Detention confirmed? A guide to rehearing under Section 13(יז), what counts as changed circumstances, and its link to an appeal. We help detainees and families.
A hearing before the Detention Review Tribunal often lasts only a few minutes. At its end the detainee is told that the detention order has been confirmed, a date is set for the next hearing, and the decision is delivered to him in writing. To the detainee, his family and his employer, this can feel like the end of the road — but it is not. The Entry into Israel Law, 5712-1952 expressly provides for returning to the same tribunal with a request for rehearing (reconsideration request), alongside avenues of appeal to the courts above it.
This guide is intended for anyone held in detention pending removal from Israel, for their family members, and for their employer. We explain when a request for rehearing is the right tool and when it will be dismissed outright, what counts as "new facts" or a "change of circumstances," and how it fits together with an appeal and with periodic judicial review.
The basis for a detainee's own initiative to approach the tribunal is Section 13(יז)(a) of the Entry into Israel Law: "A person held in detention may apply on his own initiative to the Detention Review Tribunal at any time with a request that his case be examined, and he may also apply to the Detention Review Tribunal with a request for rehearing if new facts have been discovered or circumstances have changed since the date of the Tribunal's previous decision."
In a decision dated 11 Jan 2026 (Detention Review Tribunal, Givon Facility, Judge A. Givon), the Tribunal distinguished between the section's two parts. The opening clause — an application "at any time with a request that his case be examined" — is relevant where no hearing has yet taken place and the detention order has not yet been confirmed, and it dovetails with Section 13(יד) of the Law, under which a detainee must be brought before the Tribunal as soon as possible and no later than 96 hours after his detention begins. The closing clause — "if new facts have been discovered or circumstances have changed" — is the door that remains open after a hearing has taken place and the order has been confirmed.
This distinction has an immediate practical consequence: an argument that the Tribunal erred in confirming the order does not by itself establish grounds for a rehearing. The same decision made clear that the Tribunal is not an appellate forum over its own decisions, and that anyone who believes an error was made must turn to the court above it. A request that fails to point to a new fact or a change of circumstances may be dismissed outright.
The Law does not set out a closed list, and the tribunals examine each case on its own merits. Several typical categories emerge from the decisions. The first is the passage of time in detention, in particular 60 consecutive days — an independent ground for release under Section 13(ו)(a)(4) of the Law. In a case heard in 2025, an appeal to the District Court was struck by consent of the parties precisely to allow a request for rehearing based on the change of circumstances brought about by the passage of 60 days.
The second is a development in travel documents and the prospect of removal. In a decision dated 10 Mar 2026 (Judge Y. Bar-Lev), the Tribunal ordered conditional release after the detainee began cooperating and signed the documents needed to issue a travel document, yet had still not been issued the papers that would allow him to leave — for reasons beyond his control.
The third is a change in medical condition or humanitarian circumstances, under Section 13(ו)(a)(3) of the Law — a subject discussed in a separate article on this site. The fourth is a new decision by another body: in a status-regularization application, in an appeal, or in court.
The common denominator for all of them: the fact must postdate the Tribunal's previous decision, or come to light only afterward, and it must be relevant to one of the grounds for release in Section 13(ו) of the Law.
The request belongs to the detainee. In a decision dated 11 Jan 2026, a release request filed by a manpower company on behalf of an employee held in detention was dismissed outright, because no power of attorney and no affidavit had been filed on the detainee's behalf — a requirement especially important where, at an earlier hearing, the detainee himself had said he preferred to return to his country quickly. An employer or family member wishing to help must therefore act with the detainee's authorization and support his position with an affidavit.
In terms of content, a good request is built on three layers: a concise factual account of how the proceedings have unfolded; a focused showing of the change — what happened, exactly when, and why it postdates the previous decision; and a link between the change, the statutory ground, and the relief sought. Supporting materials should be attached: medical certificates, correspondence with the Authority about travel documents, decisions in other proceedings, and a detailed proposal of release conditions.
It is also important to request relief the Tribunal is authorized to grant. In a decision dated 18 Aug 2026 (case 1190-07-26, Judge A. Givon), the detainee was required to clarify her request, in light of the rule that the Tribunal is not authorized to order release from detention without specifying a date for departure from Israel. Release on bail and its conditions are discussed in a separate article on this site.
The route is not one-directional. In a decision dated 1 Jan 2026 (Givon Facility, Judge Ts. Granovich), the Tribunal considered a request for rehearing filed by none other than the Population and Immigration Authority, a day after a decision ordering conditional release. The Tribunal rejected the argument that the Authority does not fall within the section's scope, and held that the closing clause of Section 13(טז) of the Law allows the border-control officer to apply for a rehearing even regarding the setting of additional or different release conditions, if new facts have been discovered or circumstances have changed. In that case, the setting of a very near flight date, alongside preparations for an escorted removal due to a lack of cooperation, was found to constitute a change of circumstances justifying a two-and-a-half-day delay in implementing the release decision.
It follows that a release decision is not the final word until it is actually implemented, and anyone who has received a conditional release decision should act quickly to fulfil the conditions and keep track of requests the Authority files in the case.
