The 23 Oct 2023 caregiving easements notice opened a fast track for workers unemployed over 90 days, but only 'absent another impediment' — a practical guide.
In the caregiving sector, a break in employment is not a technical matter. A foreign caregiver (nursing-care worker) who does not arrange new employment within 90 days of the end of their last lawful employment is exposed to cancellation of their visa and residence permit. For the care recipient and family members, this is not only the worker's problem: it is the moment when the caregiver already living in the home may be required to leave Israel.
On 23 October 2023, shortly after the outbreak of the Swords of Iron war, the Population and Immigration Authority published a document titled "Important Notice – Easements in the Caregiving Sector in Light of the Swords of Iron War" (hereinafter: the easements notice). The notice was meant to widen the pool of caregivers available during the emergency, and it opened a fast-track process even for workers who had not been employed for over 90 days. But the easement was conditioned on three words — "in the absence of another impediment" — and that phrase has driven the entire debate ever since. If you received a hearing notice or a refusal decision resting on that same "another impediment," this guide explains what is required and what is examined.
The starting point is Section 11(a1) of the Entry into Israel Law, 5712-1952. The section authorizes the Minister of the Interior to cancel the visa and residence permit of a foreign worker who has not been employed in the occupation specified in their permit for a period exceeding 90 days, "without special reasons having been found that prevented that foreign worker... from finding work in that occupation during the said period," provided the worker was given an opportunity to state their case. In the same breath, the section authorizes the Minister to approve an exception to that period "if he found that this is justified under the circumstances." The 90 days, then, are not an automatic guillotine.
The practical handling is set out in Procedure 5.3.0002 (Procedure for the Recruitment and Employment of a Foreign Worker in the Caregiving Field), dated 1 September 2022. Clause ז of the Procedure sets out two tracks: if special reasons are found to continue employing the worker in caregiving, the private employment agency is notified that the employment with the care recipient may be arranged within a set period; if not, a reasoned refusal letter is sent, and anyone without a valid B/1 caregiving license is required to leave Israel.
Against that background came the easements notice, whose wording, as quoted in case law, states that easements were decided upon "so as to widen the pool of workers available for work in the caregiving field, this in the absence of another impediment: foreign workers (staying in Israel for up to 51 months) — even if not employed for over 90 days and an application is filed for their placement as caregivers — will be approved through a fast-track process."
The question reached the Supreme Court in Leave to Appeal (Supreme Court) 48746-03-25 (12 Jan 2026), which consolidated the hearing of three applications for leave to appeal. The workers argued that the phrase is limited to a criminal or security-related impediment only; the Authority argued that exceeding the 90 days without a sufficient explanation is enough. The Court rejected both positions and chose a middle path.
On one hand, the Court held that "another impediment" is not limited to a criminal or security-related impediment: when the Authority intends to condition a matter on the absence of such an impediment, it says so expressly in its procedures, and at times even lists all three terms together.
On the other hand — and this is the operative rule — the Court held that "the impediment must be other than the condition that the notice came to soften." Since the notice came to soften precisely the 90-day condition, the impediment cannot fundamentally stem from the time dimension. The passage of time by itself, even a long period, is not "another impediment." What may constitute an impediment is exceeding the period accompanied by a failure to exercise reasonable diligence in seeking work, and — as a separate category — improper conduct indicating unsuitability for caregiving work, such as providing false details to the authorities.
The Court distinguished between someone who refrained from seeking work for a prolonged period while their license was valid — thereby undermining the purpose for which the easement was granted — and someone who tried to seek work through private employment agencies, where circumstances beyond their control prevented them from finding a care recipient.
In the case that succeeded there, the worker had not arranged employment for 207 days and still prevailed: the hearing showed that he had approached private agencies, some of which even confirmed this and stated that care recipients had rejected him due to language difficulties, and that he had also searched on social media. The Court held that the Authority had unjustly attached importance to the mere passage of the 90 days, and that the claim that he had simply been sitting at home was problematic — since he was in any event barred from working as long as his employment had not been arranged.
The lesson: what matters is not the number of days but the documentation — documented approaches to private agencies with names and dates, offers that were rejected and the reason for rejection, and verifiable medical certificates. An inconsistent account, or a document that does not hold up against the party who signed it, creates precisely the "other impediment" the Authority is looking for.
The easements notice did not remain in force forever. On 14 October 2024, the Authority published an update notice stating that re-registration of a caregiver more than 90 days after their last employment would be approved "only in exceptional and special cases in which a justified reason for the prolonged non-employment has been proven," and that this notice replaces any prior notice.
