Was a foreign worker permit revoked after a hearing? A guide to hearing rights, the 90-day rule, detention and appeals. We assist workers and employers.
A foreign worker in the home care, agriculture, or construction sector receives a letter one day — usually through the private manpower agency to which he is affiliated — stating that the Authority is considering revoking his B/1 residence and work permit, and inviting him to state his case. Sometimes the letter follows a complaint about his conduct toward a care recipient; sometimes it follows a routine check that found more than 90 days had passed since his last lawful employment without the employment being regularized.
In other cases there is no letter at all. The worker is detained during an enforcement operation, and on that same day a hearing is held for him, his permit is revoked, and immediately afterward a further hearing is held — this time before the Border Control Officer — at the end of which a removal order and a detention order are issued against him. This guide is intended for both sides: the worker whose permit has been or is about to be revoked, and the care recipient or Israeli employer whose life is directly affected by the decision.
The starting point in case law is that a person who is not an Israeli citizen holds no vested right to reside in Israel, and his residence is conditioned on a permit granted under the Entry into Israel Law, 5712-1952. The power to grant permits is given to the Minister of Interior or a person authorized by him under Section 6 of the Law, and case law has defined his discretion as broad (HCJ 758/88 Kandel v. Minister of Interior (1992)) — but as administrative discretion it remains subject to the rules of administrative law.
Section 11(a) of the Law grants the power to revoke a residence permit that has been issued. Section 11(a1) deals with a foreign worker who has not been employed in the field of occupation specified in his permit for a period exceeding 90 days: in such a case the Minister of Interior will revoke the visa and the permit, unless special reasons are found that prevented him from finding work in the field — "provided that he was given an opportunity to state his case." At the same time, clause ד.22 of Procedure 5.3.0002 (the Procedure for the Recruitment and Employment of a Foreign Worker in the Home Care Sector, edition of 1 Sep 2022) provides that the Authority may, "subject to holding a hearing," revoke any visa and permit granted under it where non-compliance with the provisions of the Law, the regulations, or the procedures has been found. The hearing is not a technical appendage to the decision — it is a condition for it.
Clause ב.1 of Procedure 5.3.0022 (the Procedure for Updating a Foreign Worker's Place of Employment) provides that a worker who was dismissed, whose employer died, or who was forced to leave his previous employer, may regularize his employment with another employer within a period of 90 days, and that during those days no enforcement or removal proceedings will be taken against him. Clause ב.5 adds that in the construction and home care sectors, a transfer to a new employer cannot be approved without affiliation to a private manpower agency or a licensed corporation.
If the 90 days have passed and the employment has not been regularized, clause ז.15 of Procedure 5.3.0002 governs how the matter proceeds. If the authorized official found no justification for approving the employment despite the lapse of the period, and the worker holds a valid B/1 permit in home care, a hearing will be held for him by the authorized official in the Home Care Division — in writing or orally, at the official's discretion — at which he may state his arguments regarding the special reasons. The letter is forwarded to the private manpower agency, which must deliver it to the worker within 7 days and confirm its receipt; a worker who does not hold a valid B/1 permit will receive a reasoned letter of refusal by the same route. The burden of proof rests on the worker, and it is examined according to what he did in real time.
The tribunals examine the hearing through its record. The question of language recurs in almost every case: when it was argued in Appeal (Jerusalem) 3196-26 (13 Aug 2026) that the hearing was held in English, which was not fluent for the appellant, the argument was rejected because the record explicitly stated that the hearing was held with the help of a Sinhalese interpreter, and because the answers were detailed and coherent. In Appeal (Jerusalem) 2466-25 (21 Oct 2025) a similar argument was rejected because the worker had signed confirming that the questionnaire had been translated into a language she understood and did not claim during the hearing that she did not understand something.
The practical conclusion is clear: one must make sure, in real time, that the language and the interpreter are recorded in the transcript, that every answer is recorded in full, and that anything said but not recorded is noted on the record. Alongside this, one should bring supporting documentation to the hearing, not merely a version of events. In Appeal 3196-26 the employment claims were rejected because only cash withdrawals were presented, rather than salary deposits into the worker's bank account, and no formal medical insurance confirmation or proof of National Insurance payments was attached. Complaints about employment conditions that were not documented in real time with the private manpower agency receive little weight.
