Deportation at Israel’s Doorstep: Strict Border Control at Ben Gurion Airport and Review of Court Decisions

Introduction

In recent years, Israel has tightened its border control policy, leading to an increase in cases of entry refusal and deportation of foreign citizens.

In this material, we provide the formal criteria by which the border control system carries out checks at Ben Gurion Airport, as well as an overview of several court decisions with an analysis of specific circumstances and facts.

We have already written about the principles that guide border control officers at Ben Gurion Airport. Now we will discuss the specific departmental instruction that the service applies daily and analyze real cases.

Here is an excerpt from the main provisions of the directive:

Border Control Procedure in Israel

Instruction No. 6.4.0010

Area: Border Control and Border Crossing Points

Procedure Number: 6.4.0010

Subject: Inspection of Passengers at International Border Crossing Points of Israel

Page 1 of 7 (Edition 2)

Update Date: 20.7.2017

Population and Immigration Authority, Procedure Number 6.4.0010

Procedure for Inspection of Passengers at International Border Crossing Points of Israel

1. Purpose of the Procedure

Article 1(a) of the Entry into Israel Law, 1952 (hereinafter – “Entry into Israel Law” or “Law”) establishes that a person who is not a citizen of Israel may enter Israel with an immigration visa or with a visa in accordance with this law.

This procedure is intended to determine the order of inspection of passengers at international border crossing points of Israel, to define situations in which entry will be denied to passengers who are not citizens of Israel and do not have an immigration visa, at border crossing points, and to regulate the procedure for implementing the refusal procedure.

Main Provisions of the Instruction on Entry to Israel

1. General Provisions

B.1. The Minister of Interior has broad discretionary powers in carrying out their functions in accordance with the Entry into Israel Law. This corresponds to the principle of full sovereignty, according to which the state has the right to prevent foreigners from entering its territory or deport them in certain cases (Supreme Court 482/71 Clark v. Minister of Interior, P.D. 27(1) 113, 117; Kendel case, mentioned above, p. 520; Supreme Court 1031/93 Passero (Goldstein) v. Minister of Interior, P.D. 49(4) 661, 705; Supreme Court 4370/01 Lapka v. Minister of Interior, P.D. 57(4) 920, 930.)

The state’s initial position is that a person who is not a citizen of Israel or a permanent resident does not have an absolute and automatic right to enter Israel, regardless of whether they are a citizen of a country with which Israel has signed an agreement granting its citizens a visa exemption for entry into Israel or not.

B.2. Accordingly, Article 9 of the Entry into Israel Law establishes the authority of a border control officer to detain the entry of a foreigner arriving in Israel and wishing to enter the country’s territory, until the question of whether they have the right to enter or not is clarified. In addition, the authority to refuse entry to Israel is established in accordance with Article 10 of the Law.

1. Definitions

C.1 “Person denied entry” – a person who is denied entry to Israel.

C.2 “Passenger” – any person entering or leaving through an international border crossing point of Israel.

C.3 “Border inspector” (border control officer or border control service employee) – a person appointed as a border inspector (border control officer) by the Minister of Interior in accordance with their powers established in Article 15(b) of the Entry into Israel Law.

C.4 “Second line inspection point” – a place located at the border crossing point where a person whose case requires additional verification is directed, including on the issue of their entry into Israel.

C.5 “Transit permit” – a permit issued by a border inspector (border control officer, border control service employee) to a passenger, such as:

– A special ticket allowing passage through automatic/serviced gates at the border crossing point (“Gate pass”)

– A document allowing disembarkation (“Shore Pass”), boarding a ship (“Boarding Pass”)

– Or a stamp in the passenger’s passport at the border crossing point.

The transit permit is signed manually or electronically by the border inspector (border control service employee) who approved the passage, and if the permit is issued upon entry to Israel to a person who is not an Israeli citizen, it indicates the type of permit based on which the passenger is staying in Israel.

C.6 “Interview protocol” – a protocol describing the course of the interview conducted with a passenger wishing to enter Israel, signed by the recommending person and approved by the shift supervisor in accordance with Appendix A.

C.7 “Refusal decision” – a decision to refuse entry in accordance with the Entry into Israel Law as per Appendix B.

C.8 “Refusal notification to the captain/commander of the vehicle” – a refusal notification given to the aircraft operator or flight manager, as indicated in Appendix C.

C.9 “Notification of a person denied entry who has lost or destroyed their travel document” – a notification in accordance with Appendix D, the purpose of which is to inform the authorities of the destination country where the person denied entry is returning to about the destruction or loss of the travel document.

