Since Oct. 2024, reconsideration requests no longer exist. What counts as new circumstances, how to approach the RSD unit, and what happens with removal.
Your asylum claim was rejected, or your asylum file was closed years ago without ever being examined on the merits — and since then something has changed: a war or conflict in your country of origin, the detention of a family member, a document that has only now come into your hands, or a ground that arose specifically while you were staying in Israel.
An administrative decision is not bound by the rule of finality that governs a court judgment, and in the right circumstances it is possible to ask for a fresh review. However, there is no right to such a review merely because some claim of change has been raised, and since October 2024 the track known as the request for reconsideration has also been abolished. Below is what remains, what must be proven, and in what order to proceed.
The asylum process operates under the Entry into Israel Law, 5712-1952, and in light of Israel's commitment to the Refugee Convention. The administrative arrangement is set out in Procedure 5.2.0012 (the Procedure for Handling Applicants for Political Asylum in Israel and Persons Recognized by the Minister of the Interior as Entitled to Political Asylum in Israel), edition 11 of 15 October 2024.
Clause 14.ב of the Procedure provides that requests for reconsideration that were pending on the date the Procedure was published will be handled under the previous version, and that from the publication date onward 'no further requests for reconsideration will be accepted' — an asylum seeker whose application has been rejected must instead file an appeal with the Appeals Tribunal for immigration matters. Clause 9 of the Procedure adds that the rejection letter must state that the applicant may file an appeal with the Appeals Tribunal under the Entry into Israel Law.
Clause 1 of the Procedure adds an important practical limitation: an asylum seeker whose application was opened and then rejected or closed under the Procedure may not apply again through the online asylum application form. In other words, there is no 'starting over' through the Authority's website — the approach must be made directly to the RSD unit (Asylum Seekers Unit). The same clause also provides that an asylum seeker who leaves the country after their application has been opened will be treated as having abandoned it, and it will be closed.
The test was set by the Supreme Court in Adm. Appeal (Supreme Court) 4922/12 (7 Jul 2013): reopening an asylum application whose decision has become final will be done where there is apparently a material change of circumstances that must be examined in depth, with the burden of proving the change resting on the asylum seeker (paragraphs 23-25). The Court referred to the guidelines of the UN Refugee Agency, under which reopening is justified where there is evidence of a significant change in the applicant's personal circumstances or in conditions in the country of origin — a change that may materially affect eligibility for refugee status.
As a rule, three categories meet the test: events that occurred after the decision; evidence that could not have been obtained earlier, accompanied by an explanation of when and how it came into your hands; and an objective change in the conditions of the country of origin or the region you came from.
And what does not meet the test? Repeating the same claims in different wording. In Appeal (Tel Aviv) 3930-24 (15 Jan 2025), a request for further review was dismissed at the threshold after the Tribunal compared the previous asylum application with the 'new' one and found the claims to be identical. Such an attempt is in effect a challenge to the previous decision — and the Tribunal does not function as a court of appeal over its own decisions.
The application to the RSD unit is the real opportunity. In Appeal (Tel Aviv) 1005-25 (20 Jan 2025), it was clarified that anyone seeking to file a new asylum application, or asking that their application be reconsidered due to a change of circumstances or newly discovered evidence, must present the unit with the full body of their arguments and evidence already in their application, in an organized and documented manner.
In Appeal (Tel Aviv) 2504-25 (9 Nov 2025), it was held in the same spirit that someone claiming a change of circumstances is expected 'to present evidence and support for their claims already at the time of application'; otherwise, anyone whose application was rejected would simply file a new application and argue that they must be summoned again for an interview, and it would no longer be possible to remove a foreign national from Israel at all.
The reasoning the tribunals repeatedly cite is that if raising some factual claim, without any substantiation, were enough to require a fresh review, the proceedings on an asylum application would 'never end,' and every rumor that reached the applicant's ears would give rise to grounds for another application. The practical conclusion: a document attached without its source, without identifying its author, and without an explanation of how it came into your hands, will not be enough.
