prevent the issuance of a removal or detention order, unless a specific procedure provides otherwise or a judicial decision has been given. In practice, delaying removal generally requires interim relief from the Appeals Tribunal, and such an application must rest on individual circumstances and evidence and be supported by an affidavit.
As held in Appeal (Tel Aviv) 2632-23 (18 May 2026), there is an automatic block on the online filing of a second asylum application by someone whose application was rejected. Anyone who believes a material change of circumstances has occurred in their case should file in person at the Asylum Seekers Unit. Do not rely on an online filing attempt that gets blocked.
The Tribunal examines whether there are grounds for release from detention under section 13ו(a) of the Entry into Israel Law — among them, unlawful presence resulting from a bona fide mistake or error, independent departure without difficulty in locating the person, a medical condition, or special humanitarian reasons. On the other hand, a decision of 12 Aug 2026 (case 1278-07-26) clarified that its jurisdiction does not extend to the validity of the removal order itself, and that filing an asylum application while in detention does not by itself create grounds for immediate release.
Yes, but the routes are individual, not collective. The judgment in Adm. Appeal (Supreme Court) 5041/24 (18 Dec 2025) clarified that nothing in it detracts from the right of anyone who believes they have a claim of a right to remain in Israel to initiate proceedings to assert it, and that a new application may be made to the Minister. In practice, this means a new asylum application or an application to reopen based on an individual change of circumstances, an application to the humanitarian committee under Procedure 5.2.0022, or an application based on a family relationship — and all of these require a personal evidentiary basis rather than a general claim.