HaMoked has petitioned the Administrative Affairs Court after the Ministry of the Interior refused to approve a family unification application for a resident of East Jerusalem and her partner on the grounds that the appellant’s nephew had committed a suicide attack: The refusal of the application by the Ministry of the Interior lacked the authority and was based on grounds that are inconsonant with the Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law

The appellant is a resident of the State of Israel who lives in the A-Tur neighborhood of East Jerusalem with her partner and their five children. All the children were registered as permanent residents in the Israeli Population Registry; the registration of one daughter was possible only after a petition submitted by HaMoked (AP 366/05). The appellant and her partner married in 1993, and in the same year she submitted an application for family unification with her husband. The application was rejected without any grounds being given. Following the rejection the couple moved to the West Bank; the appellant maintained close contact with her family in Jerusalem. In 2002 the couple returned to Jerusalem where they have lived ever since. 

In 2005 the appellant submitted a further application for family unification with her husband. The application was rejected on the following grounds: “A relative of the invitee committed a suicide attack.” However, there is no lawful basis for the refusal by the Ministry of the Interior to grant permanent status to the appellant. According to Article 3D of the Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law, a nephew is not included in the list of relatives on the account of whose past record an application for family unification may be rejected on security grounds. Moreover the Law shows that the possibility to reject an application applies only when the relative “is liable to pose a security threat.” A person who is no longer alive can clearly no longer pose any threat. Additional cases processed by HaMoked suggest that a norm has taken root in the Ministry of the Interior to reject family unification applications on the basis of security information relating to the past record of a relative. This is inconsonant with the obligation incumbent on the authorities to consider only up-to-date and relevant factors. 

In the petition dated 30 May 2007, the appellants based their arguments on these foundations, arguing that the respondents make decisions in an automatic manner on the basis of the recommendations of the security services, without exercising independent discretion as required by law. The Ministry of the Interior should have weighed the position of the Israel Security Agency against other substantive considerations, such as the importance of the integrity of the family unit and the interests of the minor children. In the future, the Ministry of the Interior should also consider in advance whether its decisions are consonant with the Law and with common sense.