A practical guide for sponsors who deposited a bank guarantee for a guest or spouse: when it is forfeited, what must happen first, and how to get it back.
Many of the people who approach us about this issue wanted something simple: to bring a parent, an adult child, or a spouse to Israel — for a visit or to arrange status. The Authority approved the entry but conditioned it on depositing a bank guarantee: sometimes NIS 15,000, sometimes NIS 30,000, and sometimes far more. You signed, you deposited the money, the invited person entered — and some time later a letter arrived stating that the guarantee was about to be forfeited, or that your request to have it returned had been denied.
The situation is especially troubling because the money is yours, yet the condition that triggers its forfeiture depends on the conduct of someone else — the invited person, the spouse whose proceeding was closed, or someone released from detention on bail. Here we explain what you signed, when the Authority is allowed to forfeit the guarantee, what steps it must take beforehand, when it must return your money, and how to challenge a forfeiture decision.
The authority to require a guarantee is anchored in section 6(1) of the Entry into Israel Law, 5712-1952, which authorizes the Minister of Interior to set conditions for granting a visa or residence permit, including 'the provision of a cash deposit, a bank guarantee, or other suitable security to ensure such conditions, and the manner of realizing or forfeiting the security.' The Appeals Tribunal for immigration matters addressed the wording of this section in Appeal (Tel Aviv) 1245-24 (18 Nov 2024).
This authority is implemented in Procedure 5.1.0004 (the General Guarantees Procedure), updated on 15 Jan 2026. The Procedure defines the guarantee as security intended to ensure compliance with the conditions of the decision, to be realized if one of its conditions is found to have been breached. Alongside the general Procedure, Procedure 5.4.0001 (the Procedure for Handling B/2 Visa and Residence Permit Applications Filed at Population and Immigration Authority Bureaus) provides in clause ה.9 that where a concern arises that the person may settle permanently in Israel and that concern can be alleviated by means of a guarantee, a bank guarantee will be required in accordance with Procedure 5.1.0004. Clause ה.10 adds that where the inviter/sponsor has filed similar applications in the past, it must be verified that the persons he invited left the country and complied with the conditions of their visa; if they did not leave, the application will be refused or a guarantee will be required.
The Procedure does not leave the amount of the guarantee to unfettered discretion: it ties the sum to the rank of the approving official. At Population Administration bureaus (clause ד.3), a team leader for registration and status may require up to NIS 30,000, a bureau manager up to NIS 50,000, a district manager or headquarters division head up to NIS 100,000, and above that — the head of the Administration and their deputy. At the Border Control Administration (clause ה.1), a parallel scale applies.
Alongside this, ceilings were set by type of visitor: tourists, businesspeople and artists — up to NIS 50,000; athletes invited for trials, students at a recognized academic institution, trainees and volunteers — up to NIS 15,000; a person against whom a removal or deportation order was previously issued and who has returned to Israel — up to NIS 120,000; spouses entering together following a marriage abroad — up to NIS 100,000.
Release from detention also comes into the picture: clause ז.1 provides that the border control officer may, under section 13 of the Entry into Israel Law, set conditions for releasing a foreign resident from detention, including a guarantee, and clause ז.2 allows the officer to reconsider the conditions of the security if circumstances have changed. At district bureaus, only bank guarantees may be deposited, and as a rule the guarantee is valid for at least one year.
When the deposit is made, the guarantor is required to sign the Consent Letter for Depositing Security form (Appendix A to the Procedure). This is the decisive document. Its wording states that the guarantor is aware that the guarantee he deposits 'will serve to ensure compliance with the conditions of the decision' by the guaranteed person, and that a breach of any condition of the decision by that person 'will lead to full forfeiture of the guarantee.'
The tribunals attach great weight to this signature. In Appeal (Tel Aviv) 2213-24 (16 Feb 2025) it was held that the consent letter is a clear undertaking, by which the guarantor voluntarily accepted the risk that the guarantee would be forfeited if the conditions were not met — and therefore 'the key to getting the guarantee back lies in the appellant's own hands.' It was further noted that the guarantor had ways to hedge his risk, for example by requiring a matching deposit from the invited person themselves.
