Received a removal order from Israel? Explanation of legal basis, detention, appeals to Appeals Tribunal, administrative petitions, and stay of execution.
The term "removal order" in Hebrew legal language is used in two completely different contexts, and it is important to distinguish between them before continuing to read.
In the context of family law, a "removal order" is a common name for a protective order issued under the Prevention of Domestic Violence Law, intended to remove one family member from the home or separate one family member from another due to concern of violence. This is not the subject of this article.
This article addresses a completely different context: a removal order issued against a foreigner (a person who is not an Israeli citizen or a permanent resident of Israel), under the Entry into Israel Law, 5712-1952, when immigration authorities find that the person is not permitted to enter or remain in Israel. This is an administrative-immigration proceeding, not one rooted in domestic violence, and its consequences — actual expulsion from the country, and sometimes immigration detention (custody) until departure — are fundamentally different from those of a family protective order.
The Entry into Israel Law, 5712-1952, is the central source of authority for regulating the entry, stay, and removal of foreigners from Israel. Under the provisions of the law, the Minister of the Interior (and in practice, through delegation of authority, officials of the Population and Immigration Authority, including the Director of Enforcement and Foreigners) is empowered to order the removal of a person found to be not permitted to enter or remain in Israel — for example, due to staying without a valid permit, exceeding permit conditions, expiration of a residence license, or determination that the permit granted to him is void.
A removal order is thus based on an administrative determination regarding the status of the foreigner in Israel, not on a criminal conviction. It is sufficient that the authorized authority determines that a person is staying in Israel unlawfully for it to have authority to issue such an order, subject to appeal and objection rights detailed below.
Alongside the removal order, the law empowers authorities to hold the person against whom the order was issued in immigration detention (custody) — that is, in administrative custody that is not penal in nature, but is intended to ensure implementation of the removal and prevent continued unlawful stay in Israel until the person leaves the country, unless released on bail, bond, or other release conditions. Section 13A(b) of the Entry into Israel Law provides that an unlawful resident shall be held in detention until removal unless released on bail, and the tribunals customarily treat detention as the rule and release on bail as the exception.
It is important to emphasize: immigration detention under the Entry into Israel Law is not criminal detention and is not subject to ordinary rules of evidence, but it is subject to specialized judicial review, described in the next section.
Judicial oversight of the detention of a person under the Entry into Israel Law is vested in a specialized body — the Appeals Tribunal for detention review of unlawful residents, operating under the Entry into Israel Law, 5712-1952. The tribunal's role, as established by law, is to conduct judicial review of decisions regarding detention of an unlawful resident, including regarding release on bail and regarding the continuation of detention due to delay in executing the removal order.
Several key principles in the tribunal's operations: • A newly detained person is brought before the tribunal, as a rule, no later than 96 hours from the beginning of detention. • Periodic review of continued detention is carried out within 30 days from the date of the last hearing regarding the detainee. • A detainee may petition the tribunal at any time and request reconsideration of his case if new facts or changed circumstances arise. • The tribunal's decision may be appealed to the Court for Administrative Matters; tribunal decisions state that the appeal must be filed within 45 days of receiving the decision.
The Appeals Tribunal for detention review thus addresses the question of detention itself — and not the question of the legality of the removal order itself, which is contested through separate channels described below.
A person who received a negative decision from the Population and Immigration Authority, including a decision ordering departure from Israel, may in appropriate cases file an internal appeal to the decision. Section B.2.b of Procedure 1.6.0001 (Procedure for Processing Requests and Appeals against Decisions of the Authority's Offices and Headquarters) provides that the appeal shall be filed in writing, without delay and no later than 21 days from the date of receipt of the decision, only at the office of the Administrator of the Population and Immigration Authority where the decision was issued — and that an appeal filed after the 21-day period will not be processed, with notice of this given to the applicant. As a rule, only one internal appeal may be filed against a decision of an Authority official.
In accordance with the hierarchy of authority in the Population and Immigration Authority, an appeal against a decision by the Head of the Authority is considered before the Appeals Tribunal, under Section 13(24) (13כד) of the Entry into Israel Law. In other cases, and depending on the type of decision, the applicant may have the option (instead of an appeal, or after exhausting the internal appeal) to file an administrative petition to the District Court sitting as an Administrative Court, within whose jurisdiction lies the office that issued the decision.
It is important to note: Section A.2 of the same procedure explicitly provides that the mere filing of a request or internal appeal — or even the scheduling of an appointment to file them — does not prevent removal from Israel or placement in detention, unless otherwise established by a specific procedural provision or if a judicial decision ordered a stay of execution. This means that a pending appeal does not automatically "stop" the removal, and therefore it is practically very important to request temporary relief, as detailed in the next section.
Since filing an appeal or petition does not immediately halt execution of the removal order, a person seeking to prevent departure from Israel pending clarification of his claim may request from the competent court (the Appeals Tribunal, the Court for Administrative Matters, and in appropriate circumstances even the High Court of Justice) to issue an interim order or decision ordering a stay of execution of the removal order pending resolution of the main proceeding.
