Administrative Appeal (Be’er Sheva) 64003-08-25 A.H. v. State of Israel – Ministry of Interior

Judgment

Before an appeal against a judgment of the Beer Sheva Court of Appeals (the Honorable Dayan v.  Weinstock-Assis) of July 13, 2025.  In the judgment, an appeal against the decision of the respondent, the Ministry of the Interior, to reject the appellants' request to open a marriage file for the purpose of arranging the appellant's status in Israel, was rejected, on the grounds that neither the appellants had proved the sincerity of the relationship.

1. At the basis of the appeal are the following facts:

Appellant 1 is an Israeli citizen born in 1983, and appellant 2 is a Sri Lankan citizen born in 1964.  The appellant entered Israel as a nursing worker in 2008.  The appellants were married in Sri Lanka on December 24, 2013.  The two then returned to Israel and opened a case for a gradual proceeding by virtue of marriage.  The appellant was granted a residence permit of type B1.  Since then, the appellants have been conducting proceedings in the Ministry of the Interior and the Appeals Tribunal, which have been going on for many years.  Several interviews were conducted for the appellants in order to examine the sincerity of the relationship, and a series of decisions were given.  In 2015, a negative impression was expressed of the sincerity of the relationship.  Since then, their case has been examined again and again, and so far they have not passed the threshold conditions for entering the gradual proceeding.

2. On January 22, 2024, the Population and Immigration Authority in Eilat (the head of the Eilat bureau's staff, Ms. Maya Elimelech) refused the appellants' request to open a marriage file for the appellants, because the authority was not convinced of the sincerity of the alleged marital relationship. The decision was based on interviews conducted with the appellants, and in particular the most recent interviews conducted for them on January 12, 2023.  The decision stated that although the couple claims to have a long-term relationship, they have not been able to meet the burden of proof of a joint household, joint property, hobbies, vacations and joint entertainment.

The decision pointed to various contradictions in the last interview conducted with the appellants and noted that they answered almost every question asked differently.  Thus, there were contradictions as to the amount of rent they paid for their apartment, the appellant's working hours, an answer to the question of what had changed from the previous interview, what was the last argument between them, what they were talking about, what they liked to do together, who was shopping, who was cooking, what was the last show they watched together, traveling together, why the appellant did not go to visit his family, The existence of a prenuptial agreement, where the appellant customarily cuts her hair, loans that the appellant took.  Contradictions were also found regarding the date of the last meetings with friends and whether they wanted to expand the family.  It was noted that the appellant does not know the name of the appellant's manager, does not know that he receives a disability pension, and does not know the name of the appellant's brother and his wife.  In addition, the couple does not see each other almost daily, except on vacation days.