Repatriation to Israel with a Criminal Record: Legal Aspects and Practical Advice

According to Israel’s Law of Return, every halakhic Jew, as well as a son or grandson of a Jew, has the right to repatriate and obtain Israeli citizenship. However, this right is not absolute – it is limited for applicants with a criminal past who potentially pose a threat to the country’s security and public order.

Difference in approaches between the Ministry of Interior and the courts

In practice, the question of who poses such a threat is often interpreted differently by the Israeli Ministry of Interior (MOI) and the courts. A special departmental instruction defines “criminal past” quite broadly – it includes not only situations in which a person was found guilty of committing crimes, but sometimes even the mere fact of being a suspect, the initiation of a criminal case, even if the case was subsequently terminated or ended in an acquittal. The MOI is also entitled to take into account information about the applicant’s criminal record obtained from law enforcement agencies of the country of origin, even if the case did not reach court.

But the court has a different position. The High Court of Justice of Israel in its precedent-setting decisions prescribes that the MOI and the consular service “Nativ” take into account a number of additional factors and circumstances when considering applications for repatriation from persons with a criminal past:

• The nature and severity of the crimes committed, the articles under which the person was convicted;
• The number of criminal episodes and frequency of their commission;
• The circumstances under which the crime was committed (e.g., influence of accomplices, state of affect, etc.), allowing to judge the criminal tendencies of the person and the likelihood of recidivism;
• The time elapsed since the crimes were committed and the period passed after serving the sentence;
• The age and personality of the applicant at the time of committing the crimes;
• The preventive measure chosen by the court and the term of imprisonment (if any);
• Sincere repentance, desire for correction and rehabilitation, positive changes in social status, occupation, marital status as evidence of resocialization of the former criminal.

The Supreme Court of Israel insists on an individual approach to each case, emphasizing a person’s right to atonement and moral rebirth. For example, in the case of Sergey Padchenko (2013), the court, while denying the applicant repatriation due to his previously committed especially grave crimes, nevertheless indicated that this refusal was not lifelong, leaving Padchenko the possibility to re-apply for aliyah in the future.

In some cases, judicial practice follows a path of compromise – instead of immediate granting of citizenship, the applicant may be issued a temporary residence permit in Israel as a kind of “probationary period,” after which the issue of repatriation is subject to review (cases of Nemuk Guliev, 2003; Andrei

Kuznetov, 2009).

Practical recommendations for applicants with a criminal past wishing to repatriate to Israel:

• Do not try to hide the fact of your criminal record, criminal prosecution, etc. Provide the most complete and accurate information about your past. Lying and forgery of documents can lead to permanent rejection.
• Describe in detail all circumstances that may testify in your favor: a single criminal episode, mitigating circumstances, short prison term, the time elapsed since the events, subsequent positive changes in your life, education, employment, socialization, starting a family, participation in socially beneficial activities and charity, etc.
• Collect a complete package of documents, including certificates of expunged conviction, early release, amnesty, rehabilitation. Attach letters of recommendation from employers, teachers, public organizations, religious and cultural associations. If there are media publications or books/films telling about your life path – this can also be useful.
• In situations with a past criminal record, it always makes sense to use the help of an Israeli lawyer specializing in repatriation issues and having successful experience in defending clients’ interests in dialogue with the Ministry of Interior and in court. A competent and experienced specialist will help build an optimal legal position, prepare the necessary documents and arguments, and organize effective protection of your rights.

Specific cases from judicial practice

The case of famous mobster Meyer Lansky

In 1971, Meyer Lansky, a Jewish American citizen, arrived in Israel on a tourist visa. Meyer applied to the Minister of Interior for an immigrant visa based on the Law of Return, which allows Jews to repatriate to Israel. However, the minister, after reviewing materials about Lansky’s criminal past, considered that Meyer’s past posed a threat to public order – and rejected the request.

