Anti-Infiltration Law: framework, amendments, HCJ decisions, and asylum seeker detention status in 2026.
The Anti-Infiltration Law (Offences and Jurisdiction), 5714-1954, and its recent amendments, are among the most contested provisions in Israeli law regarding the status of asylum seekers and "infiltrators" in Israel. Around the question of administrative detention and forced stay in facilities, a struggle has been ongoing for more than a decade between the legislature and the Supreme Court. Our office follows developments in this field, and in this article we explain the existing legal framework, the legislative history that led to it, and the current points of uncertainty that anyone dealing with this matter should know.
The original Anti-Infiltration Law of 1954 was enacted in a security context entirely different from the reality of the past decade. From 2012 onward, the legislature added to this law a series of amendments intended to regulate detention and forced stay of those defined as "infiltrators"—primarily nationals of Eritrea and Sudan who entered Israel across the border with Egypt.
• Amendment No. 3 (2012) permitted administrative detention of infiltrators for a period of at least three years, without need for a criminal proceeding. The Supreme Court, in an expanded panel of nine justices, struck down this amendment in September 2013 (HCJ 7146/12 Adam v. Knesset (2013)), holding that it unjustifiably impaired the constitutional right to freedom under the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty. • Amendment No. 4 (December 2013) attempted to establish an alternative framework, which included detention in closed custody for a period of up to one year for those who entered after the amendment, and mandatory stay in the open "Holot" facility with no time limit. This arrangement too was partly struck down by the Supreme Court in September 2014, in the judgment issued in the consolidated petitions — HCJ 7385/13 and HCJ 8425/13, Eitan – Israeli Immigration Policy Center v. Government of Israel (2014). • Amendment No. 5 (December 2014) shortened the stay in the closed facility to 3 months and stay in the open facility to 20 months, and established a requirement for daily attendance. • Amendment No. 6 (February 2016), enacted following another Supreme Court strike-down in August 2015 (HCJ 8665/14 Desta v. Knesset (2015)), shortened the maximum period of stay in the open facility to 12 months.
As of this article, the provisions that regulated periods of stay in a facility (a "residence center") pursuant to the amendments of 2014–2016 were temporary provisions to begin with. According to the text of the law as published in legislation databases, the validity of key temporary provisions on this matter expired in December 2021. The practical meaning is that the normative framework currently applicable to the detention of asylum seekers in facilities may differ from the picture that emerged in 2014–2016, and one must examine for each specific case what the applicable law is at the relevant time.
In practice, the detention in custody of a person defined as an "infiltrator" is now examined mostly under the Entry into Israel Law, 5712-1952, rather than under the residence-center arrangements: Section 13A(b) of the law provides that a person staying unlawfully shall be held in detention until departure from Israel or removal, unless released on cash bail, bank guarantee, or other suitable security; Section 13F lists the grounds for release on bail, including detention for more than 60 consecutive days, alongside exceptions under which the detainee will not be released. The administrative process preceding detention — a hearing and the issuance of removal and detention orders — is governed by Procedure 10.3.0001 (Procedure for Issuing Removal and Detention Orders under the Entry into Israel Law, 5712-1952), edition 4 dated 15 March 2023.
In recent times there have been reports of government initiatives and proposed legislation for extending periods of stay and detention within the framework of the Anti-Infiltration Law, including discussions in the Interior and Environment Committee of the Knesset. Nevertheless, we have been unable to locate, in official and verifiable sources (the government legislation website, the Knesset website, publications in the Official Gazette), a final and precise approval, including date and amendment number, pointing to a change that has actually passed all required legislative stages (first, second, and third readings) as of the date of writing this article. Any claim regarding a specific amendment extending detention beyond three years, including details of a specific approval in the Interior Committee, must be individually verified against the Knesset website (main.knesset.gov.il) and the government legislation website (tazkirim.gov.il) at the time of inquiry.
By contrast, the legislative change that has in fact featured in tribunal and court decisions in 2026 is not an amendment to the Anti-Infiltration Law but the Entry into Israel Law (Amendment No. 41), 5785-2025. Under this amendment, and subject to an opportunity to be heard, an infiltrator holding a license under Section 2(a)(5) of the law may be determined to be a supporter of his state's regime — giving rise to a presumption that he faces no danger preventing his removal — and his license may accordingly be revoked and he may be removed; decisions of the Detention Review Tribunal also mention the aspect concerning a person convicted of an offense carrying a sentence of three years' imprisonment or more, or whose presence endangers state security or public safety. This amendment concerns revocation of a license and removal, not the extension of detention periods.
Anyone interested in learning whether and how a future or current legislative change affects his or her personal situation is invited to contact our office for an individual and up-to-date examination.
