Center for the Defence of the Individual - Following HaMoked’s petition, Ministry of Interior retracts denial of family unification application: Three days before the hearing a “security preclusion” touted by the Ministry of Interior held onto for three years, disappeared
العربية HE wheel chair icon
חזרה לעמוד הקודם
08.07.2012

Following HaMoked’s petition, Ministry of Interior retracts denial of family unification application: Three days before the hearing a “security preclusion” touted by the Ministry of Interior held onto for three years, disappeared

In November 2007 a Palestinian from East Jerusalem, an Israeli resident, filed a family unification application for his wife, originally from Hebron. The couple had lived in Jerusalem since they were married in 2002. Their four children were born and raised in the city. More than a year after the application was filed, in March 2009, the Minister of Interior rejected the family unification application, given the recommendation of security officials, who claimed that “Ms. ____’s brother and father were members of the Hamas terrorist organization. Another of ____’s brothers had been detained regarding his involvement in arms trafficking”. With this statement, the Ministry of Interior sealed the couple’s fate, without holding a hearing and without explaining how the security allegations against the wife’s relatives justify punishing the couple, who had never had any security problems and had never been arrested or interrogated.

HaMoked filed a request for further review on behalf of the couple and argued that denying the family unification application based on the actions of the wife’s relatives was a severe violation of the couple’s and their children’s constitutional right to family life. After the Ministry of Interior failed to respond to the request for nine months, HaMoked filed an application to the Appellate Committee for Foreigners, challenging the prolonged failure to respond and the “indirect security refusal”. The committee is a Ministry of Interior body in charge of reviewing the decisions and conduct of the Ministry of Interior with respect to family unification procedures.

The Ministry of Interior repeatedly delayed submission of its response to the committee application, at times with the committee’s consent and at times without. Finally, when no response was forthcoming six months after the application was made, the committee decided to accept it without the ministry’s response. The committee ordered the reversal of the decision to refuse the family unification application for security reasons until the couple was summoned to a hearing “as per the provisions of the procedure” instituted by the Ministry of Interior itself, meaning, within 30 days. This hearing, it should be noted, is a hearing in writing, wherein a person responds in writing to allegations made against him or her, but does not take part and does not attend the discussion in which his or her matter is decided.

HaMoked sent the Ministry of Interior a “hearing in writing” as requested, emphasizing for the third time, that the ministry’s conduct was a serious violation of the couple’s right to live together and maintain a family unit, as they had chosen to do. HaMoked noted that this conduct contravened case law which determines that an impingement on fundamental rights is acceptable only when there is reliable information that leaves no doubt regarding the alleged danger. HaMoked also argued that denying family unification due to indirect security reasons is an extreme departure from the principle of individual liability. HaMoked also noted that the woman’s father, a Hamas activist, according to security agencies, received a permit to enter Israel both before and after the Ministry of Interior denied the family unification application on “security grounds”.

On March 1, 2011, more than six months after the hearing in writing was submitted, the Ministry of Interior denied the family unification application for a third time because “security officials repeated their position that the application should be denied”.

HaMoked again contacted the appeal committee, this time challenging the security refusal itself, and the Ministry of Interior again avoided responding. On March 6, 2012, HaMoked filed an administrative petition with the District Court against the refusal. The court decided to hear the petition.

Three days before the scheduled hearing, the Ministry of Interior retracted, and announced that: “In light of the position of security officials, a decision was made to allow Ms. […] to remain in Israel with DCO issued stay permits”. The “security preclusion” that allegedly justified the severe violation of the couple’s right to live together in their own home – the one the Ministry of Interior insisted on for three years – had dissipated.

Related documents

No documents to show