The rule that has crystallized in case law is that the date the application was filed determines which version is binding. In Leave to Appeal (Supreme Court) 20237-07-26 (14 Jul 2026), the Supreme Court affirmed the finding that, given the filing date, the binding text was the one published on 23 October 2023. In Adm. Appeal (Jerusalem) 19919-12-24 (6 Mar 2025), the court stated explicitly that the legal situation in force at the time the application was filed and the decision was given is what controls, and that a decision must not be examined against a legal situation that changed afterward.
Alongside the easements notice, the Authority published a series of notices on a non-enforcement policy. A notice dated 10 January 2024 added four cumulative conditions — including the filing of a humanitarian application under Section 3a(b1) of the Law that was refused in writing during the relevant period, and a finding that no exceptional circumstances exist, such as offenses or an attempt to settle permanently. The first check in every case is therefore a check of dates: when the employment ended, when the application was filed, and when the decision was given.
The easements notice is expressly directed at workers staying in Israel for up to 51 months. Anyone who has crossed that threshold does not fall within the easement. Procedure 5.3.0006 (Procedure for Handling Applications to Extend B/1 Licenses in the Caregiving Sector on Special and Exceptional Humanitarian Grounds), edition 10 dated 1 February 2021, clarifies in clause א that caregivers are invited to Israel for temporary work only, and that the ordinary maximum period is up to 63 months.
The Procedure deals with extensions beyond this period on humanitarian grounds, and sets out grounds for threshold dismissal — among them, under clause ד.3, when 63 months have not yet passed since the worker's first entry into Israel, and under clause ד.4, when a prior decision of the Minister of the Interior extending the license under Section 3a(b1) of the Law has already been given. The distinction is practical: the easements deal with arranging a new placement within the license period, while the humanitarian track deals with an extension beyond the maximum period. An application filed on the wrong track may be dismissed at the threshold.
The first stop is the hearing. Section 11(a1) conditions cancellation of the license on giving the worker an opportunity to state their case, and the hearing at the Caregiving Division is the opportunity — sometimes the last one — to lay a properly organized factual foundation; whatever is not presented there will later be considered from a position of disadvantage. When new information comes to light, an application for reconsideration may be filed.
An appeal against the Authority's decision is filed with the Appeals Tribunal for immigration matters under the Entry into Israel Law — generally within 30 days and without delay, under Section 13כד of the Law. Against the Appeals Tribunal's judgment, there is a right of appeal to the District Court sitting as the Court for Administrative Affairs (administrative appeal), within 45 days.
An application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court is a "third round" and is examined under a narrow standard: leave will generally be granted only on a matter of principle or to prevent a miscarriage of justice. In Leave to Appeal (Supreme Court) 20237-07-26 (14 Jul 2026), an application was dismissed because the question of principle had already been decided, and in Leave to Appeal (Supreme Court) 23784-07-26 (15 Jul 2026), an application directed against a decision that had become final because no appeal had been filed against it on time was dismissed. In appropriate cases, interim relief should be sought to prevent enforcement pending the decision.
In Leave to Appeal (Supreme Court) 48746-03-25 (12 Jan 2026), the appeal of a worker who had not arranged employment for 207 days was granted, the Court holding that no sufficient basis for "another impediment" had been laid, and that he should file an application for placement with a new care recipient within 45 days. In the same judgment, two other appeals were dismissed — that of an appellant who had not acted at all for 173 days, and that of an appellant who admitted to having fabricated an account in order to continue holding her license. The lesson: diligence, not the calendar, is decisive.
In Adm. Appeal (Jerusalem) 19919-12-24 (6 Mar 2025), the Authority's decision and the Appeals Tribunal's judgment were set aside, and the court held that the worker's license must be renewed: the Authority had settled for doubt regarding actual employment without making a finding, and thereby failed to meet its duty to base its decision on a factual foundation. The lesson: an administrative decision cannot rest on mere suspicion.
By contrast, in Appeal (Jerusalem) 1240-26 (16 Jun 2026), the appeal of a worker who sought to rely on the same precedent was dismissed. The Appeals Tribunal clarified that the precedent is confined to the 90-day question in light of the easements, whereas that case concerned cancellation of a license due to unsuitability for caregiving work. The lesson: the easements are not a shield against conduct-based claims.
