The non-removal policy blocks removal but doesn't grant status: what's allowed, what isn't, and the routes to legal status in Israel.
Since the outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine war, the State of Israel has maintained a non-removal policy toward Ukrainian nationals residing in the country: the Authority does not take enforcement or removal action against them, even when their stay permit has expired or they never held one at all. Thousands of people have been living this way for years — working, renting apartments, raising children — without an identity card, without a valid permit, and often without certainty about what is and isn't allowed.
This guide is written for Ukrainian nationals who have been in Israel since 2022, and for their family members and Israeli employers. It explains what the policy does provide, what it does not provide, what routes exist for arranging genuine status, and what is important to do — and, above all, not to do — before this temporary policy changes.
The starting point is fixed in the Entry into Israel Law, 5712-1952: a person who is not an Israeli citizen or the holder of an oleh's visa has no right to reside in Israel, and their residence is conditioned on a residence permit issued by the Minister of Interior (sections 1 and 2(a) of the Law). The Minister's discretion is especially broad, and judicial intervention is reserved for exceptional cases involving a grave flaw that goes to the root of the matter (HCJ 2629/03 Ivashin v. Minister of Interior (2008)).
The non-removal policy is neither a permit nor a status. It is an administrative decision by the Minister not to apply enforcement measures against a group, and its validity is reviewed from time to time. The District Court in Jerusalem stated this expressly: "the non-enforcement policy is temporary and applies to many Ukrainian residents," and a result under which non-removal itself confers status on all those residents cannot be accepted (Adm. Appeal (Jerusalem) 9661-06-26 (2 Sep 2026)). Therefore, anyone seeking to remain in Israel long-term must pursue a separate route — and do so in time.
In proceedings before the Supreme Court, the State declared — and its declarations were recorded in the judgment — that every Ukrainian national staying in Israel for more than three months and covered by the non-removal policy is entitled to all the rights that this policy affords to a holder of a permit under section 2(a)(5) of the Entry into Israel Law, and that no enforcement action would be taken against the employment of Ukrainian nationals, provided that 90 days have passed since their entry into the country and that they hold a Ukrainian passport. It was clarified that the responsibility rests with the employer to verify that the worker indeed holds a Ukrainian passport and has been in Israel for more than 90 days. The Supreme Court struck down the sweeping remedy that would have required issuing a 2(a)(5) permit to everyone, but held that this did not detract from the State's declarations (Leave to Appeal (Supreme Court) 2966/24 (6 Aug 2024)).
It follows that the policy generally allows staying and working without fear of enforcement. But it does not confer an identity card, does not confer a valid residence permit, and does not create a right to enter and leave Israel. The Appeals Tribunal for immigration matters in Tel Aviv dismissed an appeal against a refusal of entry at the airport filed by a Ukrainian national who had been living in Israel, holding that one may not enter Israel "under the guise" of the non-removal policy, and that his repeated departures justified excluding him from that policy (Appeal (Tel Aviv) 3043-24 (12 Sep 2024)).
The policy is also not personal immunity: the Detention Review Tribunal held that there is no connection between the policy of extending temporary visas and the possibility of removing a Ukrainian national individually in concrete circumstances, particularly following a conviction for violent offenses (Detention Review Tribunal decision of 24 Jul 2024).
For many, the only realistic route to status is a relationship with an Israeli. A foreign spouse married to an Israeli citizen is handled under Procedure 5.2.0008 (Procedure for Handling the Granting of Status to a Foreign Spouse Married to an Israeli Citizen, edition 16, updated July 2026), which rests on section 7 of the Citizenship Law, 5712-1952. Unmarried partners (common-law spouses) and same-sex partners are handled under Procedure 5.2.0009. In both routes, the authenticity and stability of the relationship and the existence of a center of life in Israel are examined, within the graduated process.