A request for stay of execution is examined based on standards of prospects of the main proceeding and balance of convenience between the parties, and its result depends on the particular circumstances of each case. Nevertheless, such a request should be drafted and filed in a focused and reasoned manner, and accompanied, insofar as possible, alongside filing of the appeal or petition itself, to minimize the period during which there is an immediate risk of actual removal.
In a request for a stay of execution, the Appeals Tribunal examines both the prospects of the appeal and the balance of convenience, in a balancing test described as a "sliding scale": the higher the prospects of the appeal, the more the requirement of balance of convenience may be relaxed, and vice versa. In Appeal (Tel Aviv) 2951-24 (3 Sep 2024), a stay of removal was requested by an appellant who had been detained while staying and working unlawfully. The tribunal held that although the prospects of the appeal were not high, the balance of convenience favored the appellant — among other reasons because identical issues were pending before a higher court, and in light of the impact of removal on his minor daughter — and ordered a stay of removal pending a decision on the appeal.
By contrast, in Appeal (Tel Aviv) 1156-25 (20 Jan 2025), a request to stay the removal of a person whose entry into Israel had been refused was denied. The tribunal noted that under the Entry into Israel Regulations (Rules of Procedure and Administration of the Appeals Tribunal), 5774-2014, an interim order will be granted where withholding it might cause "severe, irreparable harm," and held that such harm had not been shown, since the appeal could still be pursued after the applicant's return to her country of origin. The practical lesson: a request for a stay of execution must explain precisely why the harm is irreversible.
It is important to know that staying execution of a removal order does not automatically lead to release from detention. In Adm. Appeal (Beer Sheva) 40823-05-17 (6 Jun 2017), an appeal against decisions of the Appeals Tribunal for detention review refusing to release a detainee was dismissed, even though an order staying his removal had been issued in the appeal he had filed. The court held that an order staying removal in a separate proceeding does not, by itself, establish grounds for release — otherwise the key to release would lie in the detainee's own hands — and in the circumstances of that case detention remained in force due to concern that he could not be located once the proceedings concluded.
The Appeals Tribunal for detention review first examines the propriety of the process. In a decision dated 15 Aug 2019, the tribunal noted that the detainee had been brought for judicial review within 96 hours of the start of his detention, so no procedural defect had occurred, and added that detention is the rule and release on bail the exception. Since it was not persuaded that the detainee would leave Israel on his own if released, the detention order was confirmed. Hence the importance of presenting a concrete evidentiary basis — documents, adequate bail, and proven personal circumstances — already at the first hearing.
Our office represents clients in proceedings concerning removal orders from Israel, including examining the legal basis of the decision received, reviewing the possibility of filing an internal appeal or appeal to the Appeals Tribunal within the prescribed time, and supporting contacts with the Appeals Tribunal for detention review if the client is held in detention. When circumstances warrant, we also examine the possibility of filing an administrative petition and a request for stay of execution, with the aim of postponing execution of the removal order pending full examination of all claims.
Each case is examined individually based on its facts, relevant time limits, and available documents, and we cannot guarantee any particular outcome in advance — but we work to ensure that the client's procedural rights are fully utilized and in a timely manner.
To consult regarding a removal order, detention, or administrative appeal — you may contact us via WhatsApp or the contact form on the office website, and we will be happy to examine the circumstances of your particular case.
Not necessarily. In many cases, a removal order is accompanied by a deadline for departure, and sometimes also by detention until the removal is executed. However, there are channels — appeal, administrative petition, and a request for stay of execution — through which you can ask the competent authority not to execute the removal immediately pending examination of the claims.
Immigration detention is the administrative custody of a person against whom a removal order is issued, intended to ensure implementation of the removal and prevent continued unlawful stay — not punishment. It is subject to review by the Appeals Tribunal for detention review, a specialized body that examines the legality of detention at fixed time intervals established by law.
As a rule, an internal appeal must be filed in writing, without delay and no later than 21 days from the date of receipt of the decision, at the office where the decision was issued. Failure to meet the deadline may result in the appeal not being processed at all, so it is important to act as soon as possible.
Not automatically. Filing a request or appeal, by itself, does not prevent removal or detention unless a judicial decision explicitly ordered a stay of execution. Therefore, it is important to consider filing a separate request for stay of execution or interim order, not to rely on filing the appeal alone.
Not necessarily. Case law of the Courts for Administrative Matters has established that an order staying removal issued in a separate proceeding does not, by itself, establish grounds for release from detention, since otherwise merely initiating legal proceedings would be enough to secure release. In appropriate circumstances, a separate request for release on bail may be filed with the Appeals Tribunal for detention review, presenting adequate bail and personal circumstances supported by documents.
The decision of the Appeals Tribunal for detention review is subject to appeal before the Court for Administrative Matters. This is a separate channel from the appeal against the removal order itself, which is resolved in the Appeals Tribunal or by administrative petition, depending on the type of decision and the authority that made it.