The appellants said that in the little free time, they go out to the jumbo, to the shopping, to the mall, to the promenade, to eat shawarma together or to a restaurant. Both of them said that the appellant likes to buy clothes and sometimes they buy clothing for the appellant together.
The two appellants said that the appellant sends her family $300 every month, and sometimes more.
Both of them said that since 2021, the appellant's grandmother, mother and brother have passed away. Both of them spoke of the pain and difficulty of the fact that the appellant could not leave the country.
Both of them said that the appellant was angry with the appellant because of household matters, since she liked that everything was in a clean and tidy house, while the appellant was "shanti bunty" as he put it.
Both of them stated that they have a house in Sri Lanka that is jointly owned by the appellant's family members. They also stated that the appellant has an account with Discount Bank and the appellant does not have a bank account.
Both of them spoke of a cough and a cold that the appellant had a few months before the interview, for which he went to a doctor at the Clalit health fund. Both of them spoke about the appellant suffering from diabetes and taking pills.
Both said they were paying rent to Reuven from a dolphin baguette.
Both described their (limited) social relations - several friends of the appellant from her country of origin (e.g., Ganga) and friends of the appellant from his place of work. Each of them gave explanations for the fact that they were less likely to travel, entertain and visit family.
The ISA is turning the spotlight on the discrepancies in the answers in the interviews. However, a reading of the interviews indicates a great deal of overlap in the appellants' answers, and the picture that emerges from them regarding the appellants' lifestyle is very similar.
- Indeed, there are certain discrepancies in the answers given by the appellants on several issues, as detailed in the decision of the Population Bureau in Eilat. These discrepancies were given in the notice of appeal and in the appeal satisfactory explanations. The differences in the answers are rooted, it was explained, in language and cultural differences, in the cognitive difficulties of the appellant, in the way the questions are understood, and in the perspective and subjective interpretation of each person's experiences and events. I am not persuaded, by the respondent's reply, that these explanations should be rejected casually. I will add that The ISA did not explain how the contradictions and discrepancies negate the sincerity of the relationship.
In any event, these are inconsistencies that are not material, do not touch on the root of the matter, and do not detract from the general picture of a joint life that the appellants have been leading for many years, under one roof, while managing a joint household and an economic partnership. When examining the evidentiary basis as a whole, the weight of the contradictions is less than the weight of the evidence supporting the sincerity of the relationship.
- In my opinion, Even if the appellant has external motivations related to providing support to her family members in Sri Lanka, this does not negate the sincerity of the relationship. Often, people have different motivations in relationships. For the purpose of examining the sincerity of the relationship, the center of gravity is not in motives, but in the question of whether there is an actual marital relationship Or is the marriage only "on paper". The motives and motivations are not the concern of the Authority, as long as it is not a marriage of appearances, which have nothing behind them.
In the present case, the evidentiary basis indicates that the appellants indeed have such a connection. It should be noted that the respondent did not indicate a "negative" motive or motivation on the part of the appellant to marry the appellant. As is well known, the naturalization arrangement of a foreign spouse by virtue of marriage stems from the rights of the Israeli spouse and is intended to ensure the Israeli spouse's right to family life. The appellant chose to maintain a family life with the appellant. It was not argued that this was an insincere choice from his point of view. The authority must respect this choice, which led to a real and prolonged joint life with the appellant. Even if one finds it difficult to accept this choice and it is difficult to place it in a "classic" relationship pattern, there is no basis to cast aspersions on its sincerity. The appellant's choice must be treated openly, sensitively and carefully, so that his rights are not violated, even if he acted in a manner that deviates from the norm and the model of relationship that the respondent equates with his eyes.
- Indeed, The appellants have no hobbies, vacations and shared pastimes, except for going to the mall, shopping, walking on the promenade and spending time in a restaurant. Their leisure time together is few. Their social and family ties are also not numerous. But their way of life, which seems to stem from a series of factors and constraints, does not negate the sincerity of the relationship.
- I will add that in the unique circumstances of the case at hand, all the weight of the decision should not be placed on the interviews conducted for the appellants, interviews conducted under pressure and excitement, when the interview decides their fate for the tribe or chesed. There was room to refer to additional evidence and indications of cohabitation, including photographs and affidavits of people who knew the appellants and were willing to testify about the relationship between them. During the lengthy proceedings before the Authority, the appellants presented photographs from social events, letters from the respondent's sister, their employers and several friends.
Even if these are not official documents, they are eligible to fall within the scope of the administrative evidentiary infrastructure before the authority. This is all the more so given the appellant's cognitive difficulties. The appellant's weaknesses should not stand in his way and violate his right to family life, even if it is not family life in the accepted classical format. An administrative decision that violates the rights of the individual must be based on a solid factual basis that is appropriate to the circumstances of the case.
- In light of all of the above, the appeal should be granted, the decision of January 22, 2024 should be annulled, and it should be determined that the appellants meet the condition regarding the sincerity of the relationship and their request to open a marriage file should be granted.
The gradual process in their case will continue, as is customary, to examine the other conditions set out in the naturalization procedure for married couples. It is clarified that no further examination of the sincerity of the relationship will be conducted, unless there is a material change in circumstances (such as the separation of the spouses).