Foreign construction workers who finished 63 months, left Israel, and returned — what the law says, and how we help workers and companies.
If you worked in Israel in the construction sector under a B/1 licence, completed the maximum period of employment, left the country and returned for another work round, you may have received a notice stating that your period of employment in Israel has ended and that you must leave the country within 30 days. Such a notice sometimes arrives years after your return, and sometimes in the middle of a project, and it comes as a surprise both to the worker and to the corporation employing them.
This guide is intended for foreign construction workers from countries with which a bilateral agreement has been signed — including Moldova, Romania, Bulgaria and China — and for the manpower corporations that employ them. It explains what the maximum period is, why leaving and returning does not open a new count, what became of the blanket extension from 2025, and what legal steps are open to you.
The duration of a foreign worker's stay and employment in Israel is limited under section 3A of the Entry into Israel Law, 5712-1952. The wording of the statute speaks of a period "ending upon the completion of five years and three months from the day on which the visa and licence were first granted to him" — that is, 63 months. The Supreme Court addressed the purpose of the arrangement according to the explanatory notes: a stay beyond that period "may be construed as de facto residency, rather than a temporary stay in Israel."
Two practical points follow. First, the count begins on the day the visa and licence were first granted to you, not on the day you actually began working. Second, alongside the 63-month ceiling there is a further restriction: section 11(a1) of the Law authorizes the cancellation of a foreign worker's visa and licence if they were not employed in the occupation specified in their licence for a period exceeding 90 days, unless special reasons are found. Even a worker who has not yet exhausted the maximum period may therefore lose their licence if they remain without an authorized employer for an extended time.
This is the common argument: a worker who completed 63 months left Israel, and after a period abroad was invited for another round and received a new visa — and from this, so the argument goes, a new 63-month count begins.
In a consolidated decision, the Appeals Tribunal in Jerusalem rejected this argument. The proceeding consolidated 33 appeals brought by nationals of Moldova who had entered Israel at different times to work in the construction sector under a B/1 licence, exhausted the maximum period, left, and returned for another round. It was held that the argument "has no basis in the Entry into Israel Law," and that the purpose of the arrangement is to limit the total duration of stay in Israel — a purpose that is not nullified merely because the worker left the country upon exhausting the period and returned afterward. Accepting this interpretation, the decision stated, would empty the statutory restriction of its content and render it possible to circumvent through repeated departures and returns (Appeal (Jerusalem) 1234-26 and others (19 Feb 2026)).
This holding is not new in substance. The Supreme Court has previously rejected the complementary argument — that periods during which the worker did not stay in Israel should be deducted from the count — and held that the language of the legislature is clear, and that had it wished to devise "formulas for calculation that do not take into account time spent abroad," it would have done so (Adm. Appeal (Supreme Court) 5928-10 (30 Aug 2010), referring to Adm. Appeal (Supreme Court) 6745/06 Kon Tensa v. Ministry of Interior). The conclusion is one: the count is a single continuous sequence from the day the first licence was granted, and it is not affected by departures and entries.
A new foreign construction worker does not arrive in Israel through a private channel. Section 1.10 of Procedure 9.4.0001 (Terms of the Permit for the Employment of Foreign Workers in the Construction Sector by Manpower Contractors, 7th edition of 27 Aug 2025) provides that every new foreign worker for the construction sector who will be employed through corporations and brought to Israel from 2012 onward will be brought only under a bilateral agreement between the competent authorities in Israel and the authorities in the country of origin. Section 1.11 details the agreements that have been implemented — Bulgaria (2012), Moldova (late 2013) and Romania (2014) — and mentions special rules for construction workers from China.
The screening itself is regulated by Procedure 9.7.0002 (Conducting Professional Examinations and Screening Foreign Workers in the Construction Sector in Countries of Origin, 3rd edition). Under clause ג.1, the publication in the country of origin must include a warning regarding the charging of brokerage fees and the possibility of filing a complaint against anyone who charges them unlawfully; under clause ו.3, a lottery is held among the candidates who passed the professional examination — and there is no lawful way to purchase a place in a recruitment round.