C.10 “Decision on entry under certain conditions” – a decision allowing a passenger’s entry into Israel subject to certain conditions.

1. Conditions and Requirements

D.1. Any person, including an Israeli citizen, wishing to enter Israel is obliged to do so through one of the border points established by the Minister of Interior in an order published in the official gazette, appear before a border inspector at the border crossing points, and identify themselves with a valid passport or travel document.

D.2. A passenger’s entry into Israel will depend on the approval of authorized representatives of the border points administration or automated points.

1. Inspection Procedure

E.1. The authorized persons for refusing entry are border inspectors (border control officers) and officials authorized for this purpose by the Minister of Interior.

E.2. The head of the crossing point, cluster manager, head of the operational department of the border points administration, deputy head of the border points administration, or head of the border points administration have the authority to change the decision on a passenger’s case, provided that it does not concern a person who has been denied entry and has already been returned to their country.

E.3. An Israeli citizen cannot be denied entry to Israel.

E.4. A passenger wishing to enter Israel must appear before a border inspector, identify themselves with a valid travel document that is valid for six months beyond the planned period of stay. This should ensure their departure from Israel using the same travel document while it is still valid. In addition, they must answer questions that will be asked by representatives of the Population and Immigration Authority at the crossing point.

E.5. The border inspector must treat the passenger politely and respect their dignity.

E.6. The border inspector must identify the passenger, determine the purpose of their arrival in Israel, and register the crossing in the computer system.

E.7. In the absence of obstacles to approving entry, the inspector will issue a transit permit and allow the passenger to enter Israel.

E.8. In cases where the border inspector considers it necessary to conduct an additional check regarding the passenger, the matter will be referred for inspection at the second line inspection point.

E.9. At the second line inspection point, the passenger will be interviewed by representatives of the Population and Immigration Authority, and the purpose of their arrival in Israel will be checked. Among other things, the following should be checked:

– Previous entries

– Duration of previous stays in Israel

– Legality of previous stays

– Absence of prohibitions

– Applications for status in Israel

– Previous interviews resulting in entry being rejected or approved in the past

– Presence of family members or other contacts in Israel and their version of the circumstances of arrival

– Means of subsistence for the period of stay in Israel (money, credit card, traveler’s checks, etc.)

– Evidence of the purpose of entry declared by the passenger, etc.

E.10. If the border inspector concludes that there is reasonable suspicion of the inspected passenger’s involvement in human trafficking, the inspector will contact the relevant Israeli police authorities through the shift supervisor. The details of the contact and the names of the contact persons in the Israeli police will be recorded in the computer systems, including the Aviv system.

E.11. At the end of the above-mentioned inspection, the shift supervisor or a higher-ranking person will decide whether to approve the passenger’s entry into Israel or recommend refusal of entry to the authorized person for entry refusal.

E.12. Below is a list of indicators based on which a person can be denied entry (this list is not exhaustive):

1. There is a related prohibition for security reasons or criminal reasons.
2. The passenger arrived in Israel without the necessary invitation in accordance with the procedure for processing B/2 (visit) visa applications submitted to the Authority offices from countries requiring an entry visa (No. 5.4.0001), the procedure for processing foreigners wishing to enter the country from visa-exempt countries (No. 5.4.0003), or in accordance with one of the relevant procedures.
3. The passenger arrived to visit a person who is not a citizen or permanent resident.
4. The passenger lied at the border.
5. Suspicion arose of the passenger’s intention to stay for permanent residence.
6. The purpose of the passenger’s entry is unclear.
7. Lack of cooperation (the passenger is uncooperative).
8. Inappropriate visa.
9. The passenger’s immediate relatives work in Israel as foreign workers.
10. The passenger arrived without an entry visa.
11. The passenger arrived without a prior invitation as required.
12. Arrived without the necessary visiting permit (at the Allenby crossing).
13. The passenger arrived with the purpose of illegal work.
14. Violation of public order.
15. Impersonation, use of someone else’s identity, or change of identity.
16. Aggressive behavior.
17. Suspicion of violating public order.
18. Suspicion of intention to stay for permanent residence.
19. Suspicion that the passenger may become a burden on the state.
20. Suspicion of missionary activity.
21. Failure to meet minimum requirements.
22. Previous entry refusal.
23. Unclear purpose of entry.
24. The passenger has completed the maximum period of stay as a foreign worker.
25. The passenger worked in the country in the past but arrived as a tourist.
26. Overstay.
27. Illegal stay in the past
28. BDS activity (boycott, divestment, and sanctions against Israel).

E.13. As stated, the above list of grounds is not closed, and entry can be refused for additional reasons.

