HaMoked appealed a judgment issued by the Administrative Affairs Court regarding the Interior Ministry's denial of an application filed by a resident of Jerusalem for family unification with her spouse. The denial was based on the actions of the spouse's brothers, with whom he has no contact: HaMoked stresses that the denial constitutes an injury to the Appellants' rights which exceeds necessity

The application for permanent residency in Israel was filed by the resident of Jerusalem for her husband, originally a resident of the Territories, in 1994 and has been in processing with the Interior Ministry for the past 14 years. The application was approved in the past, and the Petitioner received a temporary residency permit in 2001. This permit must be extended annually. In late 2006, the couple filed yet another application for renewal of the permit, as they had done many times before, only this time, rather than the permit being extended, the entire application was denied on the grounds that "the brothers of [the Petitioner]…  are active in a terrorist organization and involved in violent activities". 

Following a petition to disclose evidence filed in the matter, the Interior Ministry agreed to disclose the names of the relevant brothers and provide a brief summary of the information about them. The "brothers" are only half brothers – they share a father with the Petitioner but not a mother. The Petitioner's father is married to four women with whom he has 21 children. The three who are considered a security risk are full brothers, sharing a mother and father. The Petitioner and his immediate family have signed a document completely denouncing these siblings as a result of the three's involvement in serious conflicts in their village. Both the Interior Ministry and the District Court which reviewed the confidential information, accepted the Petitioner's claims that he has no contact with the brothers. Therefore, the alleged risk that stands at the heart of the refusal is merely hypothetical and theoretical and based solely on the (partial) blood ties. 

It must be noted that in the framework of the same petition, the Interior Ministry suddenly claimed that there was information alleging the Petitioner himself had "ties to terrorist activists". HaMoked stressed that even new claim did not allege that the risk emanated from the Petitioner himself. All that it suggests is that the Petitioner has unclear connections with people about whom there is no information whatsoever. In any case, the fact that the information about the Petitioner was received after he denied connection to his half brothers is peculiar. 

The very rejection of a person's application due to risks not emanating from the applicant himself but rather from a different person with whom he has some ties, is a severe deviation from the principle of individual responsibility. Expanding the margins of the security claim even farther to include situations where it is proven that there is no effective affiliation and the risk remains no more than a weak hypothesis,  is an expansion which goes beyond the purpose of maintaining security and whose injury to human rights exceeds necessity. 

HaMoked notes that the Interior Ministry's decision has harsh and immediate repercussions. It not only denies the Petitioner's status, but impedes the entire family's ability to exist as a unit. The harm is particularly grievous, considering the many years in which the family lived in Jerusalem. The decision has one meaning for the family – expulsion. 

To view the Administrative Affairs Court's judgment from 24 July 2008 (Hebrew)

To view the administrative petition AP 8121/08 from 17 February 2008 (Hebrew)