This is a common situation: a person filed an application years ago, did not appear for the interview, and the file was closed without ever being examined on the merits. Clause 3 of Procedure 5.2.0012 provides that the invitation to the interview must include a clarification that if the applicant does not appear on the scheduled date, the application will be closed — unless justified reasons for the failure to appear are presented within two weeks of that date.
In Appeal (Tel Aviv) 2504-25 (9 Nov 2025), the Tribunal considered a request to reopen a file that had been closed in 2020 for lack of cooperation, alongside a claim of new grounds and a change of circumstances. The appeal was dismissed, but the Tribunal added — 'out of an abundance of caution' — that since the application had never been examined on its merits, and since specific new circumstances alongside changes in the country of origin had been alleged, the appellant would be given a short period to present supporting material to the Authority, and the Authority would decide anew whether to reopen the file or allow a new application to be filed.
The lesson: a technical closure that was never examined on the merits is a weighty argument that must be raised explicitly, but it is not enough on its own — it is examined together with the explanation for the closure, the time that has passed, and your conduct since then.
Sometimes the change is not personal but affects a whole group. In Appeal (Tel Aviv) 3330-25 (15 Jun 2026), an appellant whose asylum application had been rejected was described as seeking to reopen her application in light of her origin from the Tigray region; under the Authority's policy her permit had been extended for further periods, until on 8 January 2024 the policy toward people from that region was updated and it was determined that her permit would not be extended — while noting that she could file an updated asylum application if circumstances existed in her case that justified reconsideration. Group policy changes in both directions, and it is no substitute for a well-founded individual application.
A ground that arises in Israel — refugee status 'sur place' (that is, a claim that arises only after the person is already in the host country) — is recognized in principle. In Adm. Appeal (Supreme Court) 4922/12 it was held that recognition should not be denied in advance to an asylum seeker whose ground arose while they were staying in the country of asylum, but it must be examined whether the application is candid and genuine, that is, whether it was filed in good faith (paragraph 21).
In practice, the scrutiny is strict. In Adm. Appeal (Jerusalem) 45474-04-24 (17 Jun 2024), the appeal of someone who began practicing in Israel a method banned in his country of origin shortly before his work permit expired, and who afterward demonstrated in front of the embassy, was dismissed. The Court held that his own statements in interviews showed that the choice stemmed from health reasons rather than an ideological stance, that no awareness of his activity by the authorities of his country of origin had been proven, and that this was an artificial attempt to manufacture a ground for asylum.
Against a decision rejecting an asylum application — including a refusal to reopen a file or to accept a new application — the route is an appeal to the Appeals Tribunal under the Entry into Israel Law, as stated in clause 9 of the Procedure. The appeal must be filed within the time set by law and without delay, with the count of days running from the earlier date of service — whether on the applicant or on their attorney (clause 8.א of the Procedure).
Clause 8.ב of the Procedure requires that the applicant be given a reasoned decision together with all the documents that were before the decision-maker, including the interview protocol and the protocol of the plenary session of the Advisory Committee — essential raw material for building a new application. The Tribunal may dismiss an appeal at the threshold when it discloses no ground for intervention, under Regulation 10(1) of the Entry into Israel Regulations (Procedure and Administration in the Appeals Tribunal), 5774-2014. A further appeal from a judgment of the Tribunal is filed with the District Court sitting as the Court for Administrative Affairs within 45 days; leave to appeal an interim decision may be sought under Section 13לא(ב) of the Law.
And a critical point: filing a new application or an appeal does not automatically suspend removal. A stay requires a separate application for interim relief, which is examined according to the prospects of the proceeding and the risk of severe, irreparable harm. In Appeal (Tel Aviv) 1005-26 (12 Jan 2026), such a request was denied for someone whose new application had been rejected for lack of evidence of new circumstances, and it was held that even the filing of an internal appeal does not prevent placement in detention to secure removal. By contrast, in Appeal 2504-25, protection against actual removal was granted pending the decision — explicitly as distinct from protection against detention.
