When does the Detention Review Tribunal release someone for medical reasons, age, pregnancy, or an unsupervised minor, and what evidence is needed.
A person found staying in Israel without a permit is brought to a hearing before the Border Control Supervisor, at the end of which a removal order and a detention order are usually issued against them. Section 13A of the Entry into Israel Law, 5712-1952 provides that a person staying unlawfully will be held in immigration detention (custody) until removed or until they leave Israel, unless released on bail. Within a few days, the person is brought before the Detention Review Tribunal under Section 13N(a) of the Law, where one specific question is examined: whether there is a legal ground to release them from detention.
If your family member's medical condition is serious, if surgery has been scheduled or they are in the middle of a treatment protocol, if the person is elderly, or if the arrest has left a minor without supervision — the relevant ground is Section 13F(a)(3) of the Law. Below we explain what this ground means, what distinguishes an application that succeeds from one that is denied, and what evidentiary basis is required.
Section 13F(a) of the Law lists four alternative grounds for release on bail, and it is enough to satisfy one of them: unlawful presence that stems from a good-faith mistake or mishap; that the person will leave Israel on their own by a set date and there will be no difficulty locating them; that because of the person's age or state of health, holding them in detention (custody) is likely to harm their health, or that other special humanitarian grounds justify their release on bail, "including a situation in which holding the person in detention will leave a minor without supervision"; and having been held in detention for more than 60 consecutive days. The Tribunal's authority derives from Section 13O(a)(2), which empowers it to cancel the detention order and direct release on bail if it is satisfied that the conditions of Section 13F are met, subject to its exceptions.
The exceptions matter just as much. Section 13F(b) rules out release when removal is prevented or delayed because the detainee is not fully cooperating, or when release would endanger state security or public safety — but it adds an exception to that exception: it does not apply if the person meets the opening clause of paragraph (3) — age and health — and there is no other way to prevent harm to their health. Adm. Appeal (Central-Lod) 54037-09-23 (1 Oct 2023) clarified that this exception-to-the-exception attaches only to the opening clause — age and health — and does not extend to the closing clause on special humanitarian grounds. The practical result: for someone found not to be cooperating with their removal, the medical ground is almost the only way out.
This is the most common point of failure. The Detention Review Tribunal does not decide whether a person may be removed from Israel or whether they should be granted status — only whether they may lawfully be held in detention. In a decision of 23 Apr 2026, the Tribunal made clear that insofar as there are claims of a medical condition preventing removal, "there is an established procedure vis-à-vis the Authority," and that question is not before it. In the same spirit, Adm. Appeal (Central-Lod) 70993-11-25 (7 Dec 2025) held that an application to defer removal falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Appeals Tribunal for immigration matters; questions of regularizing status likewise are not for the Detention Review Tribunal to decide, as it itself repeatedly notes, relying on Leave to Appeal (Supreme Court) 2318/15.
Two tracks must therefore be pursued in parallel: an application for deferral of removal on medical grounds is filed with the Population and Immigration Authority, while at the same time an application for release from detention is filed with the Tribunal. The absence of the application to the Authority is not neutral — in that same decision of 23 Apr 2026, it counted against the detainee that no such application had been filed at all.
A general claim of a "serious medical condition" is almost never enough, especially when the detainee told the hearing officer that they have no medical problems and take no medication. What works is an up-to-date document from a specialist physician at the treating institution, setting out the diagnosis, the treatment protocol and its timetable, and what is expected to happen if treatment stops. In a decision ordering release (22 Apr 2025), the decisive document was a letter from an infectious-disease specialist stating that under treatment the patient's condition had improved considerably, whereas stopping it "would lead to a deterioration in his condition and could even cause his death." Timing matters too: the documents should be presented as early as the hearing before the Supervisor, before the detention order is issued under Procedure 10.3.0001 (Procedure for Issuing Removal and Detention Orders under the Entry into Israel Law, 4th edition, 15 Mar 2023), rather than waiting for the tribunal hearing.
