Following a petition filed by HaMoked, the Interior Ministry will grant the spouse of a resident of Jerusalem temporary residency status (A5 visa): The Petitioner's family unification application has been in processing with the Interior Ministry for close to 14 years and his status was due to be upgraded as part of the graduated procedure back in 2002

The Petitioners, a resident of Jerusalem and her husband who bears a Palestinian ID married in 1990 and have lived in Jerusalem ever since. Their seven children – all registered in the Israeli population registry – were been born in the city. The Petitioner filed a family unification application for her husband in 1994, and the couple have been waiting for the temporary residency visa ever since.

The petitioner was entered into the "graduated procedure" [procedure by which an applicant's visa status is gradually upgraded] in 1999, when the family unification application was approved. Under the procedure, the Petitioner was to receive a temporary residency visa (A5 visa) back in February 2002, but did not due to omissions by the Interior Ministry. In May 2002, the government passed resolution 1813, which, inter alia, cancelled status upgrades for residents of the Territories who are married to Israeli citizens or residents and have entered the graduated procedure. Following the resolution, the Interior Ministry decided that no upgrades could be made in applications which were already being processed, even if the upgrades were due to take effect before the government resolution. The Petitioner's was one of these cases. HaMoked submitted a petition to the Administrative Court on his behalf, which was rejected. HaMoked then appealed to the Supreme Court.  

The Supreme Court ruled that the petition should be returned to the Administrative Court. This in light of the policy formulated in  AAA 8849/03 Dufash v. Director, Population Administration Office in East Jerusalem. The Dufash judgment related to two cases, similar to that of the Petitioner and also handled by HaMoked. This judgment established that "the status of an applicant may be upgraded, even if his status had not been upgraded before the decisive date. This, if the fact that the status had not been upgraded was the result of an error or unjustified delays caused by the Respondent." Additionally, the Supreme Court ruled that other factors which distinguish the matter of the Petitioner must also be taken into consideration; for example: his mobility difficulties in light of the fact that he only possesses a temporary permit to enter and remain in Jerusalem rather than an A5 visa; his medical condition; the time that has elapsed from submission of the application (1995); the manner in which the Respondents have handled his case. 

In the amended petition submitted by HaMoked, the Petitioners maintained their arguments from the previous petition, and detailed the Interior Ministry's negligent handling of the Petitioners' family unification application – an application which has been in processing effectively since 1994. In response to the amended petition, the Interior Ministry agreed to grant the Petitioner a temporary residency visa. 

On 17 November 2008, the Administrative Court ruled that the Petitioner would receive a temporary residency visa, albeit not retroactively to 2002, and ordered the State to bear legal costs.