The practical conclusion: before signing, read the decision under which the guarantee is required and make sure what conditions it imposes, what the validity period of the guarantee is, and what will be considered a breach. To the extent the decision is general and does not specify conditions — that is a point that should be raised at this stage, not only after forfeiture.
Forfeiture is not an automatic act. Clause 7.3 of the Procedure provides that if it is found that the guaranteed person has not complied with one of the conditions listed in the decision, a warning letter will be sent to him before full or partial forfeiture, with a copy sent to the inviter/sponsor as well, if there is one; in Foreign Workers Administration proceedings, the warning is given as part of the hearing. A notice sent to the address provided by the guarantor is deemed delivered to him seven business days from the date it was sent.
Clause 7.4 gives the guarantor and the inviter/sponsor 14 days from the date the warning was sent to submit a response. Only at the end of that period does a representative of the Guarantees Unit consider whether circumstances have changed in a way that justifies canceling the forfeiture — and if not, carries it out (clause 7.5).
These stages are not merely formal: the tribunals have voided forfeitures carried out without the warning reaching the right party or being sent at the right time. So if you received a warning letter — do not wait. The 14 days are the fastest and cheapest opportunity to stop the forfeiture, and at this stage you can present evidence of the invited person's departure, of status granted to them, or of other circumstances that render the forfeiture unnecessary.
Clause 6 of the Procedure regulates the return of the guarantee. Handling is done by the unit where the guarantee was deposited, and where the guaranteed person has complied with the conditions of the decision in a manner allowing return — in full or in part — the guarantee will be returned to the guarantor within 30 days. A guarantee deposited in cash or as a bank check is returned to the bank account the guarantor provided when making the deposit; for a bank guarantee, the guarantee instrument is sent by registered mail to the bank branch named in it. In both cases, a release letter is sent to the guarantor, with a copy to the inviter/sponsor as well.
A point that surprises many: merely filing another application for the same person does not release the guarantee. In Appeal (Tel Aviv) 1245-24 it was held that a guarantee deposited in the graduated process is not returned merely because an alternative humanitarian application was filed, and that as long as the subject of the guarantee remains in Israel, its purpose still applies. The application for return is examined against the conditions of the original decision, not against the invited person's current status. Finally, pay attention to the guarantee's validity period: if the decision set a defined validity period and the Authority did not request its extension, it may have been required to return the guarantee at that time — an argument that was accepted by the Tribunal.
Clause י of Procedure 5.1.0004 sets out the route for challenging a decision. Against a decision by the Population Administration — for example, denial of a request to return a guarantee — an internal appeal is filed under Procedure 1.6.0001 (the Procedure for Receiving Applications and Appeals against Decisions of Population and Immigration Authority Bureaus and Headquarters). Clause ב.2 there provides that the appeal must be filed in writing, without delay and no later than 21 days from the date the decision was received, and only at the bureau where the decision was issued; an appeal filed late will not be handled.
Against a forfeiture action by the Guarantees Unit at Ben Gurion Airport, carried out under a decision of the Border Control Administration or the Enforcement Administration, an appeal may be filed with the Appeals Tribunal within 30 days (clause י.2), and against the Tribunal's decision an appeal may be brought to the District Court sitting as the Court for Administrative Affairs within 45 days. Two exceptions: for guarantees of the Foreign Workers Administration, the route is set according to the law and procedures of that Administration (clause י.3), and where the guarantee was deposited under a decision of a judicial instance, the application is made to that same instance (clause י.4).
Timing is critical. In Adm. Appeal (Haifa) 56255-12-22 (28 Mar 2023), a guarantor's arguments against the propriety of the forfeiture proceeding were rejected because he approached the authorities only about two years after the fact, and it was held that he was estopped from arguing against the procedure due to the severe delay.
Appeal (Tel Aviv) 2213-24 (16 Feb 2025) is the starting point. An Israeli citizen deposited NIS 30,000 that allowed his foreign spouse's entry into the graduated process; the relationship ended, the proceeding was closed, and she did not leave Israel. The Tribunal rejected the appeal: the guarantee system is an enforcement mechanism designed to allocate risk, and if anyone who has difficulty controlling another person's conduct were exempted from it, its purpose would be nullified. The appeal was rejected in Adm. Appeal (Tel Aviv) 28854-03-25 (27 Mar 2025), which added that someone who guarantees another person should expect that a breach of that person's undertakings will cost the guarantor out of pocket.
