Eritrea/Sudan's non-removal policy is not refugee status and gives spouses no derivative status. A practical guide to routes, documents and appeals.
Thousands of Eritrean and Sudanese nationals have lived in Israel for many years without permanent status. Most hold a temporary-visitor permit under section 2(a)(5) of the Entry into Israel Law, 5712-1952, renewed from time to time; a smaller group holds a B/1 permit granted at the end of 2007; and natives of the Darfur region hold an A/5 permit granted following a Supreme Court ruling. None of them is a recognized refugee — all of them remain here under a collective non-removal policy, which is an administrative policy, not a status conferred by law.
The question that reaches our office again and again is what happens to the spouse — sometimes a spouse from the same country of origin, sometimes a national of a third country whose relationship began in Israel, and almost always there are shared children born here. Temporary protection does not confer automatic status on the spouse, but it is not the end of the road either: there are routes, and they are determined by the type of permit held by the protected spouse.
The Supreme Court has defined temporary protection as a state's provisional decision not to remove from its territory individuals who cannot return to their country of origin, based on group affiliation, without examining their individual eligibility for asylum (Adm. Appeal (Supreme Court) 8908/11, Asefu v. Ministry of Interior (17 Jul 2012)). The protection rests on the non-refoulement principle under the Refugee Convention and on the recognition of Eritrea as a crisis state, as held in HCJ 7146/12, Adam v. Knesset (2013), and it continues to apply even to someone whose individual asylum claim was denied (Appeal (Tel Aviv) 1441-26 (22 Jul 2026)).
The group character is evident in the history of the permits: on 25 December 2007 a decision was made to grant a B/1 permit, with no individual examination at all, to roughly two thousand Eritrean nationals then present in Israel, while those who entered after that date received a permit under section 2(a)(5) (Appeal (Tel Aviv) 1615-25 (18 Aug 2026)). This leads to the central implication: merely holding an A/5 permit — the type of permit issued to refugees — does not make its holder a recognized refugee (Appeal (Tel Aviv) 2830-25 (14 May 2026)), and this distinction determines which procedures apply to the spouse.
And because this is an administrative policy, it is subject to change: a group request to upgrade the B/1 permits of Eritrean nationals was denied, and the appeal against that denial was rejected by the Supreme Court in 2025; and the criteria for examining asylum claims by Eritrean nationals alleging desertion are currently pending a comprehensive Supreme Court ruling.
Procedure for the Handling of Political Asylum Seekers in Israel No. 5.2.0012 (11th edition, 15 Oct 2024) sets out a narrow arrangement in clause 1(ז): asylum seekers who arrived in Israel as spouses, and who requested in their asylum application that their spouse not be removed, will have that spouse's removal stayed until the application is resolved. The same clause continues: 'as a rule, this provision will not apply to spouses whose relationship was formed in Israel.'
This is the heart of the difficulty, since most of the couples who approach us met in Israel. The Appeals Tribunal for immigration matters rejected an argument that the clause is unconstitutional, holding that it reflects a certain logic: the concern for family unity is relevant at the stage when a person is weighing whether to flee their country, not after they have already fled. It further held that even if the clause applied — the maximum relief available is non-removal or a 2(a)(5) permit, not equalization of status (Appeal (Tel Aviv) 3497-21 (23 Jul 2023)).
That said, the procedure uses the phrase 'as a rule,' and exceptions exist. What may justify an exception is not the mere existence of a couple relationship and family, nor even delay in deciding the asylum application, but an exceptional and proven difficulty in relocating family life to the other spouse's country of citizenship. Humanitarian arguments, the Tribunal held, belong in an application to the Interministerial Advisory Committee.