The administrative easements regime that had applied in the home-care sector since 23 Oct 2023, and which was extended through repeated non-enforcement notices, has been replaced by primary legislation: the Entry into Israel Law (Amendment No. 43 and Temporary Order — Swords of Iron), 5786-2025, which entered into force on 19 Nov 2025. The Temporary Order is a temporary arrangement allowing the extension of a foreign worker's stay licence for the continued care of a home-care patient even where the threshold conditions of section 3א(ב1) of the Law are not met — but only if, between 7 Oct 2023 and 15 Sep 2025 ("the determining period"), an application for extension of the licence had already been received by the Authority's system or a decision rejecting it had been issued, and subject to further conditions. The Appeals Tribunal clarified that these dates were derived directly from the duration of the non-enforcement period published in the wake of the war, so that the easements would apply to the same population of patients who had relied on it; and once explicit dates were fixed in legislation, the Authority has no power to deviate from them — even a two-day delay in the receipt of the application leads to rejection. See Appeal (Jerusalem) 1785-26 (6 Sep 2026).
Alongside this, the ordinary threshold conditions of section 3א(ב1) of the Law continue to apply in full force: an application will be dismissed at the threshold if, at the time it is filed, more than 8 years have passed since the worker first entered Israel to work in the home-care sector, or if the Minister of the Interior has already issued a decision extending their licence in the past. It was held that the clear language of the section rules out discretion in advance and does not permit consideration of the patient's personal circumstances — see Adm. Appeal (Jerusalem) 8572-06-26 (2 Sep 2026).
As for the 90-day rule: the case law recognizes discretion to extend the deadline, but emphasizes that this does not nullify the restriction. A delay exceeding 120 days (in an application under section 3א(ב1)(1)) or 150 days (in an application under section 3א(ב1)(1א)) is reserved for the most exceptional and extreme cases, and a delay of more than 400 days with no explanation at all will not justify a departure — see Appeal (Jerusalem) 2810-26 (7 Sep 2026). On the other hand, even in Temporary Order proceedings the court is prepared to remand a rejected application for renewed examination by the Advisory Committee and to grant an interim order allowing the worker to continue working until a new decision is made — see Adm. Appeal (Jerusalem) 55117-08-26 (2 Sep 2026).
Our office accompanies caregivers, care recipients, and family members through every stage of the process: building a response and evidence file ahead of a hearing at the Caregiving Division, checking dates to determine which version of the easements applies to the case, drafting an application for reconsideration when circumstances have changed, and filing appeals and administrative appeals, including applications for interim relief to prevent enforcement pending a decision. We examine every case on its merits, present a realistic picture of the prospects, and insist on accurate, verifiable documents — in this field, the credibility of the file is the central asset.
No. The Supreme Court held in Leave to Appeal (Supreme Court) 48746-03-25 (12 Jan 2026) that the impediment must be other than the condition that the easements notice came to soften, and therefore it cannot fundamentally stem from the time dimension. That said, exceeding the 90 days accompanied by a failure to exercise reasonable diligence in seeking work may indeed count as "another impediment." Conduct indicating unsuitability for caregiving work is also examined separately.
A genuine, documented approach to private employment agencies, willingness to accept job offers, and searching through additional channels. Case law has recognized as reasonable diligence an approach to agencies that was verified with them, even where care recipients rejected the worker for reasons beyond their control, such as language difficulties. By contrast, cutting off contact with the private agency or refusing job offers works against the applicant. It is advisable to keep names, dates, and correspondence.
As a rule, the version that was in force on the date the application was filed. The easements notice dated 23 October 2023 was replaced by an update notice dated 14 October 2024, which narrows the easement to exceptional and special cases in which a justified reason for the non-employment has been proven. The Supreme Court affirmed in Leave to Appeal (Supreme Court) 20237-07-26 (14 Jul 2026) the approach that the filing date determines the binding text, so an accurate compilation of the dates is the first step.
Act quickly and in the order of the instances: an appeal to the Appeals Tribunal, generally within 30 days and without delay, and if the appeal is dismissed — an administrative appeal to the District Court within 45 days. In appropriate cases, interim relief should also be sought at the same time to prevent enforcement measures from being taken. It is important to know that a decision against which no appeal was filed on time may become final, and an attempt to challenge it later is likely to be dismissed.
The care recipient's condition is a relevant consideration, and the easements notice itself was intended first and foremost to provide a response for care recipients during the emergency. In practice, the Appeals Tribunal and the courts weigh the care recipient's personal circumstances alongside the worker's conduct. However, where conduct indicating unsuitability for caregiving work is found, the consideration of the care recipient's welfare is not decisive. In appropriate circumstances, it is worth attaching up-to-date medical documentation of the care recipient to the file.