A common thread runs through the case law: your conduct since the previous decision affects the prospects of the new application no less than its content. In Appeal (Tel Aviv) 3930-24 (15 Jan 2025), an appeal was dismissed at the threshold where the appellant had not left Israel in accordance with a final judgment given in her case and had filed a new asylum application; the Tribunal held that when a person remains in Israel unlawfully while a removal order is pending against them, their conduct casts a shadow over the sincerity of the fear they claim.
In Appeal (Tel Aviv) 2729-26 (8 Jul 2026), a further application filed after the rejection of an earlier one was denied: the claims had already been examined and rejected in an earlier appeal that was not further appealed, and the documents attached were general sources of information with no real connection to the appellant. 'New' evidence must concretely connect the information to you personally.
At the same time, this is not a locked door. In Adm. Appeal (Supreme Court) 4922/12 itself, the Supreme Court held that the additional evidence submitted on appeal was indeed such that it apparently could affect eligibility for refugee status, in a manner that justified reopening the applications and holding an interview — even though the applications were ultimately rejected on the merits. The quality of the documentation is what makes the difference.
Our office accompanies asylum seekers whose applications have been rejected or whose files have been closed. We begin by obtaining the full material that was before the decision-maker — the interview protocol, the opinion, and the decision itself — and examine which claims have already been decided and which circumstances are genuinely new. From there we build a direct, documented application to the RSD unit, explaining what has changed, when, and how the evidence came into your hands; we handle, in parallel, the question of protection against removal and against detention; and we represent clients in appeals to the Appeals Tribunal and in further appeals to the District Court when required. We do not promise a result, but we do make sure the case is presented in full, on time, and in the manner the law requires.
No. Clause 14.ב of Procedure 5.2.0012, edition 11 of 15 October 2024, provides that from the date the Procedure was published, no further requests for reconsideration will be accepted, and anyone whose application has been rejected must file an appeal with the Appeals Tribunal. Requests for reconsideration that were pending on that date continue to be handled under the previous version of the Procedure. What remains is the right of appeal, alongside a new application based on new circumstances.
No. Clause 1 of Procedure 5.2.0012 provides that an asylum seeker whose application was opened and then rejected or closed under the Procedure may not apply again through the online asylum application form. The application must be made directly to the RSD unit (Asylum Seekers Unit), and it must already include, at this stage, the full claims and evidence. This was also held in Appeal (Tel Aviv) 1005-25 (20 Jan 2025), where it was clarified that there is no right to go through the regular track again merely by filing a new application.
A file closed for lack of cooperation was never examined on the merits, and this is a weighty argument that must be raised explicitly. However, it is not enough on its own: an explanation for the closure is required, new circumstances are required, and evidence supporting them is required. In Appeal (Tel Aviv) 2504-25 (9 Nov 2025), an appeal concerning a file closed in 2020 was dismissed, but the Tribunal ordered that the application be re-examined by the Authority subject to supporting material being presented within a short time.
Not automatically. Filing a new application or an appeal does not by itself suspend removal, and a stay requires a separate application for interim relief, which is examined according to the prospects of the proceeding and the risk of severe, irreparable harm. In Appeal (Tel Aviv) 1005-26 (12 Jan 2026), such a request was denied, and it was held that even filing an internal appeal does not prevent placement in detention to secure removal. Even where protection against actual removal is granted, this does not necessarily amount to protection against detention.
In principle, yes. In Adm. Appeal (Supreme Court) 4922/12 (7 Jul 2013), it was held that recognition should not be denied in advance to an asylum seeker whose ground arose while staying in the country of asylum, but it must be examined whether the application was filed in good faith. In practice the scrutiny is strict: in Adm. Appeal (Jerusalem) 45474-04-24 (17 Jun 2024), an appeal was dismissed after it was held that this was an artificial attempt to create a ground for asylum, among other things because no awareness of the activity by the authorities of the country of origin had been proven. It is important to show what was done, why, and whether it came to the knowledge of the authorities of the country of origin.