As for an opinion from the Prison Service physician: a terse statement that "there is no medical impediment to detention" does not end the inquiry. In that same decision of 22 Apr 2025, the Tribunal requested a response addressing both the feasibility of detention and the provision of medical treatment; the response addressed only the former, without specifying how the protocol set by the specialists would actually be provided, and the Tribunal found it difficult to see how detention would not risk harming the person's health. The right question is not whether the person is "fit for detention," but whether the treatment and conditions prescribed by their physicians can actually be provided there.
This administrative track is governed by Procedure 5.2.0038 (Procedure for Handling an Application for Deferral of Removal / Grant of Temporary Status on Medical Grounds, 4th edition, 15 Jan 2020). Clause א.1 adopts the definition of a medical emergency in Section 2 of the Patient's Rights Law, 5756-1996: circumstances in which a person's life is in immediate danger, or there is an immediate danger of severe, irreversible disability, unless urgent medical treatment is given. Clause א.2 clarifies that the Procedure is meant only for a deferral of removal or the grant of a B/2 licence for a limited period, until the condition stabilizes, and only once it has been established beyond doubt that the condition rules out flying. Clause א.3 provides that a chronic illness that does not place the applicant in immediate danger to life does not justify status or a deferral of removal, and clause א.5 rules out the cost of treatment in the country of origin as a consideration.
The required documents are: an application form (Form Ash/3), a signed waiver of medical confidentiality (clause ב.4), and, under clause ב.5, up-to-date medical documents from a public hospital or a public-body clinic, written within the month before filing (two months at the very earliest). The application is filed at the regional office; under clause ג.2 an application missing documents will be rejected outright, and the rejection letter will require departure from Israel within 14 days. The office's decision may be challenged by way of an internal appeal under Procedure 1.6.0001.
The minor left without supervision ground is written explicitly into the Law and is the clearest humanitarian ground of all — but it is not established by the mere existence of a child. In a decision of 10 Mar 2025, a mother of a toddler was released not because it was proven that the child had been abandoned, but because no thorough, orderly examination of the supervision issue had been carried out. One should document who is actually caring for the minor, how long the arrangement can last, and why it is breaking down.
Pregnancy, by contrast, is not a ground on its own. In a decision of 17 Aug 2025, a pregnant detainee's application was denied after the detention facility's physician reported that her general condition was satisfactory and there was no medical impediment to her detention. Age appears in the Law alongside health, but as a rule stating an advanced age is not enough on its own — it must be shown that, given the person's age, detention is likely to harm their health. Circumstances concerning a third party are not necessarily sufficient either: in a decision of 9 Mar 2025, an application was denied for a detainee who claimed to be the live-in caregiver of an 87-year-old woman dependent on her. Another person's dependence on the detainee does not, by itself, establish a legal ground.
The first hearing takes place within a few days of the detention order being issued, after which periodic judicial-review hearings are scheduled, at which the Supervisor must report on the steps taken toward removal. Between hearings, an urgent application for release can be filed, and the Tribunal typically asks for the Supervisor's response and the facility physician's position before deciding. If your application is denied, you may appeal to the District Court sitting as the Court for Administrative Affairs within 45 days of receiving the decision, and request a stay of execution — in Adm. Appeal 70993-11-25, both the decision and the forfeiture of the bail guarantees were stayed pending the ruling.
Two points deserve emphasis. First, the burden is on you: Section 13F(a)(3) is an exception to the general rule of detention, and the burden of proving it rests on the party invoking it. Second, release on this ground is almost always release on conditions — a monetary bail, an exact address that may not be changed without notice, an available means of contact, periodic reporting, and a departure date. We discuss those conditions and the consequences of breaching them in a separate article on our site about release on bail from detention.
In a decision of 22 Apr 2025, a detainee in the middle of a tuberculosis treatment protocol was released. The medication he had brought with him was taken away, in detention he received one pill instead of the five to seven per day he needed, and a test that had been scheduled for him was never performed. The Tribunal cancelled the detention order under Section 13O(a)(2) and ordered release on conditions — departure upon completion of treatment and no later than within four months, bail of NIS 40,000, a fixed address, and weekly reporting — while rejecting the claim of good-faith presence. It is thus possible to be released on the medical ground even when every other ground is denied.
