In 1999, the Interior Ministry accepted an application for family unification filed by an Israeli resident from Shuafat on behalf of her husband, a resident of the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT). From then on, the husband received renewable stay permits, and after 27 months, his status was upgraded to that of temporary residency, in accordance to the graduated procedure for obtaining permanent residency in Israel. Following approval of the application, the family established deep roots in Jerusalem, until November 2006, when the Interior Ministry suddenly refused to renew the husband's temporary residency visas, on the grounds that "the invitee's brothers are active in a terrorist organization and involved in violent activity". Note, the brothers in reference are in fact the applicant's half-brothers (the father married four women, with whom he has 21 children). In its successive attempts to obtain information on the cause for the refusal, HaMoked filed an objection, followed by an
administrative petition, a request for additional details, and eventually a p
etition to the Supreme Court for discovery. In its response to the petition for discovery, the Interior Ministry claimed for the first time that there was information which attributes "ties with terrorists" to the petitioner himself.
The new information prompted HaMoked to file
another administrative petition in February 2008. In the petition, HaMoked argued, inter alia, that the petitioner and his half-brothers were completely and deliberately estranged, hence, the family unification refusal effectively meant tearing a person away from his family for the alleged actions of people to whom he is linked on paper alone.
The court found no cause to intervene in the Interior Ministry's decision and
dismissed the petition.
In September 2008,
HaMoked appealed to the Supreme Court. HaMoked argued that the refusal to renew his temporary residency visa was automatic without due discretion on the part of the state. Concurrently, HaMoked applied for an interim order to allow the husband to continue to live in Jerusalem, pending a decision on his appeal. The request was denied, and the husband had to return to the OPT, after living for 16 years in Jerusalem. His wife and children followed to live with him in the OPT.
Aside from forcing the family to leave Jerusalem, the Interior Ministry's decision also has future repercussions. If at a certain point the family reapplies for family unification, it would fail the relevant threshold criteria – the ability to prove that the resident maintained her center of life in Jerusalem in the two years preceding the application. Essentially this means that only by returning with their children to Jerusalem, while her husband remains alone in the OPT for the next two years at least, would the woman be eligible to reapply for family unification with her husband.
In advance of the hearing scheduled for January 24, 2011, the parties reached an agreement, whereby the couple would be allowed to submit an application for family unification, which would be considered on its merits
and not dismissed in limine, despite the lack of a center of life in Jerusalem.
The state attorney's office stated that the agreement was guided by the intention to prevent the family's residency in the OPT – caused by the Interior Ministry's refusal and the petition dismissal – from becoming a hindrance in the future.
The agreement was endorsed by the court and the appeal was deleted.