Someone whose application is approved generally receives a temporary residence permit of type A/5 — for one year initially, up to a total period of four years (clause ז.1 of Procedure 5.2.0008). Two provisions here are especially important: if a judgment has been issued against the applicant ordering them to leave Israel and they did not leave, their application will generally not be processed until after they leave, and only the area manager may approve earlier processing in very exceptional cases (clause ג.12); whereas someone staying in Israel unlawfully but against whom there is no judgment requiring departure will be interviewed together with the applicant — meaning the application is examined on its merits. The Procedure also provides that, as a rule, two status tracks cannot be pursued at the same time, except for exceptions such as an asylum application or an application under the Law of Return (clause ג.10), and that a bank guarantee deposit may be required (clause ג.9).
Someone who does not meet the criteria of another procedure may apply for status on special humanitarian grounds under Procedure 5.2.0022 (Inter-Ministerial Committee Procedure, edition 19). The application is submitted in person at the bureau, on form Ash/24, together with a detailed explanatory letter and supporting documents, a passport valid for two years, and certified and translated documentation (clauses ד.1–ד.7). The application is considered by the Inter-Ministerial Committee, which is only a recommending body; the decision is made by the Director-General of the Population and Immigration Authority, who is not bound by the recommendation and must give reasons for the decision.
Two substantive limitations apply. The first is set out in the Procedure: someone for whom a status application was submitted and rejected, or against whom a judgment was issued upholding the refusal, will generally have a new application examined only after leaving Israel (clause ג.2). The second arises from case law: the war in Ukraine, in itself, is not a special humanitarian ground, because protection from removal is in any event granted to all Ukrainian nationals and is not unique to the applicant. Likewise, many years of residence, a social circle, studies, and a wish to remain near a family member are not, in themselves, recognized as humanitarian grounds.
An asylum application is submitted under Procedure 5.2.0012 (Procedure for Handling Applicants for Political Asylum in Israel and Persons Recognized as Entitled to Political Asylum, edition 11), and is examined individually against the criteria of the Refugee Convention. The State clarified that, as a rule, and except for those whose asylum application is pending, Ukrainian nationals covered by the non-removal policy are not asylum applicants under the Procedure.
Before filing, the procedural consequence should be weighed. Under the Procedure, an asylum applicant who does not hold a lawful residence permit receives a temporary visitor's residence permit under section 2(a)(5) of the Entry into Israel Law, bearing an endorsement stating that the holder is not permitted to work and that enforcement action will be taken against unlawful employment. In other words, an application filed without prior consideration could actually worsen the position of someone who was in fact permitted to work under the non-removal policy. This route is suited to someone with a personal, documented risk, not as a general substitute for arranging status.
A decision of a Population and Immigration Authority bureau can generally be challenged by an internal appeal within the period stated in the refusal letter, under Procedure 1.6.0001 (Procedure for Intake of Applications and Appeals against Decisions of the Bureaus and Headquarters of the Population and Immigration Authority, edition 8). A final decision — including a decision of the Authority's Director-General on a humanitarian application — may be appealed to the Appeals Tribunal for immigration matters under the Entry into Israel Law, within 30 days from the date the decision was lawfully published or from the date the appellant learned of it, as set out in section 13כד(b) of the Law. A judgment of the Tribunal may be appealed to the District Court sitting as the Court for Administrative Affairs, within 45 days.
The deadlines are short, and they run even when there is no immediate danger of removal. And a point that surprises many: an interim order or an order preventing enforcement does not turn the stay into a lawful stay and does not permit work (Appeal (Jerusalem) 3459-25 (19 Aug 2026)). Someone who waits for years without acting loses arguments, and sometimes the route itself.
In Adm. Appeal (Jerusalem) 9661-06-26 (2 Sep 2026), the appeal of the son of an Israeli citizen born in Ukraine, who remained in his country of origin until age 14, was dismissed. The court held that there was no flaw in the Authority's decision, clarified that the non-enforcement policy is temporary and applies to many residents and therefore does not establish status, and added that in certain situations those covered by the policy may be employed in Israel, referring to Leave to Appeal (Supreme Court) 2966/24. The lesson: the argument "I am here and I am not being removed" is not an argument for status.