Transferring between employers within the sector is possible. Under Chapter 5 of Procedure 9.4.0001, a worker may transfer from one authorized corporation to another authorized corporation as long as both corporations hold valid permits for the relevant year, and the transfer is possible once per quarter. By contrast, workers employed by foreign contracting companies cannot transfer to work in construction through construction corporations (clause ט.10 of Procedure 9.4.0002, 5th edition of 20 Nov 2025); the Head of the Authority may permit such a transfer only in exceptional cases, and only on the basis of an individual request.
On 16 Jan 2025, Director's Circular No. 01/2025 was published, addressed to construction corporations holding a permit to employ foreign workers. Under the circular, construction-sector workers meeting a series of cumulative conditions — one of which is completion of the maximum period of employment — would be entitled to an extension of their period of employment beyond the maximum period, until 31 Dec 2025. This was the source under which many continued to work after exhausting the 63 months.
On 30 Dec 2025, workers were sent notices that their licence had expired and that they were obligated to leave Israel within 30 days. The Appeals Tribunal held that such a notice is not a new administrative decision but an informational notice reflecting an existing legal state, and that anyone wishing to challenge the duration of the extension should have challenged the circular itself at the time.
And what happened after 31 Dec 2025? On 3 Mar 2026, the Head of the Foreign Workers Administration published an update notice addressed to employers in certain sectors, including construction. The Appeals Tribunal in Tel Aviv examined it and held that it does not contain a blanket extension of stay licences: it is a directive regarding the non-initiation of enforcement measures against employers for the unlawful employment of a worker who meets the conditions set out in it, until further notice or until 30 Jun 2026, whichever is earlier, alongside the completion of regulatory adjustments (Appeal (Tel Aviv) 2780-26 (19 Jul 2026)). The distinction is critical: a non-enforcement policy toward an employer is not a stay licence held by the worker.
As a rule, at the end of the period — and absent an individual administrative decision extending it — the stay status expires and the worker must leave Israel. Remaining beyond that exposes the worker to enforcement proceedings, detention and removal.
The law is not entirely sealed. Section 3A(c1) of the Law, added by Amendment No. 13 (5764), allows a visa to be granted for additional periods due to "special and exceptional circumstances of the foreign worker's contribution to the economy, the market, or society" — a narrow track intended for exceptional cases. Dedicated humanitarian tracks also exist, but these are examined under separate criteria and do not apply to the construction sector; the arrangement for extending licences beyond 63 months in the home-care sector rests on a different statutory provision and procedure, and we discuss it in a separate article on our site.
A point that recurs in the case law: everything begins with an individual request. Absent an individual application for an extension and absent a decision rejecting it, no cause of action for filing an appeal arises at all. Contacts between figures in the sector, notices from contractors' organizations, or press publications do not create a legal right and do not bind the Authority.
The challenge begins with the Authority. Procedure 1.6.0001 (Procedure for Handling Applications and Appeals Against Decisions of the Bureaus and Headquarters of the Population and Immigration Authority) governs the filing of one internal appeal against a decision of an Authority official, unless the relevant procedure provides that the objection is to be made by way of an appeal to the Appeals Tribunal under section 13כד of the Entry into Israel Law, or by way of an administrative petition. Check in advance which track is the correct one and what deadline applies to it.
An appeal against the Authority's decision may be filed with the Appeals Tribunal within the time prescribed by law. Where removal is anticipated, an application for an interim order should be filed at the same time: the Tribunal examines the prospects of the appeal and the balance of convenience, and it is necessary to point to "severe, irreparable harm" as stated in regulation 13 of the Entry into Israel Regulations (Procedure and Administration in the Appeals Tribunal), 5774-2014. A judgment of the Tribunal may be appealed to the District Court sitting as the Court for Administrative Affairs within 45 days; a decision that is not a judgment requires leave to appeal under section 13לא(ב) of the Law.