After the permit is revoked, a separate hearing is held — this time before the Border Control Officer, under Section 13(1)(d) of the Law, and in a language the person understands. This is how the procedure was described in the decision of the Detention Review Tribunal in case 1471-08-26 of 17 Aug 2026: the worker was detained, brought to a hearing before the permit was revoked, his permit was revoked for lack of a lawful employer for more than 90 days, and only then was a further hearing held before the Officer, at the end of which a detention order and a removal order were issued.
Clause ד.1.7 of Procedure 10.3.0001 (the Procedure for Issuing Removal and Detention Orders, edition 4, 15 Mar 2023) provides that before the hearing begins, the person staying unlawfully must be informed that he "has the right to consult a lawyer and to be represented at the hearing," and that the notice and the response must be recorded in the transcript. Clause ד.1.8 permits a lawyer's presence subject to a power of attorney, and requires the Officer to wait a reasonable time for him. In Adm. Appeal (Tel Aviv) 42701-06-25 (29 Jun 2025) the District Court held that the vague question "do you have a lawyer?" does not satisfy the duty to inform, and that "the rights must be stated before the hearing begins clearly and plainly." A statement at the hearing that the worker "does not want representation" is recorded and weighed later on — as in the decision of the Detention Review Tribunal in case 1631-08-26 of 1 Sep 2026.
Once a detention order is issued, the detainee is held in detention until his departure or removal, unless he is released on a monetary deposit, a bank guarantee, or other suitable security (Section 13(1)(b) of the Law). The detainee is brought before the Detention Review Tribunal shortly after the detention begins, under Sections 13(14)(a) and 13(15) of the Law — in case 1471-08-26 the worker was detained on 12 Aug 2026 and brought before the judge on 13 Aug 2026.
The grounds for release on bail are set out in Section 13(6) of the Law, and include: that his unlawful stay results from a good-faith mistake or malfunction; that he will leave Israel by himself on a date to be set and there will be no difficulty locating him; that his age or state of health justify it; or that there are other special humanitarian reasons, including where a minor would be left unsupervised. In both cases reviewed here the detention orders were confirmed because the tribunal was not convinced that the unlawful stay resulted from a good-faith malfunction. The tribunal holds recurring review hearings, and its decisions may be appealed to the District Court sitting as the Court for Administrative Affairs within 45 days.
An appeal against the Authority's decision to revoke the permit is filed with the Appeals Tribunal for immigration matters. Section 13(24)(b) of the Law provides that an appeal must be filed in writing within 30 days from the day the decision was lawfully published, the day the appellant received notice of it, or the day he learned of it — whichever is earlier. A delay is not the final word: Regulation 6 of the Entry into Israel Regulations (Appeals Tribunal Procedure and Administration), 5774-2014, allows a request for an extension of time, but it must be reasoned.
The Tribunal's final decision may be appealed to the District Court sitting as the Court for Administrative Affairs within 45 days. Alongside the appeal, one should consider a request for an interim order to prevent enforcement and removal pending a decision — and sometimes relief is granted precisely at the higher instance: in Appeal (Jerusalem) 1621-26 (9 Aug 2026) the Tribunal denied the request for an interim order, and the District Court granted it (Adm. Leave to Appeal 35135-05-26). The Tribunal has the power to decide an appeal without a hearing under Regulation 17(1) of the Regulations, but in Adm. Appeal (Jerusalem) 12843-03-25 (30 Jul 2025) it was held that where the arguments deserve examination, an in-person hearing should be held.
In Adm. Appeal (Jerusalem) 12843-03-25 (30 Jul 2025), an appeal by a home care worker and the patient who employed her was granted. The permit had been revoked on the claim that the worker was in a romantic relationship with, and living with, another foreign worker, but the court found the factual basis flimsy: it was not clarified how a worker whose role was to provide continuous care for a patient could be living in a different city, and the patient — whose identity was known to the Authority — was given no opportunity to be heard at all. The court remarked that replacing a home care worker "is not a trivial matter," and both the Authority's decision and the Tribunal's judgment were set aside.
