Following a petition filed by HaMoked before the Court for Administrative Affairs, an application for family unification between a resident of East Jerusalem and her spouse has been approved: The petition was filed after the couple's family unification application was refused by the Interior Ministry on the grounds that the petitioner's nephew carried out a suicide attack. HaMoked claimed that the Interior Ministry had no authority to refuse the application and that it has done so for reasons which do not comply with the Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law המוקד להגנת הפרט
عر HE wheel chair icon
כפתור חיפוש
תמונה ללא תיאור
03.07.2007
Following a petition filed by HaMoked before the Court for Administrative Affairs, an application for family unification between a resident of East Jerusalem and her spouse has been approved: The petition was filed after the couple's family unification application was refused by the Interior Ministry on the grounds that the petitioner's nephew carried out a suicide attack. HaMoked claimed that the Interior Ministry had no authority to refuse the application and that it has done so for reasons which do not comply with the Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law
Following a petition filed by HaMoked before the Court for Administrative Affairs, an application for family unification between a resident of East Jerusalem and her spouse has been approved: The petition was filed after the couple's family unification application was refused by the Interior Ministry on the grounds that the petitioner's nephew carried out a suicide attack. HaMoked claimed that the Interior Ministry had no authority to refuse the application and that it has done so for reasons which do not comply with the Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law

On 21 June 2007, HaMoked received an application to delete the petition it submitted to the Administrative Affairs Court on 30 May 2007. In their application for deletion, the respondents state that after the matter was examined by the security services the appellant will receive a DCO permit for one year. 

The appellants live in the A-Tur neighborhood of Jerusalem with their five children. The mother of the family is a resident of the State of Israel and all the children were registered as permanent residents in the Israeli Population Registry; the registration of one daughter was possible only after a petition submitted by HaMoked (AP 366/05). The appellant and her partner married in 1993, and in the same year she submitted an application for family unification with her husband. The application was rejected without any grounds being given. Following the rejection the couple moved to the West Bank; the appellant maintained close contact with her family in Jerusalem. In 2002 the couple returned to Jerusalem where they have lived ever since. 

In 2005 the appellant submitted a further application for family unification with her husband. The application was rejected on the following grounds: “A relative of the invitee committed a suicide attack.” However, there is no lawful basis for the refusal by the Ministry of the Interior to grant permanent status to the appellant. According to Article 3D of the Cintizenship and Entry into Israel Law, a nephew is not included in the list of relatives on the account of whose past record an application for family unification may be rejected on security grounds. Moreover the Law shows that the possibility to reject an application applies only when the relative “is liable to pose a security threat.” A person who is no longer alive can clearly no longer pose any threat. Additional cases processed by HaMoked suggest that a norm has taken root in the Ministry of the Interior to reject family unification applications on the basis of security information relating to the past record of a relative. This is inconsonant with the obligation incumbent on the authorities to consider only up-to-date and relevant factors. 

In the petition dated 30 May 2007, the appellants based their arguments on these foundations, arguing that the respondents make decisions in an automatic manner on the basis of the recommendations of the security services, without exercising independent discretion as required by Law. The Ministry of the Interior should have weighed the position of the Israel Security Agency against other substantive considerations, such as the importance of the integrity of the family unit and the interests of the minor children. In the future, the Ministry of the Interior should also consider in advance whether its decisions are consonant with the Law and with common sense.  

See application to delete the petition dated 21 June 2007 (Hebrew) 

Read the petition dated 30 May 2007

Print Print
Share

On 21 June 2007, HaMoked received an application to delete the petition it submitted to the Administrative Affairs Court on 30 May 2007. In their application for deletion, the respondents state that after the matter was examined by the security services the appellant will receive a DCO permit for one year. 

The appellants live in the A-Tur neighborhood of Jerusalem with their five children. The mother of the family is a resident of the State of Israel and all the children were registered as permanent residents in the Israeli Population Registry; the registration of one daughter was possible only after a petition submitted by HaMoked (AP 366/05). The appellant and her partner married in 1993, and in the same year she submitted an application for family unification with her husband. The application was rejected without any grounds being given. Following the rejection the couple moved to the West Bank; the appellant maintained close contact with her family in Jerusalem. In 2002 the couple returned to Jerusalem where they have lived ever since. 

In 2005 the appellant submitted a further application for family unification with her husband. The application was rejected on the following grounds: “A relative of the invitee committed a suicide attack.” However, there is no lawful basis for the refusal by the Ministry of the Interior to grant permanent status to the appellant. According to Article 3D of the Cintizenship and Entry into Israel Law, a nephew is not included in the list of relatives on the account of whose past record an application for family unification may be rejected on security grounds. Moreover the Law shows that the possibility to reject an application applies only when the relative “is liable to pose a security threat.” A person who is no longer alive can clearly no longer pose any threat. Additional cases processed by HaMoked suggest that a norm has taken root in the Ministry of the Interior to reject family unification applications on the basis of security information relating to the past record of a relative. This is inconsonant with the obligation incumbent on the authorities to consider only up-to-date and relevant factors. 

In the petition dated 30 May 2007, the appellants based their arguments on these foundations, arguing that the respondents make decisions in an automatic manner on the basis of the recommendations of the security services, without exercising independent discretion as required by Law. The Ministry of the Interior should have weighed the position of the Israel Security Agency against other substantive considerations, such as the importance of the integrity of the family unit and the interests of the minor children. In the future, the Ministry of the Interior should also consider in advance whether its decisions are consonant with the Law and with common sense.  

See application to delete the petition dated 21 June 2007 (Hebrew) 

Read the petition dated 30 May 2007

משפט ישראלי - מסמכים אחרים


משפט ישראלי - כתבי בי דין


משפט ישראלי - חקיקה


משפט ישראלי - פסיקה


משפט בינלאומי וזר - מסמכים אחרים


משפט בינלאומי וזר - אמנות וחקיקה


משפט בינלאומי וזר - פסיקה


ספרות - עדכונים


ספרות - פסיקה במבחן


ספרות - ספרים


ספרות - מאמרים


ספרות - שונות


ספרות - דוחות