An interview or hearing without an interpreter: what the rules require, when a flawed translation forces a new interview, and how to object in real time.
The same pattern recurs in different forms. An application for status based on marriage is denied because of “contradictions” that emerged in a relationship interview conducted in Hebrew. A caregiving work licence is revoked after a hearing in a language the worker understands only slightly. A removal order is issued at the end of a hearing conducted through choppy telephone interpretation, and sometimes through a translation app. In every one of these cases the same question arises: if I didn't understand the questions, can the answers I gave be relied on?
The answer is neither “everything is void” nor “it makes no difference.” The law recognizes the right to have a procedure that may harm you conducted in a language you understand, and places the duty to translate on the authority — but a person alleging a flaw must show not only that the language was not understood, but also that it caused actual harm. Below is what the case law and the procedures require, how the claim is examined, and what is important to do already at the interview itself.
The Supreme Court has held that the duty to ensure that an interview is conducted in a language the interviewee speaks, and, where necessary, to use an interpreter, does not derive only from the authority's procedures but first and foremost from principles of administrative law: the right to be heard of anyone who may be harmed by an administrative decision, and the duty of hearing imposed on the authority. It was also held that these rules apply to a person who is not a citizen, and that the scope of the right expands the more severe the expected harm (Adm. Appeal (Supreme Court) 8675/11 Tadesse v. the asylum-seekers unit (RSD unit) (14 May 2012)).
The Supreme Court later reaffirmed that there is no dispute that a hearing must be held in a language the person understands, and that where necessary appropriate translation services must be provided; in that same proceeding, the authority also did not dispute its duty to document the hearing in an orderly record and to give a copy to the detainee and their counsel (Leave to Appeal (Supreme Court) 8707/19 (15 Oct 2020)). The Appeals Tribunal for immigration matters put this in practical terms: the duty of fairness requires that the person questioned truly understand the questions and be able to answer them in their own language or through professional translation, while the absence of translation casts a “heavy shadow” over the degree of understanding and the weight of the answers (Appeal (Tel Aviv) 1864-25 (25 Mar 2026)).
Procedure 5.1.0013 (Procedure for Conducting Interviews, 2nd edition, 31 Aug 2016) is the central procedure. Clause ו.1 provides that the interview will be conducted in the language the interviewee speaks and understands, and clause ו.2 adds that if there is no interviewer who speaks their language, the interview will be translated by an interpreter on behalf of the authority. Clause ז.1 provides that the interview is recorded in Hebrew — which is why clause ח.2 matters: an interviewee who does not speak Hebrew or cannot read must have the record translated before being asked to sign it; clause ח.4 provides that a refusal to sign will be documented, and clause ה.1 permits the presence of a companion.
In enforcement proceedings, Procedure 10.3.0001 (Issuance of Removal and Detention Orders, 4th edition, 15 Mar 2023) is more detailed: clause ד.1.6 requires that the hearing be conducted in the official language of the country of origin spoken by the detainee, or in any other language they understand, through an interpreter who is either a unit employee or an employee of a translation company, and permits telephone interpretation in the absence of one. Clauses ד.2.9 and ד.2.10 require that the record state the language of the hearing, the interpreter's details, and the manner of translation; clause ד.2.12 requires making sure the detainee understood the content of the hearing and the decision, documenting this, and giving them a copy of the record; and clause ד.1.7 requires informing them in advance of their right to consult a lawyer and be represented.
A similar arrangement applies in asylum proceedings under Procedure 5.2.0012 (11th edition, 15 Oct 2024). And at border crossings, clause ה.21 of Procedure 6.4.0010 (1 Jan 2025) requires giving a person refused entry a written decision in a language they understand, and having them sign confirming that its meaning was explained to them.
The burden rests on the authority, not on you: the interpreter is “on behalf of the authority” — a unit employee or an employee of a translation company the authority has contracted with. You are not required to fund an interpreter, and you should not be dependent on a family member, an employer, or another detainee. In the Tadesse case, the Supreme Court criticized an in-depth interview that was translated by another detainee in custody, who was not a trained interpreter — among other reasons because of the lack of training and the risk of a conflict of interest. It was also held there that the state cannot be expected to provide an interpreter for every language and dialect, but when it comes to a language common among those applying to it, the absence of an interpreter is not justified.
