Israel’s policy toward Palestinian residents of East Jerusalem and the restrictions imposed by the Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law on the registration of children from East Jerusalem have led, among other serious results, to many cases of Palestinians, including children, who live in East Jerusalem with no legal status anywhere in the world. Those who, in addition to the bureaucratic complexities, are also socio-economically vulnerable often find themselves in extremely difficult circumstances. Unfortunately, in these cases too, the ministry of interior still follows its usual practice aimed at letting as few Palestinians as possible live in Jerusalem with the legal status they are entitled to.
Three children were born in Jerusalem and lived there their entire lives. The father, a resident of the OPT has been convicted on drug charges multiple times and is in and out of prison. When not incarcerated, he moves between East Jerusalem and Hebron. The children’s mother, a permanent resident of East Jerusalem, has been unable to care for them properly, neglecting, inter alia, to have them registered at birth. The three children have never received status anywhere. They have been emotionally troubled, had behavioral issues and had not received proper education. The eldest son, who suffers from an intellectual disability, lives in an institution and welfare authorities have removed the two other brothers from the home into foster care.
On August 12, 2012, the mother filed an application to have the children registered in the population registry. No response was received for more than seven months, though HaMoked stressed in its letters that the children were at risk. On March 14, 2013, HaMoked filed an application to the interior ministry’s Appellate Committee for Foreigners Nationals, demanding the immediate registration of the children as permanent residents, and an undertaking not to deport the children from the country pending a decision in the application. According to procedure, the population authority must respond to the application within 30 days of receipt, but the appellate committee repeatedly granted the authority extensions.
On January 23, 2014, more than ten months after the appellate committee application was filed,
HaMoked filed an administrative petition, repeating the demand for the children’s immediate registration as permanent residents. HaMoked described the grievous conduct of the Ministry of Interior and of the population authority in this very difficult and unusual case, including the slow and negligent processing. HaMoked argued that the conduct displayed by the Ministry of Interior and the committee was a breach of both the law and their own regulations and harmed the children’s best interest. HaMoked concluded with a request to issue a costs order against the respondents.
It was only after the court issued a decision that the Ministry of Interior must respond to the appellate committee application immediately and make a decision in keeping with the timeframe specified in the procedure, that the ministry stated that it had summoned the mother for an interview and requested the appellate committee application be withdrawn. On March 20, 2014, the Ministry of Interior notified HaMoked that the three children, as well as a recently born younger sister, would be registered in the population registry.
On March 26, 2014,
HaMoked requested to have the petition withdrawn with a costs order issued against the respondents. HaMoked stressed that the Ministry of Interior summoned the mother for an interview only after the petition was filed, and that the interview was conducted 19 months after the application was submitted (!). HaMoked also argued that the ministry’s outrageous delay in responding to the appellate committee was a clear breach of committee protocol. The state attempted to argue that the ministry had delayed in the case specifically because it was exceptional and involved sensitive issues. The state also argued that it was the mother who was responsible for the delay, as she had not filed a request to have her children registered for many years.
The court rejected the state’s arguments and issued a costs order at the sum of ILS 7,500.