The continuation of that same case shows why an appeal matters. After one extension, a further application to extend the release period was denied on the ground that it could not keep being extended "merely because of an ongoing need for medical follow-up." Adm. Appeal (Central-Lod) 70993-11-25 (7 Dec 2025) allowed the appeal: the Tribunal had not examined the up-to-date medical letters and had not allowed the Supervisor and the Prison Service to respond to them. When the Prison Service physician was asked directly, he answered that the medication could be provided but not the full sanitary conditions required — and the release period was extended by three months, relying, among other things, on HCJ 158/21 Physicians for Human Rights v. Minister of Public Security (2021).
In a decision of 10 Mar 2025, the Tribunal ordered the release of a mother of a minor girl, even though the detainee had not cooperated with her removal. The absence of a thorough inquiry into the supervision of the minor — despite an earlier decision directing that such an inquiry be made — established the ground. A failure by the Authority to look into the humanitarian circumstances is thus a substantial argument in its own right.
On the other hand, in a decision of 1 Apr 2025, an application was denied for a detainee for whom a pre-surgery clinic appointment had been produced; the Tribunal did no more than draw the Prison Service's attention to the scheduled appointment. In decisions of 19 Apr 2026 and 23 Apr 2026, medical and humanitarian claims were rejected for lack of supporting evidence. The common thread among the denials is the absence of a documentary record built up in real time.
Our office accompanies families and detainees through detention proceedings from the very first hour: gathering medical documents from the treating providers and bringing them to the hearing and the tribunal session, drafting an urgent application for release from detention that points to the precise ground under Section 13F, filing a parallel application with the Authority for deferral of removal on medical grounds under Procedure 5.2.0038, demanding a specific response from the facility physician on whether the prescribed treatment can actually be provided, and conducting an orderly inquiry into the supervision of a minor left at home. When an application is denied, we consider an appeal to the District Court and an application for a stay of execution. We do not promise an outcome — but the difference between success and denial usually lies in the quality of the evidentiary record presented, and in when it was presented.
Not necessarily. Procedure 5.2.0038 states explicitly that a chronic illness that does not place the applicant in immediate danger to life does not justify a deferral of removal or a grant of status. But the question before the Detention Review Tribunal is different: not whether the person can be removed, but whether the detention itself is likely to harm their health. Even a chronic illness requiring an ongoing treatment protocol may establish a ground, if it is shown that the treatment cannot be provided under detention conditions.
No. A general statement that "there is no medical impediment" is not enough when it does not explain how the specific treatment prescribed by the treating physicians will actually be provided. In a decision of 22 Apr 2025, a detainee was released for exactly this reason, and in Adm. Appeal 70993-11-25 (7 Dec 2025) the District Court allowed an appeal after the Prison Service physician stated that he could not provide the full conditions required. It is both possible and proper to demand a specific, reasoned response.
You may appeal to the District Court sitting as the Court for Administrative Affairs within 45 days of receiving the decision, and at the same time request a stay of execution of the decision and of any forfeiture of bail guarantees. It is also important to make sure that an application for deferral of removal on medical grounds under Procedure 5.2.0038 has been filed with the Authority — its absence counts against the applicant in the Tribunal's decisions. You may also return to the Tribunal once up-to-date medical evidence has accumulated.
The Law expressly mentions a situation in which holding a person in detention will leave a minor without supervision. In a decision of 10 Mar 2025, a detainee was released on this ground after the Tribunal found that no thorough, orderly inquiry into the minor's supervision had been carried out, despite an earlier decision directing a comprehensive check. It is worth presenting a documented inquiry: who is actually caring for the minor, whether the arrangement can continue, and why it is about to break down.
The Law establishes an independent ground for release for anyone held in detention for more than 60 consecutive days, and under case law, once that period passes the Supervisor will, as a rule, order release, unless there is a genuinely weighty public interest at stake. That said, Section 13F(b)(1) rules out release when removal is prevented because the detainee is not fully cooperating. The exception to that limitation applies only to the opening clause on age and health — so even someone who is not cooperating may still be released if their detention is likely to harm their health and there is no other way to prevent that harm.