Copied from Nevo
- In view of all of the above, the Tribunal ruled that there is no room to intervene in the respondent's determination that the overall picture indicates a concern that this is a relationship whose main purpose is to obtain status for the appellant in Israel, and to assist her family members in the country of origin, who make a living from it.
- On appeal It was argued that the respondent formed a negative and rigid opinion towards the appellant, and that any information transmitted to him is marked in a tendentious and negative manner that does not allow for an honest and genuine examination of the relationship.
With regard to the interviews, it was claimed that they were not conducted in the appellant's native language (Sinhala), but in English, which caused a misunderstanding of some of the questions. It was claimed in the appeal that the appellant suffers from impairments in the ability to understand, analyze, and severe memory problems and lack of concentration. In support of this claim, a cognitive assessment document was presented (dated October 15, 2025).
According to the diagnosis, the appellant has difficulties with attention and concentration, difficulty in understanding instructions for tasks and basic and complex situations, concrete thinking, difficulty in verbal and formal memory, difficulty in orient himself to basic facts, and difficulty in estimating time. He has difficulty understanding abstract issues, poor managerial functions, and poor problem-solving.
The respondent, it was claimed, did not take this into account and interpreted the matter as dishonest. The appellants claim that the contradictions in the interviews are not material and can be explained. The contradictions are secondary and stem from the appellants' limitations.
- The appellants insist on the right to family life. It was argued that the respondent ignores ample evidence that the appellants have been in a long-term marital relationship, for more than a decade, which includes living together and marital life. They presented many documents and evidence, including familiar letters and joint photographs, which the respondent also ignored. It was claimed that the appellant devotedly cared for the appellant for two years, after a serious car accident he suffered in 2019, which caused him severe medical disability and head injury, which indicates love and care. It was argued that the appellants were struggling to live with dignity, were facing difficulties in making a living and were trying to support the appellant's children in Sri Lanka. This state of affairs was exploited by the respondent as proof of the lack of sincerity of the relationship. The appellants are of the opinion that the respondent acted unreasonably and disproportionately.
- In reply The respondent argues that the appeal should be dismissed and that the decision of the Appeals Tribunal is based on law. It was argued that the appellants did not meet the burden of proof required to prove the sincerity of the marital relationship. The respondent argues that the relationship between them is not of a marital nature, but rather for the purpose of realizing various goals, mainly obtaining status for the appellant in Israel and assisting her family members abroad.
0
- It was argued that in the interviews conducted with the appellants, in particular on December 12, 2023, many contradictions and inaccuracies arose on material issues, such as the manner of payment of rent (ILS 4,000 vs. ILS 4,300); the appellant's working hours (fixed versus variable shifts); daily routine; receipt of allowances from the National Insurance Institute; joint vacations; knowing details about relatives; and a desire to have children. It was claimed that similar contradictions were raised in previous interviews, in 2015 and 2018, regarding rent, a joint bank account, living expenses, money sent abroad, health insurance, and previous pregnancies. The Respondent emphasizes that the interviews are a central and effective tool for examining the sincerity of the relationship, and the provision of explanations in retrospect harms this tool.
The respondent considers the appellant's claims of poor cognitive ability as reinforcement of the claim that the relationship is a self-interested relationship, and that the appellant is working to improve the lives of her adult children in Sri Lanka.