In Adm. Appeal (Tel Aviv) 42701-06-25 (29 Jun 2025), an appeal against the revocation of a permit and removal on suspicion of criminal conduct was denied on the merits, since the evidentiary threshold in an administrative proceeding is lower than in a criminal one. However, the court held that the duty to inform of the right to representation and consultation had not been fulfilled, and, taking into account a patient aged 92, stayed the removal and released the worker to alternative detention on conditions of a deposit and third-party guarantee.
By contrast, in Appeal (Jerusalem) 1621-26 (9 Aug 2026), an appeal by a worker who exceeded the 90 days because he was waiting for an unlicensed "agent," and did not approach a licensed private manpower agency to update his details and receive job offers, was denied. The Tribunal held that the waiting was not a "special reason," and that the humanitarian criteria under Section 3(1)(b1) of the Law do not apply to Section 11(a1).
And in Appeal (Jerusalem) 3196-26 (13 Aug 2026), an appeal by a worker who had not regularized her employment for more than 200 days was denied. The Tribunal clarified that a delay by the Authority in issuing a decision does not license self-help — the applicant must act actively to advance the decision, including by applying to the Tribunal.
Our office guides foreign workers and Israeli employers through every stage of the process: preparing the response to the hearing and gathering the supporting documentation the Authority expects to see (salary deposits, medical insurance, National Insurance payments, documentation of contacts with the private manpower agency), exercising the right to consultation and representation at the hearing, representation before the Detention Review Tribunal and in applications for release on bail, and filing an appeal and a request for an interim order on time. We take care to join the patient or employer as a party and to present the harm caused to him. As a rule, the earlier one turns to us — before the hearing rather than after it — the wider the room for action.
Clause ב.1 of Procedure 5.3.0022 sets a 90-day period to regularize employment with another employer, during which no enforcement or removal proceedings will be taken. Exceeding the period gives the Authority the power to revoke the permit under Section 11(a1) of the Entry into Israel Law, unless special reasons that prevented finding work in the field are proven. In the home care and construction sectors, affiliation with a licensed private manpower agency is required for the transfer.
Yes. Clause ד.1.7 of Procedure 10.3.0001 requires that, before the hearing begins, the person staying unlawfully be informed of the right to consult a lawyer and the right to representation at the hearing, and that this be recorded in the transcript. Clause ד.1.8 permits a lawyer's presence subject to a power of attorney, and requires the Officer to wait a reasonable time for him. In Adm. Appeal (Tel Aviv) 42701-06-25, it was held that a vague question such as "do you have a lawyer?" does not satisfy the duty to inform.
No. Such a statement does not prevent turning to a lawyer later, and an appeal can be filed and pursued with representation. Nevertheless, the statement is recorded in the transcript and is weighed later in the proceeding, as appears from the decision of the Detention Review Tribunal in case 1631-08-26 of 1 Sep 2026. In appropriate circumstances it can be argued that the waiver was not informed because the right was not explained as required.
Section 13(24)(b) of the Entry into Israel Law sets a period of 30 days from the day the decision was lawfully published, the day notice of it was received, or the day the appellant learned of it — whichever is earlier. Regulation 6 of the Entry into Israel Regulations (Appeals Tribunal Procedure and Administration), 5774-2014, allows a request for an extension of time to be filed. The Tribunal's final decision may be appealed to the District Court within 45 days.
In Adm. Appeal (Jerusalem) 12843-03-25 (30 Jul 2025), the District Court granted an appeal filed jointly by the worker and the patient, and held that where the patient's identity is known to the Authority and his request to employ the worker is before it, failing to approach him undermines the factual basis. It was further held that replacing a home care worker is not a trivial matter. In appropriate circumstances, it is recommended to join the patient or family members as a party to the appeal and to file an affidavit on their behalf.