Procedure for the Handling of Status for the Spouse of a Recognized Refugee No. 10.1.0018 (1st edition, 6 Oct 2013) is the procedure that governs granting status to the spouse of someone who is not an Israeli citizen. An application to bring a family member from the country of origin is examined by the Refugee Committee; an application concerning a spouse whose relationship formed in Israel is handled by the Authority's bureau according to place of residence, where the following are required, among other things: a foreign passport valid for two years, a current certificate of good conduct, public certificates regarding personal status, birth and marriage certificates, evidence of the relationship and a shared center of life, and an affidavit — failure to submit these by the deadline set in the procedure leads to closure of the application. The bureau conducts an interview to check the genuineness of the relationship, after which it examines the possibility that the couple could live together in the country of origin of the unprotected spouse. During the interim period a B/2 permit is issued, and if the relationship is found genuine and the center of life is in Israel, a B/1 permit is approved for one year, renewed after re-examination (clauses 2.ו–2.ז). The B/1 permit's validity will not extend beyond the validity of the protected spouse's A/5 permit (clause 2.ח), and accompanying shared children may be granted A/5 (clause 2.ט).
At the end of the procedure there is a note that opens a path precisely for those who are not recognized refugees: a person who holds an A/5 permit only because they were identified as being of Darfuri origin, and whose individual asylum application was not examined or was not filed, must be referred immediately to the Asylum Seekers Unit for an identification interview, and only afterward will a decision be made on how to proceed. The Tribunal held that a bureau which rejected such an application outright erred, and that its decision was even given without authority (Appeal (Tel Aviv) 2830-25 (14 May 2026)).
The first practical obstacle is almost always documents. The procedures require original, authenticated public certificates from the country of origin, and a person who fled their country cannot approach its authorities without endangering themselves or family members who remain there.
In a recent decision concerning an Eritrean spouse of an Israeli citizen, it was held that the rationale underlying the documentary exemption granted to asylum seekers under the Procedure for Regularizing Status for Spouses of Israeli Citizens No. 5.2.0009 applies with full force also to someone whose asylum application was denied but who continues to be sheltered under the non-removal policy because of their origin; the documentary requirement then becomes a procedural requirement that is disproportionate. Procedures, the Tribunal noted, are internal guidelines from which departure is possible, and at times mandatory (Appeal (Tel Aviv) 1441-26 (22 Jul 2026)).
What can be submitted instead: continuous documentation of shared life — a lease, bills, photographs and correspondence over time; birth certificates of shared children and a paternity ruling if required; affidavits and reference letters; and a written explanation of how and for how long the couple has known each other. To the extent a document cannot be obtained, this should be stated in advance, with an explanation why, and an explicit request for an exemption — rather than waiting for the application to be closed for lack of documents.
Procedure 10.1.0018 provides that accompanying shared children may be granted an A/5 permit (clause 2.ט), which is the positive point. But mistaken assumptions should be avoided: the Tribunal clarified that the fact that a parent holds a temporary-resident identity card and an Israeli identity number does not make that parent's children Israeli citizens (Appeal (Tel Aviv) 2830-25 (14 May 2026)). The children's status derives from the proceeding conducted regarding the parents and does not arise automatically from being born in Israel. To the extent the protected parent holds an A/5 permit, the children's matter should be raised explicitly within that same application rather than in a separate proceeding; and to the extent circumstances relating to the best interests of the child are argued, they belong in a humanitarian application to the Interministerial Advisory Committee.
A bureau's decision is not the end of the road. Under Procedure for Receiving Applications and Appeals Against Decisions of the Authority's Bureaus and Headquarters No. 1.6.0001, an internal appeal must be filed in writing without delay and no later than 21 days from the day the decision is received, and only at the bureau that issued it; an appeal filed late will not be handled (clause ב.2).
The decision on the internal appeal may be challenged by an appeal to the Appeals Tribunal for immigration matters under the Entry into Israel Law, 5712-1952, within the period set by law (generally 30 days), and its judgment may be appealed to the District Court sitting as the Court for Administrative Affairs within 45 days. In appropriate circumstances, interim relief may be requested — an order preventing removal or directing that the permit be extended pending a decision.