A decision of the Detention Review Tribunal may be appealed to the District Court sitting as the Court for Administrative Affairs, within 45 days of receiving the decision — as stated at the end of the decisions themselves. Venue is determined by the seat of the tribunal whose decision is being appealed, not by the subject matter; so held in Adm. Appeal (Central) 39803-09-24 (7 Nov 2024, Judge O. Assi), based on Regulation 22 of the Regulations of the Courts for Administrative Affairs (Rules of Procedure), 5761-2000. The judgment may be further appealed by application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The two routes do not exclude one another, but they serve different purposes: an appeal challenges the correctness of the decision as given, while a rehearing seeks to bring it into line with a reality that has since changed. Often the second route is preferable — in one of the cases surveyed above, an appeal was struck by consent to allow a request for rehearing based on the passage of 60 days; in a further appeal in the same case, an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was also dismissed (31 Jul 2025), after it was found that an effective removal process was under way with a near-term prospect of removal.
Attention should also be paid to the relationship with the Appeals Tribunal for immigration matters: under Section 13(כד)(c)(1) of the Law, the Appeals Tribunal may, within an appeal, also address the matter of detention or release on bail, and under Section 13(כד)(c)(2) the Detention Review Tribunal will not deal with a matter already decided in an appeal unless there has been a change in the circumstances that formed the basis for the decision.
Even without a request from either party, detention is subject to periodic judicial review under Section 13(טו) of the Law. In practice, at the end of each hearing the tribunals set a date for a further hearing about a month later, and direct the border-control officer to update on the proceedings under way for removal (thus, in the decision dated 18 Aug 2026, a hearing was set for 15 Sep 2026).
The question, then, is not always "whether to apply" but "when." When the change is material and urgent — a medical condition that has worsened, a cancelled flight, a new decision in a parallel proceeding — there is no reason to wait. When you do not have a real change in hand, it is usually better to prepare for the upcoming periodic hearing.
Repeated requests that do not point to a change come at a price: they are dismissed outright, they do not delay removal, and they may erode the credibility of arguments at the next hearing. In the decision dated 18 Aug 2026, a request for rehearing, a request for immediate release, and a further request for rehearing were filed one after another; once the appeal was dismissed, the detention order was confirmed. The same decision also accepted the Authority's position that the mere existence of a proceeding to regularize status — even an order temporarily preventing removal — does not by itself constitute grounds for release.
In a decision dated 11 Jan 2026 (Givon Facility), a manpower company sought the release of an employee found working outside the terms of his licence, after his residence licence had expired. The request was dismissed on three levels: the absence of a power of attorney and an affidavit; the absence of new facts after the order had already been confirmed at an earlier hearing; and, on the merits, breach of the licence conditions and a removal order that had not been challenged before the appropriate forum.
In the decision dated 1 Jan 2026 (Givon Facility), the Authority's rehearing request was granted, and the scheduling of a near-term escorted flight was recognized as a change of circumstances justifying a short delay in implementing the release decision. The lesson: the route runs in both directions, and requests filed in the case must be tracked.
In the decision dated 10 Mar 2026, a detainee who had stayed in Israel unlawfully for many years was released on conditions, after he began cooperating with his removal and signed the documents needed to issue a travel document, yet was still not issued papers allowing him to leave. The lesson: documented cooperation with the removal process is sometimes the strongest argument available.
In Adm. Appeal (Central) 39803-09-24 (7 Nov 2024), an appeal was granted in part and conditional release was ordered for a person who had been held in detention for about four months after completing a prison sentence, taking into account the welfare of his minor children and the fact that the detention was not then intended to advance removal but merely to await a decision. The lesson: when the argument targets the reasonableness of the decision, it belongs in an appeal; when it targets a new fact, it belongs in a rehearing request.
Our office assists detainees, family members and employers at every stage of judicial review — from the first hearing within 96 hours, through requests for rehearing and periodic review hearings, to an appeal to the Court for Administrative Affairs and an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. We first examine whether there is a real change of circumstances and which route is the right one to raise it, gather the evidentiary basis, and file a focused, well-reasoned request. In detention cases the timetable is especially short, and acting early widens the room to manoeuvre.
You may file a request at any stage, but once a hearing has taken place and the order has been confirmed, Section 13(יז)(a) of the Entry into Israel Law conditions consideration of the request on new facts having been discovered or circumstances having changed since the date of the previous decision. A request that does not point to such a change may be dismissed outright. If the argument is that the Tribunal erred in its decision, the correct route is an appeal to the Court for Administrative Affairs, since the Tribunal is not an appellate forum over its own decisions.
The passage of 60 consecutive days in detention is an independent ground for release under Section 13(ו)(a)(4) of the Law, and it has been recognized in practice as a change of circumstances justifying a renewed application to the Tribunal. In a case heard in 2025, an appeal to the District Court was struck by consent of the parties precisely to allow a request for rehearing based on the passage of the 60 days. That said, the ground is subject to the exceptions set out in the Law, and it is discussed at length in a separate article on this site.
The request belongs to the detainee, not to a third party. In a decision dated 11 Jan 2026, a request filed by a manpower company on behalf of an employee was dismissed outright, because no power of attorney and affidavit had been filed on the detainee's behalf. Family members and employers can, and indeed should, help — with a proposal of release conditions, guarantees and affidavits — but the request itself must be filed in the detainee's name and with his authorization.
No. Filing a request does not by itself delay execution of the removal order, and the tribunals have made clear that even a pending proceeding to regularize status does not, by itself, constitute grounds for release from detention. Where an actual delay is needed, explicit interim relief must be requested from the competent forum. Given how short the timetables are in detention cases, it is advisable to act in parallel and quickly.
Yes. Under Section 13(טו) of the Law, detention is subject to periodic judicial review, and in practice the tribunals set a date for a further hearing about a month after the end of each hearing, while requiring the border-control officer to report on the progress of removal. So where there is no real change of circumstances, it is sometimes better to prepare carefully for the upcoming periodic hearing than to file a request that will be dismissed outright.