E.14. In appropriate cases, when the head of the crossing point or a higher-ranking official in the border points administration considers that the passenger’s entry can be approved with conditions and upon depositing a monetary guarantee, one should act in accordance with the relevant instructions in the procedure for guarantees in the administrations of the Population and Immigration Authority, No. 5.1.0004.

And now we offer for your attention an analysis of several real court cases, within which we examine how the system and courts actually apply the instructions, all existing legal provisions, and the law.

Case: Shadow of Past Violations

This case was heard in the Tel Aviv-Jaffa District Court, acting as an administrative court. Judge Yael Blecher ruled on January 30, 2023, on Gorin’s appeal against a lower court decision.

Key points of the case:

Gorin, a Ukrainian citizen, arrived in Israel from Bucharest on January 26, 2023, claiming he needed to handle matters related to his late mother’s will.

Border control became suspicious due to several factors:

• Gorin had $3000 and a return ticket for February 8 but no confirmed accommodation in Israel.
• He had a history of deportation for illegal stay and work in Israel (deported on September 20, 2014).
• He was previously denied entry in 2015.
• He had restrictions in place until January 10, 2024.

Based on these facts, the airport authorities recommended denying entry, which was approved by the Director General of the Population and Immigration Authority.

Gorin appealed to the Jerusalem Appeals Court, which rejected his appeal, finding the entry denial reasonable and justified.

Gorin then appealed to the Tel Aviv-Jaffa District Court. Judge Blecher upheld the lower court’s decision, emphasizing the need for judicial restraint in reviewing specialized immigration court decisions.

The judge found no grounds to interfere with the Appeals Court’s decision, agreeing with their assessment of the low chances of success for Gorin’s case.

This case demonstrates the strictness of Israeli immigration policy and the importance of adhering to entry and stay laws. It also illustrates how past violations can affect future entry attempts, even when the individual believes they have valid reasons for visiting.

The Case of Silvia Goren: A Suspicious Dancer

The Appeals Court for Entry to Israel considered a case regarding the denial of entry to a tourist in Israel and subsequent deportation (3167-23).

The case involved a Colombian citizen, Silvia Goren (name changed – A.B.), who was denied entry to Israel on August 11, 2023. This denial came immediately after her arrival at Ben Gurion Airport. The Israeli Ministry of Interior, acting as the defendant, justified its decision based on several serious suspicions. These included the intention to remain in the country permanently, plans for illegal employment, unclear purpose of visit, providing false information at the border, lack of sufficient means of subsistence, and violation of entry rules for partners from countries whose citizens are exempt from visa requirements.

The appeal was filed jointly with Yoav Didon (name changed – A.B.), who claimed that Silvia was his son’s girlfriend. According to the appellants, their acquaintance began during an extended trip to Colombia, where Yoav’s son spent several months. They insisted that Silvia arrived in Israel for tourist purposes, having a return ticket and a credit card. Moreover, Yoav’s son allegedly provided a letter in which he committed to ensure her accommodation and guaranteed her timely departure from the country.

The appellants also pointed to the cultural aspect of the visit: tickets were purchased for a dance festival, and Silvia, being a professional dancer, planned to use this experience to develop dance direction in Colombia.

The Ministry of Interior, in turn, insisted on the validity of the refusal. The Ministry claimed that the border control officers acted in strict accordance with established procedures and their decision was the result of a thorough consideration of all the circumstances of the case, including the results of the interview conducted with Silvia at the airport.

Judge Barda, having examined the arguments of both sides and the protocol of Silvia’s interview, concluded that the decision of the Ministry of Interior was justified. He noted that Silvia’s answers during the interview raised serious doubts and could be qualified as “lying at the border.” This, combined with suspicions of intent to stay in Israel permanently and violation of entry rules for partners, constituted sufficient grounds for denial of entry according to current procedures.

The details of Silvia’s interview at the airport reveal some inconsistencies in her statements. Silvia declared her intention to participate in dance festivals in Eilat and plans to stay at the home of the inviting person, Yoav’s son, until the end of October. However, she could not provide a specific travel plan or evidence of sufficient funds for a long-term stay in the country.

The court paid special attention to the financial aspect. Silvia claimed that she had only $350 but was expecting a salary payment of the same amount. When asked to confirm this, it turned out that her bank account balance was only 3%, and there were no signs of regular salary deposits. Attempts to explain this led to contradictory statements: first, she said she received her salary in cash, and then claimed that she worked as a freelancer without official employment.