The 2026 consolidated decision dealt with appeals by construction workers who had completed 63 months, left Israel and returned for another round. The Tribunal rejected the "reset" argument, also rejected the argument of formal defects in the notice, and held that absent an individual application and a decision on it, no cause of appeal arises (Appeal (Jerusalem) 1234-26 and others (19 Feb 2026)).
In another appeal, a construction worker whose licence had expired on 31 Dec 2025 argued that the update notice of 3 Mar 2026 had extended his licence on a blanket basis. The Tribunal held that the notice is addressed to employers and concerns non-enforcement only, and that its purpose was to allow employment to be regularized with an authorized employer — not casual work (Appeal (Tel Aviv) 2780-26 (19 Jul 2026)).
In a 2024 appeal, a worker who had entered Israel for employment with a foreign contracting company sought to prevent his removal after abandoning his employer. The Tribunal referred to the procedure for the employment of foreign workers in the construction sector by foreign contracting companies and held that employees of contracting companies cannot transfer to construction corporations without an exceptional permit, and that the worker had in any event not filed an individual application and had delayed beyond the 90 days (Appeal (Tel Aviv) 3237-24 (10 Oct 2024)).
As of the date of this update (September 2026), no later publication by the Population and Immigration Authority has been located regarding an extension of the non-enforcement notice of 3 Mar 2026 in the construction sector, regarding its expiry, or regarding a blanket extension of construction workers' licences; nor has any new Temporary Order on this matter been located. Since the notice itself was, by its own terms, limited until 30 Jun 2026 or until a new notice, whichever is earlier, it should be assumed that it has expired, and it should not be relied upon as a currently valid representation. An employer or worker wishing to act on its basis is required to verify the status of the directive with the Foreign Workers Administration before taking any action. By comparison, in the home-care sector the matter was regulated by primary legislation — the Entry into Israel Law (Amendment No. 43 and Temporary Order — Swords of Iron), 5786-2025 — whereas in the construction sector no parallel arrangement has been located.
Our office assists foreign construction workers and manpower corporations at every stage of the process: checking the month count against the Authority's records, drafting an individual application before a 90-day "gap" arises, handling transfers between authorized corporations, filing an appeal together with an application for an interim order, and representation on appeal to the District Court sitting as the Court for Administrative Affairs. We examine each case on its own circumstances and explain in advance what can reasonably be expected and what cannot.
No. The Appeals Tribunal held in a 2026 consolidated decision that this argument has no basis in the Entry into Israel Law, and that the restriction is intended to limit the total duration of stay in Israel. Leaving the country upon exhausting the period and returning afterward does not open a new count, since such an interpretation would allow the restriction to be circumvented through repeated departures and entries.
Director's Circular No. 01/2025 of 16 Jan 2025 allowed construction workers meeting cumulative conditions, including completion of the maximum period of employment, to extend their employment until 31 Dec 2025. Once that date passed, the licence expired. The update notice of 3 Mar 2026 is not a further blanket extension but a directive regarding non-enforcement toward employers, as held in Appeal (Tel Aviv) 2780-26.
Under Chapter 5 of Procedure 9.4.0001, a transfer between authorized corporations is possible as long as both corporations hold valid permits for the relevant year, and it is possible once per quarter. A transfer does not extend the maximum period and does not reset it. It is important to formalize the transfer in the Authority's records and not to rely on an oral agreement between employers.
As a rule, no. Clause ט.10 of Procedure 9.4.0002 provides that workers employed by foreign contracting companies cannot transfer to work in construction through construction corporations. The Head of the Authority may permit this in exceptional cases and on conditions to be determined, but only following an individual application filed regarding the worker. A transfer without a permit is considered a breach of licence conditions and may lead to its cancellation and to removal.
You should act immediately on two fronts. First, check whether there is a concrete administrative decision concerning you, since the Tribunal has held that a mere reminder notice does not give rise to a cause of appeal. Second, file a reasoned individual application for an extension or regularization, and if it is rejected, file an appeal on time, and, if removal is feared, also an application for an interim order. A delay of months works against you.