Translation apps are not a substitute for an interpreter, certainly not in a proceeding concerning deprivation of liberty. In the Detention Review Tribunal, a hearing was opened using a translation app, and the tribunal explained to the detainee that, for lack of a suitable interpreter for his language, the hearing would be postponed to the next day; the judicial review hearing was then held with the help of an interpreter (Detention Review Tribunal, Case 1563-08-26, decisions of 24 Aug 2026 and 25 Aug 2026). The practical lesson: when proper translation is unavailable, the solution is to postpone the hearing, not to conduct it at any cost.
Not every claim of a translation flaw brings down the interview or the decision. The District Court sitting as the Court for Administrative Affairs in Jerusalem formulated two hurdles: first, to prove that the interview was conducted in a language different from the one the interviewee understands and that the gap between the languages is significant; second, to show that in the concrete case the flaw led to a lack of clarity and understanding, in a way that does not allow reliance on the answers and harms the very core of the right to be heard (Adm. Petition (Jerusalem) 14503-02-13 (9 Apr 2013)). There, the petition was denied because the petitioner gave long, detailed answers and did not point to any specific misunderstanding — yet the court still remarked that it would be proper for the authority to make sure interviews are conducted by speakers of the same language.
The Appeals Tribunal distilled four criteria from the case law: whether the translation gap led to a lack of clarity that does not allow reliance on the answers; whether the proceeding frustrated the fair opportunity to make one's case; whether a real-time objection was raised; and whether a concrete gap was pointed to indicating a misunderstanding of the question asked. Any doubt on these questions favors the appellant (Appeal (Jerusalem) 1775-19 (15 Nov 2020)). The usual remedy is not a sweeping annulment but a repeat interview or hearing and a new decision — as in the Tadesse case, where the authority's decision was set aside and a new interview in the Oromo language was ordered.
Most claims in this area fail not because they lack a basis, but because they are raised too late and too generally. If you do not understand — say so immediately and explicitly, and ask for this to be recorded in the record; ask for an interpreter in your language and do not settle for improvised translation; ask that the record state the language of the proceeding, the interpreter's identity, and the manner of translation, as required under clauses ד.2.9 and ד.2.10 of Procedure 10.3.0001.
At the end, do not sign a document that has not been read and translated to you: clause ח.2 of Procedure 5.1.0013 requires the record to be translated before signing, and clause ח.4 provides that a refusal to sign will be documented — meaning a reasoned refusal is a step the procedure anticipates. Ask for a copy of the record: in a hearing preceding removal and detention orders, a copy of the record is given to the foreign national (clause ד.2.12), whereas in an interview under Procedure 5.1.0013 it may be obtained only upon request and only after a final decision, and even then only the record of the course of the interview will be given, not the summary and conclusions (clause ז.6). Finally — ask for a recording. In the Tadesse case, the Supreme Court noted the value of audio documentation, which prevents unsubstantiated claims and allows the quality of the translation to be reviewed.
A decision by a Population and Immigration Authority bureau refusing or revoking a licence is first challenged by way of an internal appeal, under Procedure 1.6.0001 (8th edition, 24 Feb 2022), within the deadline stated in the decision itself. If the internal appeal is denied, an appeal may be filed with the Appeals Tribunal for immigration matters under the Entry into Israel Law, 5712-1952, within the deadline set by the law, and its judgment may be appealed to the District Court sitting as the Court for Administrative Affairs within 45 days.
In detention proceedings, the track is faster: a person against whom a detention order has been issued is brought before the Detention Review Tribunal under section 13יד of the Law, and the tribunal may order a repeat hearing in the presence of an interpreter and even postpone the hearing until a suitable interpreter is found; its decision, too, may be appealed to the District Court within 45 days. Remember one procedural rule: a language claim raised for the first time only on appeal loses much of its force. It should be raised already during the proceeding itself, or at the latest in the internal appeal, specifying which questions were not understood and which incorrect answer was given as a result.