In Appeal (Jerusalem) 2990-24 (18 Jan 2026), a humanitarian application by a Ukrainian national who was widowed by her Israeli spouse, together with her daughter, was dismissed. It was argued that their home in their city of origin had been destroyed in bombings and that they had nowhere to return to, but the Tribunal held that the appellants were in any event covered by the non-removal policy applied to all Ukrainian nationals, and that this was not a humanitarian ground unique to them. The lesson: personal, concrete circumstances must be established, beyond the general situation in the country of origin.
In Appeal (Jerusalem) 3459-25 (19 Aug 2026), an appeal by a Ukrainian national who married an Israeli, separated from him in 2009, and notified the Authority of this only in 2012, was dismissed. The Tribunal held that the decade-long delay in handling the matter was not attributable entirely to the Authority and that the appellant bore significant contributory fault, and that staying by virtue of an interim order is not a lawful stay and does not permit work. The lesson: prompt reporting of a change in marital status serves the foreign spouse's own interest, not merely a duty.
And in Adm. Petition (Jerusalem) 17464-12-25 (26 Jul 2026), a petition against the revocation of the citizenship of a Ukrainian national who arrived in Israel after the outbreak of the war, presented a marriage certificate, and did not report her separation and divorce, was dismissed. It was held that even non-disclosure of material information, even if not knowing, may give rise to a ground for revocation under section 11(a) of the Citizenship Law. The lesson: omitting a material fact endangers even status that has already been granted.
Our office guides Ukrainian nationals and their Israeli family members in mapping the right route — a relationship, the humanitarian committee, or asylum — and in building the factual and evidentiary case before filing, not after. We handle the filing and management of the application before the bureau and the Inter-Ministerial Committee, internal appeals, appeals to the Appeals Tribunal for immigration matters, appeals to the Court for Administrative Affairs, and applications for interim relief where appropriate. Every case is examined on its own merits, and we do not promise an outcome — but we do make sure the right arguments are raised at the right time and in the right place.
No. It is a temporary administrative decision not to take enforcement and removal measures against Ukrainian nationals, not a residence permit. The courts have held expressly that the policy is temporary, that it applies to many residents, and that a result under which non-removal itself confers status on everyone cannot be accepted (Adm. Appeal (Jerusalem) 9661-06-26 (2 Sep 2026)). Arranging status requires a separate route under the Population and Immigration Authority's procedures.
In proceedings before the Supreme Court, the State declared that no enforcement action would be taken against the employment of Ukrainian nationals, provided that 90 days have passed since their entry into the country and that they hold a Ukrainian passport, and that responsibility for verifying this rests with the employer (Leave to Appeal (Supreme Court) 2966/24 (6 Aug 2024)). This is not a work visa but a non-enforcement policy, and it may change. Note that an interim order from the Tribunal does not permit work.
As a rule, yes. Procedure 5.2.0008 provides that when an application is filed for a sponsored foreign spouse staying in Israel unlawfully, and there is no judgment against them requiring departure, the sponsored spouse and the applicant will be interviewed — meaning the application is examined on its merits. By contrast, if a judgment ordering departure has been issued and the sponsored spouse did not leave, their application will generally not be processed until after departure, and only in very exceptional cases will earlier processing be approved.
Not necessarily, and not as a blanket solution. The State has clarified that Ukrainian nationals covered by the non-removal policy are not, as a rule, asylum applicants. Moreover, Procedure 5.2.0012 provides that an asylum applicant who does not hold a lawful permit receives a permit under section 2(a)(5) bearing an endorsement that they are not permitted to work. This route suits someone with a personal, documented risk, and it is best evaluated in advance.
The policy is reviewed from time to time, and many judgments have stated expressly that when it changes, the resident will be required to leave Israel in accordance with the Authority's instructions, and that it is their responsibility to follow updates. It is therefore worth using the current period to check whether a realistic status route exists and to file an orderly application, rather than waiting for the change. Note that an application previously rejected will generally be examined only after leaving Israel (clause ג.2 of Procedure 5.2.0022).