Lansky appealed the minister’s decision to the Supreme Court of Israel. However, the court, after carefully examining the circumstances of the case, upheld the Ministry of Interior’s decision.

The Law of Return gives every Jew the right to repatriate, but this right can be restricted if the repatriate has a criminal past and poses a threat to public safety, the court explained. The minister has the right to rely not only on proven facts of conviction for crimes, but also on other serious evidence of involvement in criminal activities.

The case materials showed that Lansky had been one of the key figures in organized crime in the US for decades. In the 1940s-50s, he co-owned a network of gambling establishments in Florida, Louisiana, Nevada, and Cuba. He was twice prosecuted for illegal gambling activities in 1950-53, but got off with relatively mild punishments.

Lansky acted in close contact with the crime bosses of those years – Frank Costello, Joe Adonis, Bugsy Siegel, Lucky Luciano, who controlled organized crime in New York and other cities. In addition to the gambling business, Lansky was involved in other criminal operations – extortion, corruption, attempts to bribe high-ranking officials. A number of testimonies also hinted at his involvement in violent crimes, although there was no direct evidence of this.

The court noted that although Lansky’s proven crimes were committed 20 or more years before his application for repatriation, a number of testimonies and evidence indicate that he continued criminal activities in the 1960s, up until his departure to Israel. Lansky continued to control gambling establishments in different countries, using front owners to conceal income. In 1971, a new case was opened against Lansky in the US on charges of criminal conspiracy.

The court found that given the scale, systematic nature and duration of Lansky’s criminal activities, as well as the high probability of their continuation, the minister had every reason to assess him as a continuing threat to Israeli society, even taking into account his age (Lansky was 70 years old at the time of the case). Despite the importance of the right of Jews to repatriate, it cannot be realized at the expense of state and society security.

The court emphasized that the rooting of American-style organized crime in Israel, with which Lansky was inextricably linked, poses a particular danger. It took great efforts for the United States to curb the rampage of criminal syndicates in the 1930s-50s. The appearance of figures of Lansky’s scale in Israel could provoke the development of organized crime in this country as well.

Evaluating all these circumstances, the Supreme Court concluded that the Ministry of Interior’s decision to deny Lansky repatriation was lawful, justified and consistent with the goals of protecting public safety. Lansky’s right of return was legitimately restricted due to his criminal past and potential threat to Israeli society. Thus, the Supreme Court confirmed the authority of the Ministry of Interior to cut off undesirable persons from repatriation if public interest requires it.

A case considered by the Supreme Court of Israel in 2019

The Supreme Court of Israel rejected a petition by Belarusian citizens for immediate granting of repatriate status.

On July 15, 2019, the Supreme Court of Israel issued a ruling on the case of a family from Belarus applying for the right to repatriate under the Law of Return. The applicants were a Belarusian citizen, his wife, her daughter from a previous marriage, and their common child.

The essence of the dispute was the Israeli authorities’ refusal to immediately grant repatriate status to the head of the family, who had several criminal convictions in his homeland. The Israeli Ministry of Interior justified its position with Article 2(b)(3) of the Law of Return, which allows denying repatriation to persons with a criminal past.

The chronology of events is as follows. According to the applicants, the head of the family first applied for repatriation back in 2014, but the staff of the “Nativ” consular service in Belarus did not even consider the application. According to the defendants’ position, the documents were submitted only in November 2015 and the applicants received a refusal the very next day.

For the next three years, the family repeatedly tried to find out the fate of their case through the Israeli embassy in Belarus, but to no avail. In 2017, the family was advised to come to Israel as tourists and submit an application on the spot.

Since April 2017, the family has been in Israel, seeking to legalize their status. However, numerous appeals to the Ministry of Interior, including requests for temporary visas until the issue is resolved, remained without a specific answer until the current lawsuit was filed.

In their petition to the Supreme Court, the applicants pointed to an unjustified delay in the consideration of their case. They insisted that returning to Israel was their inalienable right, and the head of the family’s old convictions, which had been expunged in their homeland, could not serve as grounds for refusal.

