A woman from the West Bank, who is married to an Israeli resident and the mother of small children who are also permanent Israeli residents, has been living with her family in East Jerusalem since 2001 pursuant to military stay permits, given as part of a family unification procedure.
On November 27, 2015, the couple received a notice from the Ministry of Interior about the intent to reject their family unification application, based on an attempted stabbing attack, committed on October 12, 2015, by one of the couple's sons, who was shot and killed by the police during the attempted attack.
Following a letter by HaMoked, the Ministry of Interior held a hearing on the couple’s case on January 1, 2016. HaMoked submitted
written arguments, maintaining that the couple’s family unification application met the stipulated criteria and there were no grounds to reject it: the family’s center of life was in Jerusalem and there was no security preclusion against the woman or any of her relatives. HaMoked stressed that the son, whose action was presented as the grounds for the refusal, was no longer alive and so posed no security threat; and also taking into account that the state had not argued that the family was in any way involved in what he did. HaMoked pointed out the cruelty of the decision, which would either tear apart the family, uprooting the woman from her home in Israel, or force the entire family into exile, outside of Jerusalem. Despite that, the Ministry of Interior
decided to reject the family unification application and announced the revocation of the woman’s stay permit.
On May 1, 2016, HaMoked filed an appeal to the Appeals Tribunal against the Ministry of Interior’s decision, and asked for an interim order preventing the woman’s deportation pending another decision in her case. As the state did not submit a response for two weeks, the Tribunal granted HaMoked’s request and issued an interim order.
On July 7, 2016, the Ministry of Interior announced its decision to resume handling the woman’s family unification application, and requested the appeal be deleted.
HaMoked firmly objected to the appeal being deleted at this stage, and expressed concern that such action would leave the family unprotected, exposing the woman to the threat of deportation.
The court ruled that the state must commit to provide within a circumscribed time a new decision on the family unification application. The appeal remains pending.
