In 2000, an East Jerusalem schoolteacher, a permanent Israeli resident, married a West Bank Palestinian woman. She came to live with him in East Jerusalem, and the couple had two children, who were registered as Israeli residents.
On December 28, 2008, the husband filed a family unification application for his wife. More than 15 months later, as the Ministry of Interior still made no decision on the application, HaMoked filed an
application for non response to the
interior ministry's appellate committee for foreigners, empowered to review the ministry's conduct and decisions in family unification procedures. HaMoked asserted that the interior ministry's conduct was unlawful and contrary to ts obligation, as an administrative authority, to act fairly, reasonably and expeditiously. HaMoked also contended that the interior ministry's procrastination in regularizing the woman status was harmful to the family's right to live together and maintain a family unit according to their own choosing, thereby condemning the entire family, the small children in particular, to a life of instability, tension, and insecurity about their joint future in East Jerusalem.
A month later,
the interior ministry notified that security officials had recommended to reject the woman's application "in view of her brothers' activity". Following the ministry directives,
HaMoked submitted in response to the security allegations, a "hearing in writing" – one of the most infamous of the interior ministry's procedures, whereby a person submits a written response to the allegations against him, but cannot participate or even be present in the hearing in which his case is decided.
HaMoked pointed out the unreasonableness of basing a refusal on "security claims" relative to activity of the brothers of the woman, who has been living in Israel for years, has never been arrested or interrogated, especially since these allegations relate to prison terms served in full years ago. HaMoked added that regardless of the same family relationship, the interior ministry had approved the family unification application of the woman's sister – married, like her sister, to an Israeli resident – who was living in Israel for over a decade. In conclusion, HaMoked noted that the military had only recently issued the woman permits of entry into Israel, which doubtless would not have been granted if the woman posed a security risk.
The appellate committee erased the objection as "the ground for the motion, the non response by the respondent – has been exhausted", and ordered the interior ministry to decide on the application
according to its procedures, which stipulate that the security officials' response to the "written hearing" should be delivered to the interior ministry within 30 days.
Eight month (!) later, on February 22, 2011,
HaMoked now submitted to the appellate committee a motion for contempt of the committee's decision, ordering the processing of the application. HaMoked requested the committee to order the interior ministry to decide on the application, and reasserted that "security grounds" pertaining to the brothers, could not be viewed as a just cause for refusal.
On February 14, 2012, as another year had passed without the interior ministry's response to the contempt motion,
HaMoked petitioned the Jerusalem Court for Administrative Affairs regarding this failure to respond to the family unification application. The court instructed the interior ministry to announce within two weeks a decision date for the application.
True to form, the interior ministry requested an extension for submitting its response, and then another, until it decided –
more than three years after the initial application was filed – to approve the request and the woman would henceforth receive Israeli stay permits for one year. It should be noted that these permits, which the military issues to Palestinians who are in the process of family unification, do not accord their holders Israeli status or social security rights and do not constitute work permits.
On April 4, 24, at HaMoked's request,
the court erased the petition. The justice dismissed the interior ministry's claim that the processing delay was due to "overload" caused by "numerous frivolous objections", and determined that the woman had received the permits following the filing of the petition and not on "an ex gratia basis", as the interior ministry had claimed. The court ordered the interior ministry to pay trial costs to the petitioners.