Notably, the appeal to the court itself moved the case forward. The Israeli Ministry of Interior declared its readiness to meet the applicants halfway and provide the spouses with one-year work visas, and the children with tourist visas, with subsequent extension and the possibility of obtaining permanent status after 2-3 years in the absence of negative circumstances. At hearings in May 2019, family representatives called this decision half-hearted, not providing sufficient guarantees. However, overall, the court considered the option proposed by the Ministry of Interior an acceptable compromise.

In additional notifications, the migration agency clarified that after the first year, the spouses, as the grandson of a Jew and his wife, would be granted a temporary residence permit for two years, after which they would receive citizenship under the Law of Return. The children, after the end of the one-year visa, would also be issued a one-year residence permit with the prospect of further legalization according to the relevant procedures.

In its final ruling, the Supreme Court emphasized that a criminal past in itself cannot be a reason for refusing repatriation. This issue requires an individual approach, taking into account the severity of the act, the statute of limitations, and other factors. Although in this case, given the repeated offenses, the Ministry of Interior acted within its powers by denying the applicant immediate repatriate status.

At the same time, the court noted that the ministry presented a clear and balanced legalization plan, ensuring the applicants’ stable stay in Israel. In the current situation, the head of the family is actually only required to go through an additional “probationary period”. Based on this, the judicial instance did not see grounds for its own intervention, especially since the Ministry of Interior’s position has already been adjusted taking into account previous Supreme Court decisions on this issue.

As a result, the petition was rejected as having lost relevance against the background of the department’s constructive approach. At the same time, as compensation for costs, the court ordered the Ministry of Interior to pay 10,000 shekels in favor of the applicants, recognizing that their appeal gave the necessary impetus to the case.

This decision once again outlines the boundaries of the Ministry of Interior’s discretion in assessing potential repatriates whose past is burdened by violation of laws. The court confirmed the inadmissibility of indiscriminate refusals, but at the same time left room for the department to take a differentiated approach. The decision obliges migration authorities to issue motivated resolutions and provide applicants with a clear “roadmap” for legalization with reasonable terms and guarantees.

An example from our office’s practice

A person who approached us was denied repatriation due to a past criminal record. Despite the fact that the conviction was not very serious, it was enough to deny the right to repatriate. The applicant repeatedly tried to achieve a review of the decision on his own, but at some point, his appeals stopped getting responses.

We delved into the case materials, prepared the necessary international power of attorney and affidavit, prepared a claim with a proposal to review the decision in a pre-trial procedure, accompanied the appeal with references to court decisions and precedents.

At first, we were mercilessly ignored. Then we managed to enter into a dialogue with the system and provide additional documents upon request. After that, the familiar “administrative football” began, followed by another period of “silence” from the officials.

We had to go to court. Only after this did the system start working again – and eventually reviewed its decision. After more than a year of struggle, the person finally received the repatriation visa he had been waiting for about 10 years. We were able to achieve such a result thanks to the right strategy and persistence.

Although it’s not always possible to argue with the system, we often manage to persuade the state in such cases. But everything starts with an honest, complete and maximally objective assessment of the case. In this case, the assessment was positive, and fortunately, the result of waiting was justified.

Answers to frequently asked questions

Is repatriation to Israel possible with an expunged criminal record?

Yes, repatriation with an expunged criminal record is possible, although it does not guarantee success. The fact of expungement has some significance and should be used in the process, but the Israeli Ministry of Interior and Israeli courts, when making a decision, take into account not only the formal fact of expungement, but also a number of other factors: the severity of the crimes committed, their number, the statute of limitations, the circumstances of commission, the applicant’s personality, his subsequent life path, etc. If we’re talking about serious crimes, especially multi-episode ones or those committed relatively recently, the expungement of the criminal record is unlikely to serve as a sufficient argument.

In other words, the expungement of a criminal record is a factor that, depending on the situation, can be used in the case, but one should not place special hopes on it. Each case requires individual consideration.