Two 2026 judgments of the Tel Aviv District Court addressed the question explicitly: in the Asefu matter, the court considered whether an Eritrean national entitled to temporary protection could seek similar status for his spouse. The court examined the differences between temporary protection and refugee rights, and quoted: 'to the extent the duration of temporary protection lengthens and the temporary becomes permanent, the solution is not the automatic conversion of the beneficiary of temporary protection into a refugee, but rather a move to a framework of individual examination of the person's case.' In that matter the appellant was permitted to file an individual asylum application — individual examination, not derivative status (Adm. Appeal (Tel Aviv) 79064-09-24 (5 May 2026); Adm. Appeal (Tel Aviv) 45244-03-26 (19 Apr 2026)).
In the same judgments it was also held that the assumption underlying that framework — that an individual asylum application will be decided within a reasonable time — does not hold true, and that waiting for years is unreasonable by any measure, regardless of country of origin. In both cases the court ordered that a temporary A/5 permit be issued pending a decision on the asylum application, subject to no security or criminal bar and subject to cancellation if the application is denied. This tool therefore operates through the protected spouse's own asylum application, not through the couple relationship.
On the other side, Appeal (Tel Aviv) 3497-21 (23 Jul 2023) illustrates what does not work: a couple who met in Israel sought to equalize the spouse's status with that of the Sudanese-origin spouse who had received A/5. The appeal was denied, among other reasons because no difficulty in relocating to her country of citizenship was proven and because the application was filed after a delay of about four years. The lesson: establish the difficulty with evidence, and apply early.
Our office guides couples and families in which one spouse is sheltered under the non-removal policy. We first map out the type of permit held by each spouse and the status of the asylum application, since the correct route follows from these; we build an evidentiary file establishing the genuineness of the relationship and the couple's center of life in Israel; we draft an explicit request for an exemption or relief regarding documents that cannot be obtained; and we are careful about deadlines. We do not promise outcomes, and we will not propose a route with no realistic chance of success, but we do make sure that the decision in your case is made by the competent authority, on its merits, and on the basis of the full picture.
No. The non-removal policy is a form of collective protection that is not refugee status, and it does not confer derivative status on a spouse. The Supreme Court clarified in the Asefu matter that when temporary protection is prolonged, the solution is not the automatic conversion of its beneficiary into a refugee, but a move to individual examination of the person's case. The application must be built on a concrete route — a procedure, personal circumstances and evidence — not on the couple relationship as such.
Yes, and it is the most significant difference. Procedure 5.2.0012 protects from removal mainly the spouse of an asylum seeker who arrived in Israel together with them and requested this in the asylum application, and it provides that, as a rule, the provision does not apply to a relationship formed in Israel. The Appeals Tribunal upheld the logic of this distinction but clarified that exceptions exist. To fall within the exception, one must prove an exceptional difficulty in relocating family life to the other spouse's country of citizenship; the mere existence of a couple relationship and family, or delay in deciding the asylum application, is not enough.
The note at the end of Procedure 10.1.0018 provides that a person who holds an A/5 permit only because they were identified as being of Darfuri origin, and whose individual asylum application was not examined or was not filed, must be referred immediately to the Asylum Seekers Unit for an identification interview, and only afterward will a decision be made on how to proceed. In Appeal (Tel Aviv) 2830-25 (14 May 2026), it was held that an outright rejection in such a situation was given without authority, and the file was returned to the competent authority for a decision within 90 days.
Not necessarily, but the point must be raised explicitly and in advance. In Appeal (Tel Aviv) 1441-26 (22 Jul 2026), it was held that the rationale underlying the documentary exemption for asylum seekers applies also to someone whose asylum application was denied but who continues to be sheltered under the non-removal policy, and that the documentary requirement in such a situation is disproportionate and unreasonable. Procedures are internal guidelines from which departure is possible in appropriate circumstances, and an application should not be denied on the basis of the general policy alone.
An internal appeal must be filed in writing without delay and no later than 21 days from the day the decision is received, and only at the bureau that issued it; an appeal filed late will not be handled (Procedure 1.6.0001, clause ב.2). After that, an appeal may be filed with the Appeals Tribunal within the period set by the Entry into Israel Law, and its judgment may be appealed to the District Court sitting as the Court for Administrative Affairs within 45 days. In appropriate circumstances, interim relief may also be requested pending a decision.