In Appeal (Tel Aviv) 1864-25 (25 Mar 2026), a couple was given a “surprise” interview, with no advance summons, when they arrived at the bureau to submit documents. The Appeals Tribunal held that a surprise interview makes it hard to prepare, harms the right to representation, and reduces the ability to use an interpreter; the interview was conducted in Hebrew without it being clear whether the couple chose this or whether interpreter assistance was offered to them. The case was remanded for reconsideration, including a further interview.
By contrast, in Appeal (Beer Sheva) 2594-26 (9 Jul 2026), a claim of faulty translation in an interview conducted with the help of a Chinese-language interpreter was rejected: the claim was not raised in real time, and family members confirmed at the hearing that the appellant spoke Hebrew. The appeal was allowed in part on a different ground — the failure to address documents that had been submitted.
And the Detention Review Tribunal held, in a decision of 22 Oct 2018, that a hearing conducted without an interpreter present and with telephone interpretation only flaws the proceeding and the right to be heard; however, since it emerged that the detainee understood the questions and answered them, the detention order was not set aside, and instead the tribunal ordered a further hearing in the presence of an interpreter within a set period (note that Procedure 10.3.0001, in its current version, permits telephone interpretation when there is difficulty securing an interpreter's presence). The conclusion is consistent across all forums: a language flaw by itself almost never invalidates a decision, but in the appropriate circumstances it requires holding the proceeding again in a language the person understands and deciding anew.
Our office assists status applicants, foreign workers, Israeli family members, and detainees in proceedings where a claim of a flaw in language or translation arises. We examine the record of the interview or hearing against the requirements of the procedures, identify the questions and answers where the misunderstanding is evident, request the documentation and the material underlying the decision, and formulate the claim in the terms the tribunals require — a proven language gap and concrete harm to the right to be heard, rather than a general claim. In the appropriate circumstances we work to obtain a repeat interview or hearing in a language the person understands, accompany you through the proceeding itself, and represent you in the internal appeal, before the Appeals Tribunal, before the Detention Review Tribunal, and in the administrative appeal.
No. The case law establishes that not every alleged translation flaw leads to the interview or the decision being voided. You must prove two things: that the interview was conducted in a language you do not understand and that the gap between the languages is significant, and that this actually caused substantial misunderstanding and harm to the right to be heard. When the claim is accepted, the usual remedy is a repeat interview or hearing and a new decision, not a sweeping annulment.
The duty rests on the authority. Clause ו.2 of Procedure 5.1.0013 provides that the interview will be translated by an interpreter on behalf of the authority, and clause ד.1.6 of Procedure 10.3.0001 provides that the hearing will be conducted through an interpreter who is a unit employee or an employee of a translation company. You are not required to fund an interpreter, and it is not proper for the translation to be done by a family member, an employer, or a random person.
Procedure 10.3.0001 permits telephone interpretation when there is difficulty securing an interpreter's presence, and requires the manner of translation to be documented in the record. A translation app is a different matter: in a decision of 24 Aug 2026 in Case 1563-08-26, the Detention Review Tribunal opened a hearing using an app, and for lack of a suitable interpreter postponed the hearing to the next day — after which the hearing was held with the help of an interpreter.
Say so immediately and explicitly, and ask for this to be recorded in the record, together with a request for an interpreter in your language. Do not sign documentation that has not been translated to you — clause ח.2 of Procedure 5.1.0013 requires the interview to be translated before signing, and clause ח.4 provides that a refusal to sign will be documented. A real-time objection is one of the criteria the tribunals examine, and its absence greatly weakens the claim after the fact.
In a hearing held before the issuance of removal and detention orders, clause ד.2.12 of Procedure 10.3.0001 provides that a copy of the record will be given to the foreign national. In an interview under Procedure 5.1.0013, clause ז.6 allows a copy of the interview form to be given only upon request and only after a final decision on the application, and even then only the record of the course of the interview will be given, not the summary, conclusions, or internal notes.