Another key point was the nature of the relationship between Silvia and Yoav’s son. During the inspection of her phone, messages from Yoav’s son were discovered, indicating a romantic relationship between them. This contradicted Silvia’s initial claim that they were just friends and that in Colombia they lived in separate rooms.

Judge Barda emphasized that the examination of data from Silvia’s mobile phone was conducted in full compliance with updated procedures and previous court decisions. Silvia voluntarily agreed to show the status of her account, which led to the discovery of contradictions in her statements.

In his decision, Judge Barda relied on established judicial practice that considers lying at the border as a serious ground for denying entry. He cited several previous court decisions that confirmed the state’s right to deny entry to persons who provided false information when crossing the border.

In the end, Judge Barda concluded that the appeal should be rejected. He ruled that the decision of the Ministry of Interior was justified and complied with established procedures.

This decision once again emphasized the importance of providing reliable information when entering Israel and demonstrated the strictness of Israeli immigration procedures.

The Case of Flora Gushidze: Lying at the Border

In August 2018, the Appeals Court for Entry Issues considered another case of denied entry to Israel and deportation (appeal 4960-18).

The case involved a Georgian citizen, Flora Gushidze (name changed – A.B.), and her minor daughter, who were denied entry to Israel. Flora and her daughter arrived at Ben Gurion Airport, but instead of the long-awaited visit, they faced a decision by the Israeli border control service to deport them from the country. The flight was scheduled for 18:00, and they filed an urgent appeal trying to delay their deportation.

Judge Zilberschmid carefully examined all the case materials, including written arguments from both sides and the interrogation protocol conducted with the appellants before they were denied entry. After careful consideration of all circumstances, the judge concluded that the request for postponement of deportation should be rejected.

The judge based his decision on two key factors: firstly, the chances of success for the appeal were assessed as low, and secondly, the appellants failed to convincingly prove that their deportation would lead to “serious irreparable damage.”

The case materials revealed that Flora had previously entered Israel in 2015. Upon her current arrival, she presented documents which, according to her, indicated that she was in the process of divorce. However, a check in the Ministry of Interior systems revealed the following facts: Flora’s husband had previously attempted to illegally enter Israel. When he was caught, he claimed he was visiting the same people Flora and her daughter were now heading to.

Additional questions and suspicions were raised by the fact that the Israelis Flora was heading to had previously invited several Georgian citizens who were denied entry, and some of the people they invited had remained in Israel illegally.

The situation became even more complicated when Flora was informed about her husband’s past attempts to illegally enter Israel. At this point, she stopped cooperating with the authorities, claiming she didn’t speak Russian, although the interrogation up to that moment had been conducted in Russian.

The Ministry of Interior insisted that the border control service’s decision to deny entry was justified. The Ministry pointed to serious concerns that Flora might attempt to stay in Israel permanently, given her acquaintances and relatives of Israelis (who had previously helped other law violators) and her husband’s past attempts to illegally enter the country.

In their defense, Flora and her representatives claimed that she had a sister in Israel who had legally hosted guests from Georgia in the past, including Flora herself and her brother. They emphasized that during her previous visits, Flora had always complied with the conditions of her permits and left Israel on time. The appellants also accused the Ministry of Interior of being biased against Georgian citizens, claiming they were being persecuted without any justified reason.

However, Judge Zilberschmid based his decision on established judicial practice, which grants the Ministry of Interior broad powers in matters of foreigners entering Israel. The judge emphasized that the ministry’s decision must be based on admissible administrative evidence and cannot be arbitrary, but in this case, it was justified.

The judge particularly noted that lying at border control is a substantial ground for denying entry. Zilberschmid referred to previous court decisions which established that those who lie at the border are presumed to have dishonest intentions.

In conclusion, Judge Zilberschmid noted that the denial of entry is not an irreversible decision. He indicated that Flora could return to Georgia and from there submit a request to enter Israel, which would be considered in due course. The judge also left open the possibility for continuing the appeal process if Flora decides to pursue it after returning to Georgia.

This decision once again highlighted the complexity and sensitivity of issues related to immigration control. It showed how important it is for those entering Israel to provide accurate and truthful information, and demonstrated how past violations or suspicions can affect future attempts to enter the country.

The Case of Elena Vasilyeva: Pilgrimage or Secret Immigration?

In late June 2023, the Appeals Court for Entry to Israel in Jerusalem faced another case of a tourist being denied entry to Israel and subsequent deportation (2796-23). Judge Yosef Barda considered an urgent appeal filed by Elena Vasilyeva (name changed – A.B.), a Ukrainian citizen. The case concerned the decision of the Director General of the Population and Immigration Authority of Israel from June 27, 2023, to deny Vasilyeva entry into the country.