What does the possibility of repatriation with a criminal record depend on?

The possibility of repatriation with a criminal record depends on a comprehensive assessment of several factors that are important for Israeli authorities when making a decision:

1. The nature, severity, and number of crimes committed. The more serious the articles of criminal law under which the applicant was convicted, the more criminal episodes in their biography – the harder it is to get permission to enter. The greatest concern is caused by grave crimes – murders, robberies, rapes, drug trafficking, participation in organized crime. On the contrary, the chances of approval for repatriation increase if the crimes were not the most dangerous, were one-time occurrences, and there were episodes of positive behavior.
2. The limitation period of the conviction and the time elapsed after serving the sentence. This factor is related to the previous one: the further in the past the criminal events are – the easier it is to prove to the authorities that the applicant has reformed, embarked on the path of correction, and will not repeat the mistakes of youth. If we are talking about recent crimes and unexpunged convictions – the chances are slim.
3. The circumstances of the crime – the presence of accomplices and instigators, the state of affect, aggravating and mitigating factors. Israeli authorities try to assess to what extent what happened was an accident or, on the contrary, reflects the applicant’s persistent criminal tendencies.
4. The measure of responsibility and the term of imprisonment. It is important whether the court of the country of origin chose real imprisonment or limited itself to a milder punishment. Long terms of imprisonment complicate repatriation, short-term ones – simplify it.
5. The subsequent life path and behavior of the repatriate. The most significant factor. Even the presence of grave crimes in the past will not be an insurmountable barrier if the applicant demonstrates cardinal positive changes in life – sincere repentance, obtaining education and profession, starting a family, participation in socially useful affairs. This argument often turns out to be decisive.

Thus, the answer to the question about repatriation depends on a careful analysis of a whole complex of factors in each specific case. The process is not quick and not easy, but there are chances almost always if you build the right strategy and have patience.

Can a person repatriate if they have been amnestied?

The main criterion that the competent authorities in Israel are guided by is social danger. Amnesty decisions are made for various reasons, and far from always does the assessment of social danger in Russia coincide with the Israeli one. Therefore, release by amnesty is just a factor, an argument that an experienced lawyer will consider and skillfully apply (or not apply – depending on the situation).

What should absolutely not be done to pass the consular check when repatriating with a criminal record?

An absolute taboo is any attempt at deception, concealment of significant information, or forgery of documents. Even the slightest lie about the presence of a criminal record, details of a criminal case, or serving a sentence can fatally affect the prospects of a repatriate.

Experience and logic suggest that concealing such serious circumstances of biography is difficult and, most importantly, associated with the risk of losing the right to repatriation for all time. The Israeli side will inevitably request and receive relevant information through official channels – through the Ministry of Internal Affairs, police, special services. An attempt to hide a criminal record will be quickly exposed, and at best, the applicant will be asked to come for a re-check.

The very fact of initial lying or forgery will be a serious aggravating circumstance for the Ministry of Internal Affairs. In the eyes of officials, the repatriate will appear not only as a former criminal but also as an incorrigible liar who does not inspire the slightest trust. In such a situation, achieving a positive result will be almost impossible.

In other words, concealing a criminal record or other manipulations with documents is not a way out, but a strategically losing path. Building relationships with a new homeland needs to be done honestly and openly, even if the truth about past mistakes is not very pleasant.

The only correct tactic is to provide the Ministry of Internal Affairs with the most complete and reliable information about the criminal past, explain in detail and with arguments the motives and circumstances of committing crimes, emphasize mitigating and atoning factors, attach certificates of expungement of criminal records and release from responsibility. Such a line of behavior may not bring instant success, the path to repatriate status in this case often turns out to be thorny and long, but ultimately it is much more reliable and promising than attempts to deceive the system.

Is it possible to make a fake certificate?

