A farm worker who left the employer: what "abandonment" means, what the 90-day window allows, and why other-sector work risks the licence. A practical guide.
This guide is written for foreign women and men who came to Israel to work in the agriculture sector — from Thailand, Sri Lanka and other countries from which workers have been brought under bilateral agreements and under the wartime fast-track recruitment channel — and for the farmers who employ them. It addresses a situation that repeats itself: a worker arrives, works for a farmer, and after a few months leaves — because there is not enough work on the farm, because the wage is lower than what was promised in the contract signed before the flight, or because of abusive treatment.
From that point on, everything depends on what is done in the days that follow. A worker who leaves one farmer and registers with another farmer who holds a vacant permit is acting within the law. A worker who leaves and starts working in catering, in a factory, or in cleaning is violating the terms of their licence, and exposes themselves to licence cancellation, detention, and removal.
A B/1 licence issued to a foreign worker is not a general work licence. It is issued for a defined field of occupation, set under section 2(ג) of the Entry into Israel Law, 5712-1952 — and in your case, for the agriculture sector only.
The central provision is section 11(א1) of the Law: if the Minister of the Interior finds that a foreign worker has not been employed in the field of occupation set in their licence for a period exceeding 90 days, without special reasons being found that prevented them from finding work in that field, the Minister shall cancel the visa and the residency licence — provided the worker was given an opportunity to state their case. The section also authorizes approving an extension of that period where justified.
Procedure 5.3.0022 (Procedure for Updating the Workplace of Foreign Workers; 2009, updated 2015) is meant to allow an easy and quick move from one employer to another within the same sector, and does not limit the number of such moves — but adds that "in no case may a transfer (between employers) of a worker from one sector to another be approved."
Procedure 9.3.0002 (Conditions of the Permit for Employing Foreign Workers in the Agriculture Sector, 2015) imposes the corresponding discipline on the farmer. Section 4 of the Procedure requires that the worker be employed exclusively in agricultural work and on land reported to the Ministry of Agriculture; gardening, work in a shop, cleaning and housework, and work in a packing house not located on the farmer's holding are not agricultural work. The same section also provides that a material breach of the worker's rights — unlawful withholding of a passport, withholding of wages, failure to pay overtime, failure to grant a weekly day of rest — is a breach of the permit's conditions that will lead to its cancellation, and that the employer may not prevent the worker from moving to another farmer who holds a vacant permit.
Abandonment is not a term found in the Law but an administrative record, created in the systems of the Population and Immigration Authority from the moment it is reported that the worker has stopped working for their last lawful employer without arranging new employment. From that date — not from the date on which you were caught, or on which the visa expired — the day count begins.
When a worker is located in an enforcement operation, the sequence of events is fairly uniform: detention by inspectors, a hearing before the Border Control officer in charge, cancellation of the licence, and the issuance of detention and removal orders. Within a few days the worker is brought before the Detention Review Tribunal under section 13יד(א) of the Law, which examines whether grounds for release exist under section 13ו(א) — including the concern that the worker will not leave Israel of their own accord, and special humanitarian or medical reasons.
Section ב.1 of Procedure 5.3.0022 provides that a worker who was dismissed, whose employer died, or who was forced to leave — even without having reported the departure — may arrange employment with another employer within 90 days, during which no enforcement or removal proceedings will be taken against them. Where possible, the move should be reported even before leaving.
Alongside this, shorter deadlines were set for arranging matters at the bureau: an agriculture worker who reports to the bureau within 30 days of leaving voluntarily, or within 60 days of leaving for reasons beyond their control, will receive a one-month B/2 licence, which can be extended by a further 30 days provided documented efforts were made to find an employer. A worker who has already found a farmer holding a permit should file a direct application for a B/1 licence, and should not be required to produce a release letter.
What the window does not give you is just as important: it is not a permit to work in another sector, not even for a single day. In Appeal (Tel Aviv) 2171-24 (29 May 2024) it was held that the possibility of searching for an alternative workplace for 90 days "cannot constitute authorization for him to work in work that does not match the licence." In the same case, reliance on the guideline that, as a rule, no enforcement will be carried out in the first year after entry into Israel was also rejected: this is not a blanket rule.
In every case reviewed here, what proved decisive was not the departure itself but what came after it. In Appeal (Beer Sheva) 2410-25 (5 Jun 2025), the licence of a Thai national who had been in Israel for over five years on an agriculture licence was cancelled, after she was found giving a man a massage in a side room of a massage parlour in a mall. Her claim that she had come to the place only to "inquire about agricultural work" was rejected, and the tribunal held that the decision was not only reasonable but "the necessary and required" one — and that at the administrative level, proof to the criminal standard is not required.
A worker who is caught working in a factory, in catering, or in cleaning provides the Authority with clear-cut evidence of a breach of the licence's conditions, and also weakens the claim that they sought to continue in agriculture — in Appeal 2171-24 it was said that such a choice casts "considerable doubt" on the worker's intention to regularize their status in the field for which they came.
A wage dispute is a legitimate reason to leave, and the law recognizes this: protective labour law also applies to the foreign worker, and wages must be transferred every month to a bank account in the worker's own name, over which the employer or a broker has no power of attorney (section 4 of Procedure 9.3.0002). But the right response is not to disappear and find other work, but to document and regularize.
In practice: report the departure at the Population and Immigration Authority bureau, preferably even before leaving; contact the private bureau (licensed recruitment bureau) through which you were brought, in writing, and demand assistance in locating an alternative farmer; contact the Authority's Referral Center for Foreign Workers, an option that the temporary procedure for the fast-track bringing of agriculture workers expressly mentions; and keep all documentation, including the names of the employers you approached and their responses. This is the material that later determines whether you are found to have made a genuine effort to remain in the sector.