On the other hand, Adm. Appeal (Haifa) 56255-12-22 (28 Mar 2023) teaches that the guarantee is not immune from review. Although the appeal was dismissed on grounds of delay, it was held that when the State grants the foreign spouse a stay visa pending examination of her application while simultaneously collecting the guarantee from the guarantor, these are contradictory and unfair governmental actions. The court referred to the heightened duty of fairness and to section 6(a) of the Guarantee Law, 5727-1967, and ordered that the guarantor may file a new application to be examined on its merits.
Two recent rulings show that forfeiture is indeed voided when the process is flawed. In Appeal (Tel Aviv and Central District) 3881-24 (30 Sep 2025), a forfeiture was voided and the guarantee returned: the warning was delivered to the guarantor only after the guaranteed person had already left Israel and after the guarantee had already been forfeited, and no warning at all was sent to the guaranteed person himself, contrary to clause 7.3. In Appeal (Tel Aviv and Central District) 1500-26 (7 Jun 2026), a forfeited guarantee was returned because the decision had set its validity at a year and a half and the Authority had not requested its extension.
The amount of the guarantee can also be challenged: in Adm. Appeal (Haifa) 35625-11-24 (18 Feb 2025), a requirement was reduced from NIS 30,000 to NIS 20,000 for a visit by the adult son of a spouse, after it was held that excessive weight had been given to previous applications that had been refused, and the court was persuaded by proven financial hardship.
We guide sponsors and guarantors through every stage of a guarantee's life: examining the decision under which the guarantee is required even before signing the consent letter, arguing to reduce the amount or replace it with a less onerous condition, responding to a warning letter within the 14 days, applications to return a guarantee, internal appeals, appeals to the Appeals Tribunal, and administrative appeals. As a rule, the earlier you approach us — before forfeiture rather than after — the greater the room for action. We would be glad to review your documents with you and propose the course suited to your circumstances.
Clause 6 of Procedure 5.1.0004 provides that when the guaranteed person has complied with the conditions listed in the decision in a manner allowing return, in full or in part, the guarantee will be returned to the guarantor within 30 days. A guarantee deposited in cash or as a bank check is returned to the account you provided when making the deposit, and a bank guarantee is returned by sending the guarantee instrument by registered mail to the bank branch. At the same time, a release letter is sent to the guarantor and to the inviter/sponsor.
No. The Procedure requires that a warning letter be sent before full or partial forfeiture, with a copy to the inviter/sponsor, and that a response be allowed within 14 days; only afterward is it examined whether circumstances have changed in a way that justifies canceling the forfeiture. In Appeal (Tel Aviv and Central District) 3881-24 (30 Sep 2025), a forfeiture was voided because the warning was not sent to the guaranteed person and the notice to the guarantor was delivered late. That said, when the process is proper, the tribunals rarely intervene in a forfeiture.
As a rule, no. In Appeal (Tel Aviv) 1245-24 (18 Nov 2024) it was held that a guarantee deposited in the graduated process is not returned merely because another application, for example a humanitarian one, was filed, and that as long as the subject of the guarantee remains in Israel, the purpose of the guarantee still applies. The application for return is examined against the conditions of the decision under which the guarantee was deposited.
The amount of the guarantee can be challenged, and this has in fact succeeded. In Adm. Appeal (Haifa) 35625-11-24 (18 Feb 2025), the requirement was reduced from NIS 30,000 to NIS 20,000 after the court was persuaded by the sponsor's financial situation and found that excessive weight had been given to previous applications that had been refused. You should present an organized financial picture, and remember that the other conditions set will still need to be fully met.
Against a decision of the Population Administration, an internal appeal is filed under Procedure 1.6.0001 within 21 days of receiving the decision; an appeal filed late will not be handled. Against a forfeiture action by the Guarantees Unit at Ben Gurion Airport, an appeal may be filed with the Appeals Tribunal within 30 days, and against the Tribunal's decision, an appeal is brought to the District Court within 45 days. Delay can also block a good argument, as happened in Adm. Appeal (Haifa) 56255-12-22 (28 Mar 2023).