Legislative changes in this field are likely to directly affect: • Asylum seekers residing in Israel without permanent status, particularly those awaiting a decision on their asylum application. • Those who have been held or are currently held in residence facilities or in administrative immigration detention (custody). • Employers and aid organizations in regular contact with this population.
Even in the face of legislative changes, asylum seekers or those held in immigration detention (custody) retain several avenues for examination of the lawfulness of detention:
• A petition to the Supreme Court sitting as the High Court of Justice (HCJ) – as has been done several times in the past successfully against Amendments 3 and 4 to the law, where it is argued that a statutory provision unjustifiably impairs a constitutional right. • Individual judicial review of a detention decision – before the Detention Review Tribunal, which has jurisdiction over the question of detention alone, including the grounds for release on bail under Section 13F of the Entry into Israel Law, 5712-1952. Its decision may be appealed to the District Court sitting as the Court for Administrative Affairs within 45 days. • An appeal to the Appeals Tribunal for immigration matters – this is the avenue for challenging a decision to revoke a residency license or issue a removal order, as distinct from the question of the detention itself. • Application to the Population and Immigration Authority requesting release from immigration detention (custody) or renewed examination of personal circumstances.
In any case of detention in immigration detention (custody) or in a residence center, it is recommended to act quickly and consult with an attorney, as the timetables in these proceedings are particularly strict.
The three leading Supreme Court judgments on this issue were handed down by expanded panels: the Adam case (2013), the Eitan case (2014), and the Desta case (2015). In the Eitan judgment, Chapter D of the law, dealing with the residence center, was struck down, subject to a 90-day suspension of the invalidation; the requirement of midday attendance was struck down; and it was held that the authority of the Border Control Officer to transfer a resident from the residence center to detention would be limited, during the interim period, to no more than 30 days. The principle that remains guiding to this day is that a person may not be held in detention where there is no effective removal process pending, or where no prospect of removal is on the horizon.
In a judgment dated 25 June 2026, the Court for Administrative Affairs dismissed appeals by three infiltrators against decisions of the Detention Review Tribunal (Adm. Appeal (Central) 23751-06-26). It was held that as long as valid removal orders are pending, the 60 days under Section 13F(a)(4) of the Entry into Israel Law have not yet elapsed, and the Authority is acting diligently and in good faith to carry out the removal, there is no basis for canceling the detention orders. The allocation of jurisdiction was also clarified: challenging the revocation of the license and the removal order belongs before the Appeals Tribunal, while the Detention Review Tribunal deals only with the question of detention.
On the other hand, in a decision of the Detention Review Tribunal dated 14 January 2026, the continued detention of a detainee convicted of serious offenses was indeed approved, but the Tribunal stressed that the Authority must act concretely to implement the amendment to the law insofar as it seeks to rely on it as establishing a real prospect of removal. As a rule, general reliance on new legislation is not enough, and as time passes a real prospect of removal must be shown.
On the question of status, in a judgment dated 18 August 2026 the Appeals Tribunal in Tel Aviv and Central District dismissed an appeal by an Eritrean national who sought to upgrade a B/1 license to an A/5 license on humanitarian grounds (Appeal (Tel Aviv) 1615-25), holding that no flaw was found in the Authority's decision. The practical lesson: prolonged years of residence do not by themselves establish a right to upgrade status, and individual circumstances must be established.
The field of legislation surrounding the Anti-Infiltration Law is dynamic and complex, combining a long history of HCJ rulings against repeated legislative attempts. Given the pace of changes, one should not rely on general information when examining a specific case. Our office guides asylum seekers and their families in checking the most current legal status and in accompaniment to immigration authorities and courts.
The legal framework in this field has changed several times since 2012, and some of the provisions regulating extended detention periods have expired or been struck down. What the precise law applicable today to a specific case is a matter that must be examined individually against the most current official sources.
We have not located an amendment to the Anti-Infiltration Law that extends the detention period. The relevant legislative change that was located is the Entry into Israel Law (Amendment No. 41), 5785-2025, which concerns revocation of an infiltrator's residency license and removal in certain circumstances — not an extension of detention periods. It is recommended to check the most current status against the Knesset website or to consult with our office.
Section 13F(a)(4) of the Entry into Israel Law, 5712-1952 lists, as a ground for release on bail, detention for more than 60 consecutive days. However, Section 13F(b) sets out exceptions — including the absence of full cooperation with removal proceedings, and a situation in which release would endanger state security or public safety — under which the detainee will not be released even if the 60 days have elapsed. In any event, an individual examination is required.
A residence center (such as the Holot facility in the past) is a relatively open facility in which there is a requirement for daily attendance, while immigration detention (custody) is administrative detention in a closed facility. Both pathways were regulated in different amendments to the law and discussed separately in Supreme Court rulings.
Act quickly. It is recommended to contact an attorney specializing in this field to examine the lawfulness of the detention and explore the possibility of filing a petition or request for release.