The story began when Vasilyeva arrived at Ben Gurion Airport on a flight from Romania. Instead of the expected tourist visit, she faced a thorough interrogation and subsequent denial of entry. The reasons for the denial were serious: unclear purpose of visit, suspicion of intent to stay in Israel permanently, and suspicion of intent to work illegally.

During the interrogation, conducted in Vasilyeva’s native language, the following was revealed: the woman had $1,800 in cash and a return ticket for July 7, 2023. Elena claimed that she worked as a cleaner in a hospital in Ukraine, earning $200-250 per month. She stated that the purpose of her visit was to see holy places she had read about in the New Testament. However, when asked to specify which places she planned to visit, Vasilyeva couldn’t name a single one, citing fatigue and hunger after the flight.

The situation became even more suspicious when Elena revealed that she had sold her car and used savings for this trip. At the same time, she didn’t know where she would be staying in Israel, explaining this by her inability to search for hotels on the internet.

A key moment in the investigation was the examination of Vasilyeva’s mobile phone, to which she consented. Her search history revealed queries about renting an apartment in Bat Yam, the cost of living in Israel, and the rights of Ukrainian citizens in this country. Moreover, Elena was a member of several groups in the Viber app where jobs for Russian speakers were offered across Europe, including Israel. When asked about these searches, she explained them as “research interest” since it was her first time coming to Israel.

These facts convinced the border control officers at Ben Gurion Airport to deny Vasilyeva entry. The grounds for this were lying at the border, inclusion in the list of persons previously denied entry, and suspicion of intent to stay in the country permanently. The Director General of the Population and Immigration Authority agreed with this recommendation.

After Vasilyeva was explained her rights, she initially agreed to leave the country, signing the appropriate form. However, after a few minutes, Elena changed her mind and asked to contact a lawyer. This led to the filing of an urgent appeal, in which Vasilyeva asked to postpone her deportation until the case was considered on its merits.

In her appeal, Elena Vasilyeva claimed that she was very ill, suffering from high blood pressure and heart problems. She insisted that deportation could seriously harm her health or even endanger her life. In addition, in response to the objections of the Ministry of Interior, Vasilyeva stated that she had a confirmed booking at the Brown Hotel in Tel Aviv for the entire duration of her intended stay, and provided confirmation in Russian.

Vasilyeva’s lawyer also argued that his client could not be expected to remember the names of all the holy places she planned to visit, given her health condition and the stress during the interrogation.

The Ministry of Interior, in turn, insisted on the validity of the decision to deny entry. The border control service claimed that the Director General’s decision was reasonable and based on sufficient evidence obtained during Vasilyeva’s interrogation.

After considering all the arguments, Judge Yosef Barda concluded that the appeal should be rejected. He noted that the respondent’s decision was reasonable and based on a solid foundation, in accordance with the Director General’s powers and with the application of an individual approach.

The judge drew attention to several key points. Firstly, Vasilyeva’s inability to name even one holy place she planned (according to her) to visit raised serious doubts about the true purpose of her visit. Secondly, the story about selling a car and using savings for a week-long trip with a very low income and poor health condition seemed implausible to the judge.

The judge paid special attention to the results of Vasilyeva’s phone check. Searches related to renting accommodation, rights of Ukrainians in Israel, and job searches clearly contradicted the stated tourist purpose of the visit and indicated a possible intention to stay in the country illegally.

The judge also noted the contradiction between Vasilyeva’s claim of not knowing how to use the internet to search for hotels and the numerous search queries found on her phone.

In conclusion, the judge pointed out the strangeness of Vasilyeva’s behavior, who first agreed to leave the country and then abruptly changed her decision, despite her claimed health problems.

Based on all these factors, Judge Yosef Barda rejected the appeal and imposed costs of 3,000 shekels on Vasilyeva.

Conclusion

The excerpts from the instruction and the cases examined clearly demonstrate the complexity and unpredictability of the entry procedure into Israel. Strict border control, thorough document checks and review of previous visit history, as well as the broad powers of border control officers, create significant risks for travelers, especially those who have had legal problems in the past or whose visit purposes may raise suspicions.

To avoid unpleasant surprises at the border, potential visitors to Israel are strongly advised to seek professional legal assistance in advance, preferably before their planned arrival in the country.

Our practice shows that in many cases, we can resolve potential entry problems in advance, often using the mechanism of a monetary deposit and avoiding lengthy court proceedings. Such a preventive approach not only saves time and nerves but also significantly increases the chances of hassle-free entry into Israel.