A Sri Lankan worker who arrived in January 2024 to work in agriculture in Metula left the farm twice because of the shelling and fear for his life, approached the placement company for agriculture workers, which also failed to find him an employer, and was caught within 90 days of his second departure. The Detention Review Tribunal (decision of 1 Dec 2024, case 9243784) directed the officer in charge to reconsider their position, and as a result the worker was released on conditions: a financial bond, and a return to his last lawful employer or finding an alternative farmer within 60 days. A good reason for leaving, together with a documented effort to remain in the sector, can change the outcome.
By contrast, a decision of 11 Dec 2024 (case 9246200) dealt with a worker who left because the wage was low and he wanted to earn more, and started working at a food plant in Ashdod. According to his own statements at the hearing, he had not even "tried to find other work in the agriculture sector as he should have done"; his licence was cancelled and detention was upheld. On the same day a similar case (9246187) was heard, of a worker who left because of unpaid wages and started working in catering; there too detention was upheld, but the judge noted that this was one of a group of 15 workers who raised identical claims of being cheated of their wages and of the manpower company disclaiming responsibility, and directed that the decision be forwarded for review by the Enforcement Administration.
Since then, an assistance track has been introduced in the agriculture sector, under which a worker is given additional time and contact details for employer associations to help locate an alternative farmer. In a decision of 22 Mar 2026 (case 9286733), concerning a Thai national who had abandoned his employer in August 2025, the worker was given an additional month and the above contact details; since he did not register with an employer, it was held that no flaw attached to his transfer to detention, because the time had been given and not used. In another decision (case 9287648, 12 Feb 2026) it was argued that the list of employers provided was not up to date; detention was upheld — the worker admitted he had worked in cleaning — but the tribunal directed the officer in charge to respond in writing to the claims regarding how current the list was and regarding selective enforcement.
Before cancelling the licence, the Authority must give you an opportunity to state your case — an express requirement of section 11(א1) of the Law. The hearing is the most important opportunity: it is the place to present the reason for leaving, the approaches made to farmers and placement bodies, and the supporting documents. What is said there accompanies the file through every forum that follows.
A decision of the bureau may be challenged by an internal appeal filed within 21 days of receiving the decision, and only at the bureau that issued it; an internal appeal filed late will not be handled (Procedure 1.6.0001). The decision on the internal appeal may be challenged by an appeal to the Appeals Tribunal for immigration matters within 30 days under section 13כד(ב) of the Law, together with a request for an interim order preventing removal — a request the tribunals often grant, subject to the deposit of a bond. Judgments of the Appeals Tribunal, as well as decisions of the Detention Review Tribunal, may be appealed to the District Court sitting as the Court for Administrative Affairs within 45 days.
Anyone seeking to regularize status with a new farmer must show that the farmer is real and willing: in Appeal 2171-24, a claim regarding a potential employer was rejected because that employer was not joined as a party, filed no affidavit, and was not shown to hold a permit.
Our office represents foreign workers in the agriculture sector and farmers at every stage of the process, from the moment leaving the employer is being considered through to the administrative appeal. We build the case around the two questions the tribunals keep returning to: why you left, and what you did after you left. In practice this includes documenting rights violations by the previous employer, contacting the private bureau and the Authority in writing to locate an alternative farmer, preparing for the hearing, filing the appeal on time, and applying for interim relief. If you or one of your workers is currently within the time window — this is the stage at which legal representation changes the outcome.
From the Authority's records' standpoint, any cessation of work without arranging new employment is recorded as abandonment, even when the reason is entirely justified. That said, unlawful non-payment of wages is a breach of the farmer's permit conditions under section 4 of Procedure 9.3.0002, and it can serve as a significant point in your favour. The condition is that you report the departure and act — and document that you acted — to find another farmer holding a vacant permit.
No. The licence is limited to the agriculture sector only, and Procedure 5.3.0022 provides that a transfer (between employers) of a worker from one sector to another cannot be approved. The Appeals Tribunal has expressly held that the 90-day window for searching for an alternative employer does not constitute authorization to work in a job that does not match the licence, not even within those days. Working in another sector is the central piece of evidence that leads to licence cancellation and a removal order.
The count begins from the date on which the last lawful employment ended, as recorded in the Authority's systems, and not from the date on which the visa expired or on which you were caught. It is therefore important to check which date was recorded and to correct it if it is wrong. The passing of 90 days without arranging new employment gives the Minister of the Interior the authority to cancel the visa under section 11(א1) of the Entry into Israel Law, after a hearing.
Not necessarily. The Detention Review Tribunals have held that filing an asylum application does not grant immunity from detention proceedings, particularly where it emerges that the application was filed for economic reasons, or where the worker is caught working in breach of the visa's conditions. An unfounded application may even count against you. If there is a genuine fear for your life in your country of origin, the application should be handled as a separate, full process, and not as a tool for extending your stay.
You need to show that the farmer holds a valid permit to employ foreign workers in agriculture and has a vacant permit slot, and that they are genuinely willing to take you on and not merely "considering" it. In the appeal heard in Tel Aviv, a claim regarding a potential employer was rejected because that employer was not joined to the proceedings, filed no affidavit, and did not produce a permit. If you already have such an employer, Procedure 5.3.0022 allows a direct application for a B/1 licence to be filed at the bureau where the new employer's file is maintained, and you should not be required to produce a release letter from the previous employer.