Tribunal of Appeals: Work-Holiday Visa Holders Can Apply for Partner Visa From Within Israel

Guest Article by the Decker, Pex, Levi Law Firm (website | Facebook | AIC Lawyers Index)

Each year, hundreds of young adults arrive in Israel under the Work Holiday Procedure No. 5.3.0026. The Work-Holiday visa is a special one-year visa available to citizens up to age 30 from select countries: New Zealand, Australia, South Korea, Germany, Czechia, and Austria. It is designed to promote mutual understanding between nations by allowing young people to experience each other’s culture and way of life, often through a mix of travel and short-term work.

But what happens when these young visitors meet Israeli citizens, fall in love, and begin a relationship? The work-holiday procedure contains a strict clause requiring all participants to leave Israel at the end of their one-year stay. It also imposes a sweeping ban on extending the visa or applying for any form of legal status.

Under this procedure, in July 2023, a German citizen entered Israel. After a few months, she met an Israeli man, the two fell in love, and she eventually moved in with him. In July 2024, about a week before her visa was due to expire, the couple went to the Tel Aviv office of the Population and Immigration Authority to inquire about the possibility of extending her stay. They were told, in no uncertain terms, that she must leave Israel before the visa expires.

The following day, the couple promptly sought legal advice from the law firm Decker, Pex, Levi. As part of the legal strategy, it was decided to apply for a partner visa under the Shared Life Procedure No. 5.2.0009, before the visa expires. As expected, two days later, the Population and Immigration Authority (PIBA) announced that it would refuse to process the application while the foreign partner remains in Israel.

In response to this de facto deportation decision by PIBA, an appeal was filed with the Appeals Tribunal in Tel Aviv, along with an urgent request for interim orders to prevent the deportation of the foreign partner.

In the appeal, we argued that once an application was submitted under the Shared Life Procedure, that procedure becomes the relevant and appropriate legal framework for considering the couple’s application. The Work Holiday Procedure is no longer applicable, as it does not reflect the current and new reality. We further claimed that the Work Holiday Procedure does not and cannot apply to the Israeli partner and his right for family life. In any case, the Work Holiday Procedure contradicts the Shared Life Procedure, and the non-deportation principle set out within it. (As a side note, the non-deportation principle was added to the procedure following landmark Supreme Court rulings in the Stamka and Oren cases.)

To the couple’s relief, in a hearing held in June 2025, the Appeals Tribunal accepted the appeal. The ruling stated that the Ministry of Interior’s blanket policy requiring applicants to leave Israel before their application is reviewed is inconsistent with the Shared Life Procedure – the procedure under which the couple had filed their application – and with the non-deportation principle it contains. The decision was also based on the above-mentioned Supreme Court rulings. Accordingly, the Tribunal ordered the Ministry of Interior to review the application while the foreign partner remains in Israel.

As of today, the Work Holiday procedure has yet to be amended, and it is unclear whether PIBA will choose to revise it in light of the ruling without further action being taken. However, if you find yourselves in a similar situation, it is important to know that the demand to deport the foreign partner as a precondition for reviewing the application is unlawful. It contradicts both the Shared Life Procedure, and the Family Reunion Procedure, and would not withstand judicial review.

In this context, you can always show the decision to the relevant Population Authority Bureau and request that your application be reviewed while you remain in Israel. If PIBA continues to insist otherwise, you can seek legal assistance – until the procedure is finally amended.

Click here to download the full verdict