The extensive case law of the Israeli Supreme Court emphasizes two significant considerations when evaluating applications for Aliyah (immigration to Israel) by individuals with a criminal record. On one hand, there is the fundamental right of Jews to self-determination in their historic homeland. On the other hand, the authorities are responsible to ensure that the Israeli public can live in safety, free from the threat posed by somebody dangerous seeking refuge in Israel. These considerations are underscored in various rulings, such as in the case of Michael Peshko vs. Ministry of Interior (Supreme court of Israel 6624/06 ) and the Gold vs. Minister of Interior (Supreme court of Israel 94/62).
In the landmark case of Meir Lansky vs. Minister of Interior (1972), (Supreme Court 442/71), led by President Agranat, ruled that the mere existence of a criminal record is insufficient grounds to deny an Aliyah application under Section 2(b)(3) of the Law of Return. The court emphasized that beyond a criminal record, it must be demonstrated that the applicant poses a danger to public safety. This principle was reiterated, establishing that the severity of the criminal history alone is not a decisive factor; there must be an assessment of the potential threat to public safety.
Further reinforcing this principle, the Supreme Court in Ramiz Gilbanov vs. State of Israel (2007) (Supreme court of Israel 5033/06 ) eiterated that not every criminal past warrants the denial of the right to immigrate under the Law of Return. The court highlighted that only a criminal history indicating a risk to public safety should impact the decision. Additionally, the severity of the offenses is not the sole criterion; the likelihood of rehabilitation, recidivism, and other factors should also be considered.
In another significant ruling, Koni Taylor Doty vs. Minister of Interior (2016) (Supreme court of Israel 4564/11), the court underscored the forward-looking nature of the danger assessment. It affirmed that only a criminal past suggesting future risk to public safety justifies the revocation of the right to immigrate under the Law of Return. This future-oriented assessment ensures that decisions are made with a comprehensive understanding of the potential risks involved.
Moreover, the Lansky case also established that the passage of time since the commission of the offense could diminish the weight of the criminal record when assessing eligibility for Aliyah. The court acknowledged that the possibility of rehabilitation over time should be a consideration, particularly in the absence of ongoing criminal behavior.
It is important to note that many times, the Ministry of Interior tries to argue that the applicant poses a danger to public safety even if their criminal record is very minor. Therefore, as a rule, in applications where the applicant has a criminal record, it is advisable to hire a lawyer from day one. Legal expertise can help navigate the complexities of the process, ensuring that the applicant’s rights are protected and that a fair assessment is conducted.
In summary, while the right of Jews to immigrate to Israel is a fundamental principle, it is balanced by the need to ensure public safety. The Israeli Supreme Court has set clear guidelines that a criminal record alone is not sufficient to deny Aliyah. Instead, there must be a demonstrated risk to public safety, taking into account various factors such as the nature of the offenses, the likelihood of rehabilitation, and the time elapsed since the offenses were committed.