Making fake certificates of no criminal record is not just an erroneous tactic, but in itself a criminal offense, and quite a serious one. Forgery of official documents is punishable in almost all countries, and Israel in this sense is no exception.

Needless to say, the Ministry of Internal Affairs and consular service have all the tools and channels to verify the authenticity of the provided certificates? Any doubts about their authenticity will lead to additional requests to law enforcement agencies of the country of origin, after which the falsification will be quickly exposed.

A person caught forging documents may not only say goodbye to the dream of repatriation but also end up in court – already in a new country. At best, he faces a long or lifetime ban on entry to Israel. The prospect of becoming persona non grata in the historical homeland is hardly worth such a risk.

Moreover, even a masterfully made fake is unlikely to pass a multi-stage check. Forgery identification technologies are constantly improving, Israeli specialists regularly exchange experience with foreign colleagues. Sooner or later, the deception will be exposed – and the consequences for the repatriate will be catastrophic.

Let’s repeat a simple truth once again: the path to moving to Israel cannot be paved with lies and crime. The only right way is to honestly declare your past and persistently work on convincing the authorities of your repentance and the right to a new life. Yes, this path is thorny and not quick, it will require time, effort, patience, and sometimes professional legal support. But unfortunately, no other reliable way to legalize in the Promised Land has been invented.

The presence of a criminal past does not always automatically deprive a person of the right to aliyah

According to the Law of Return, every Jew has the right to repatriation and Israeli citizenship. However, the law denies this right to persons with a criminal past who pose a threat to the country’s security and public order.

But the law is formulated very abstractly, and as judicial practice shows, the concept of “danger to society” is sometimes interpreted differently by the Ministry of Interior (“misrad hapnim”) and the High Court of Justice.

The existing Ministry of Interior instruction (5.2.0001) prescribes understanding a criminal past not only as an objective conviction (court recognition of guilt and sentencing) but also as the fact of initiating a criminal case against a person suspected of committing a socially dangerous act.

According to the same instruction, the Ministry of Interior can take into account information received from state security bodies of the country of origin (Ministry of Internal Affairs, police, FBI, etc.) even when the investigation of the applicant’s case did not end with an indictment.

The High Court of Justice prescribes that the state take into account a number of factors in connection with the presence of a criminal past in persons applying for aliyah:

– articles of the criminal code violated by the applicant;

– circumstances under which the crimes were committed (which may indicate a possible tendency of the offender to recidivism);

– number of crimes committed;

– frequency with which they were committed;

– period of time elapsed since the crime was committed;

– preventive measure applied; in case of imprisonment – the term of punishment;

– period of time elapsed since serving the sentence.

The Supreme Court of Israel has repeatedly noted in precedent decisions the importance that Ministry of Interior representatives should attach to such circumstances as the statute of limitations of crimes committed by applicants, defending the legal and moral right of convicts to correction.

Note that even in cases where petitions for repatriation are filed by persons who once committed serious crimes, the Supreme Court prescribes that the state consider each application individually, taking into account such circumstances as the statute of limitations of crimes committed, the preventive measure applied, the correction of the criminal, his social status, profession, marital status, etc.

For example, in the precedent in the case of Sergey Padchenko (2013), the Supreme Court, following the Ministry of Interior, refused the applicant’s petition for repatriation due to extremely serious crimes committed by him in the distant past. But the court’s decision noted that Padchenko is not deprived of the right to aliyah for life, and in the future, he will be able to apply to the Ministry of Interior with a repeated petition.

Over the past decade, the Supreme Court and the Ministry of Interior have also developed a practice of so-called compromise decisions [the case of Nemuk Guliev (2003) and Andrey Kuznetsov (2009)]: sometimes applicants are issued a permit for temporary residence in Israel, and after the expiration of the “probationary period,” the application for repatriation is subject to review.

Denial of a petition for repatriation is not yet a sentence. The state’s decision can be appealed administratively and judicially. The chances of success largely depend on your organization, persistence, and timely appeal to a qualified lawyer.