Administrative Appeal (Jerusalem) 48297-01-26 Noam Falkowitz v. Population and Immigration Authority

Judgment

1. Appeal against the final decision of the Appeals Tribunal according to The Entry into Israel Law, 5712-1952 (the Honorable Dayan Noa Weinstock-Assis) of December 1, 2025 in Appeal (Jerusalem) 2216-25, in which an appeal filed by the appellants against the respondent's decision of April 7, 2025, which rejected an internal appeal against a decision of December 15, 2024, in which the appellants' request to regularize the status of appellant No. 2 (hereinafter: "the appellant") was rejected in accordance with the procedure for dealing with the granting of status to spouses of Israelis, including members of the same sex - Procedure No. 5.2.0009.
2. In summary, we are dealing with the appellant who is an Israeli citizen born in 1951 and the appellant who is a Filipino citizen. The appellant entered Israel for the first time on June 1, 2000, with a type B/1 license in the nursing industry, a license that was extended from time to time until January 31, 2005.  Since, The license was not renewed, when even earlier, on August 30, 2004, the appellant had abandoned her last legal employer.  Since then, for about twenty years, the appellant has been staying in Israel illegally.

0

3. According to the The appellants, the relationship between them was first established in 2003. Up Next, Become a member of the, And it tightened in 2009.  In 2021, they moved in together.  According to them, since 2021 they have been running a joint household and a full marital relationship based on love, friendship and mutual respect.  Nevertheless, only in March 2024 did the appellant file an application to arrange the appellant's status in accordance with the aforementioned procedure and by virtue of their joint life.  It was only in September of that year that the submission of the required documents was completed, and at the end of that month, the appellants were interviewed to examine the sincerity of the marital relationship.  The respondent, who had doubts about the veracity of the alleged marital relationship, refused the request.  An internal appeal that was filed was rejected as aforesaid, as was the appeal submitted to the Tribunal.  Hence the appeal.
4. After reviewing the pleadings and hearing the arguments of the parties in the hearing of April 30, 2026, I have reached the conclusion that there is no reason to reject the factual findings set out in the final decision of the Tribunal; that these findings support the legal conclusion reached by the court; And there was no mistake in the law.
5. The final decision of the tribunal is comprehensive and exhaustive, detailed and well-reasoned, and provides a response to each and every one of the appellants' arguments.
6. In addition, in the decision even A response was provided to all of the appellants' arguments regarding the defects that occurred in their opinion in the interview that took place with the appellant. This includes the termination of the translation that was done with consent, and the fact that the interview was conducted in the language spoken by the appellant.
7. Thus, the court noted the totality of the contradictions in the appellant's version per se, and in its version vis-à-vis the appellant's version, contradictions in substantive matters, When the claims regarding the interview do not explain the many contradictions in material matters that touch the heart of the alleged marital relationship, contradictions, that the information about which identical versions were provided (which does not necessarily indicate a marital relationship) does not negate them. Inter alia, the appellant gave a number of answers to the date of the beginning of the marital relationship ("We have been living together since three years ago", "I have been living with him since 2.5 years ago in 2022", 2020 I left in French Hill and moved in with Noam, "S.  So you don't know when you moved in with Noam? A.  I don't know.  I think 11.2021").  The appellant, for his part, claimed in the interview that she moved in with him in March 2022.  In addition, the appellant stated that she would come to visit the appellant at his home three times a week and he would also come to her home three times a week, so that in total they would see each other at their homes six times a week.  The appellant, on the other hand, denied that the appellant had come to his home and claimed that he was the only one who would come to her home three times a week.  At the same time, he refused to say what address she lived.  In addition, despite the continuous contact between them for years and despite the fact that she said she used to come to the appellant's home frequently, she did not know how to say exactly when he purchased this apartment.

The Ottoman Settlement [Old Version] 19168.      Thus, the Tribunal noted a series of indications that give rise to real doubt as to the sincerity of the relationship between the parties.  Among other things, Emphasis was placed on the content of a "prenuptial relationship agreement between common-law spouses", the language and nature of which make it very difficult to reconcile with an authentic marital relationship.  Thus, for example, we will do Use of expressions of a distinctly commercial-contractual nature, such as "benefits package" and "adjustment fee", which are incompatible, on the face of it, with the intimate relationship that characterizes a couple.  It was further determined that the explanation given, according to which the appellant has the means and while the appellant is in a tight economic situation, it is inconsistent with what is stated in the agreement itself.  This is in view of the fact that in the framework of the agreement it was stated that the appellant owns rights to a house and agricultural properties on a significant scale in the Philippines, which were inherited from her late husband.  In these circumstances, A material inconsistency is discovered between the alleged factual basis and the documents presented, in a manner that strengthens the doubt as to the sincerity of the relationship.