12-34-56-78 Chekhov v. State of Israel, P.D. 51 (2)
- Thus, consideration was also given to the rest of the evidence presented to the Authority and the Tribunal, including letters from family members and friends, which were intended to support the claim of a marital relationship between the appellants. However, it turned out that All the letters were written in the appellant's own handwriting. Although the appellant claimed that he had written down the words of those writers, a perusal of the letters shows that not only is the handwriting uniform, but also the style of wording and the language of the words are similar to a degree that raises real difficulty in relating them to different writers. In these circumstances, and given that this is evidence intended to establish a material claim regarding the sincerity of the relationship, A claim that in any case faces considerable evidentiary difficulties, inter alia, in view of the fact that the appellant was in Israel illegally for a long time, with the appellant's knowledge, and even during the period when they claimed that they already had a marital relationship, It was expected that the appellants would submit authentic documents, and not those in which the appellant was substantially involved. It should also be clarified that it is not the Authority's role to turn on its own initiative to those parties who appear to be the signatories of the letters, in order to clarify the extent of the Their authenticity; The burden of proving the credibility of the evidence and its content lies with the appellants.
Copied from Nevo10. Since there was no error in the law in the final decision of the court, there is no There is room to reject his factual findings, which support his conclusion that there is no reason to intervene in the Respondent's decision, the appeal should be dismissed Accordingly Regulation 148(b) of the Civil Procedure Regulations, 5778-2019, commenced in his case in accordance with the Regulation 28(a) Courts Regulations For Administrative Matters (Procedures), 2000-2001.
- Alongside all of the above, I cannot accept, Even if only slightly, The argument that the serious fact of which was the appellant's illegal and prolonged practice in Israel, lasting nearly two decades. This is a substantial and decisive statistic, which directly affects the evidentiary burden placed on the applicants for status to prove the sincerity of the marital relationship. As determined, in such circumstances, this is a heavier than usual burden, and even particularly heavy when it comes to a claim of a common-law relationship, As opposed to married couples, This is in light of the increased concern that the process will be abused in order to settle in Israel or obtain status in Israel (Appeal Petition/Administrative Claim 4614/05 State of Israel v. Oren, IsrSC 61(1) 211 (2006)). This severity is even more intense where the Israeli spouse was aware, over time, of the foreign spouse's illegal stay, and even after they claimed that a marital relationship had formed between them that justified applying for legal status, they refrained from approaching the competent authority with a request to initiate a lawful proceeding. Such conduct is not merely a mere omission, but it constitutes a fundamental defect of lack of cleanliness, which in itself may justify the rejection of the application.
- In our case, the factual picture shows that the appellants blatantly and continuously ignored the appellant's illegal stay. Thus, the appellant did not even hesitate to express, in the course of an interview, a position that showed blatant contempt for immigration law, when he answered a question regarding the legality of the appellant's: "I am trying to think that she is legal in Abu Abu... You think it's illegal. It's legal." This statement is unambiguous, and it reflects an attitude of conscious disregard and disregard for the provisions of the law. This contempt was further and even more severe in their continued conduct in the framework of the present proceeding. In the decision of January 18, 2026, which was given in their request for interim relief, the validity of the interim order was conditional on the deposit of ILS 5,000 until January 25, 2026, while expressly determining that failure to deposit the sum would lead to the expiration of the order spontaneously. Despite this, the sum was not deposited, and therefore the order expired, and the appellant continues to reside in Israel illegally, In blatant violation of a judicial decision.
- This cumulative conduct not only strengthens the conclusion of the Respondent and the Tribunal regarding the lack of sincerity of the relationship, but it constitutes, in and of itself, a clear lack of cleanliness, which justifies the dismissal of the appeal out of hand. Although, as mentioned, Even on the merits of the matter, no flaw was found in the final decision of the tribunal that justifies intervention, and therefore the appeal should be dismissed.
The appellants will bear the respondent's expenses in the sum of ILS 7,500.