The decision determined that the appellant was trying to direct her answers to appease and promote the idea that it was a relationship, but in practice most of her time was devoted to illegal work for the benefit of her family's economic advancement in Sri Lanka. The appellant, whose long-term care visa expired in 2014, was required to leave Israel immediately.
- In the internal appeal filed by the appellants, it was claimed that the authority ignored the fact that the couple had purchased a joint property in Sri Lanka, from the couple's joint funds. The authority also ignored many documents and evidence, including letters from acquaintances and shared photos from friendship events. It was argued that the appellant did not understand all the questions and that the appellant has poor cognitive ability, has difficulty concentrating and suffers from severe memory problems, but this does not cast aspersions on the sincerity of the relationship. In the appeal, explanations were given for the answers given in the interviews, and it was argued that these were not contradictions, but rather differences in the way they understood the questions and the way they described events and experiences, for example, regarding fights, gifts, shopping, cooking, and traveling. In the appeal it was explained that the appellants chose to live together, they are struggling for their economic survival and are also trying to support the appellant's family in Sri Lanka, there is no reason to punish them for this and deprive them of the right to live together.
- In the decision in the internal appeal, dated March 21, 2024, by the Director of the Population Authority Eilat, Ms. Tali Carmeli, it was determined once again that many material contradictions were found in almost every question asked by the appellants in interviews on January 12, 2023, and hence the conclusion regarding the lack of knowledge of basic details in daily life, despite the claim of an honest and long-standing relationship, while the relationship was intended to promote the personal interests of each of the appellants.
According to the decision, letters of recommendation were indeed submitted (in 2021) from the appellant's sister, the appellant's employer and two other letters, as well as joint photos from seven events. Documents were also submitted regarding the purchase of a property in Sri Lanka, but it was determined that this was a translation without original documents, and therefore the claim was redundant. Regarding all the documents, it was determined that these were unofficial and old documents, and therefore not relevant to the application. It was explained that MountYayun is the main tool for examining the sincerity of the relationship, and one should not accept the "excuses" presented in the appeal in an attempt to justify the contradictions. It was determined that the appellants lead a parallel life, in order to promote the personal interests of each of them. It was held that since the appellant arrived in Israel, she has been devoting all her time and lectures to work, hours and hours, even though it is work without a license, and despite the fact that this comes at the expense of the couple's time with her husband while he is at home. The couple does not have joint property, vacations, or recreations, trips, or visits to the family together, and there is no basic knowledge of each other's hobbies. Finally, it was held that the claim that the appellant has poor cognitive ability strengthens the Authority's position that the appellant, who is many years older than the appellant, is acting by all means to improve the lives of her adult children abroad and not to promote and invest her strength and energy in the present and future marital life with her spouse in Israel.