It should be noted that this apparently stems from the proximity of the time between the submission of the documents to the Bureau and the date of the decision - only 6 days."
- The Authority further informed the Tribunal (later in paragraph 8) that: "The Respondent is ready, beyond the letter of the law, to return the appellants' case for re-examination so that the full factual basis will be available to the professional bodies before a decision is made on the application", with the possibility of submitting updated documents again. In light of the aforesaid, in the framework of the appeal filed against the decisions to reject the humanitarian application, on January 24, 2021, a judgment was given effect for a procedural arrangement reached by the parties, according to which the case of the appellants there (the appellants in the proceeding before me) will be re-examined, so that the professional bodies will have a full factual basis before making a decision on the humanitarian request. This arrangement was reached after the Authority admitted, as noted, that the head of the desk that rejected the internal appeal on the matter was not aware of the recent documents of the psychologist and the Ministry of Education's committee, which determined that the children suffered from various problems. As part of the arrangement, it was agreed that the appellants would be entitled to submit up-to-date documents in support of their claims, and that the humanitarian request and the up-to-date documents that would be submitted would then be forwarded to the head of the desk for examination (a copy of the authority's notice and the tribunal's decision were attached to the appellants' notice of July 14, 2022). This is the Authority's second undertaking to examine the best interests of the children that was given in the framework of the proceedings in the humanitarian application.
- And to return to the proceeding before me - contrary to the court's decision in this proceeding of October 29, 2020, and nearly a year after the same decision was given, on July 22, 2021, when the appellant appeared at the Authority's office in Beit Dagan (as part of the conditions of her release), the border control officer served her with a summons to a hearing scheduled for August 3, 2021. As may be recalled, in the decision of October 29, 2020, which was given with the consent of the Authority, it was determined that if an additional interview is conducted, the summons to which the summons will be given to the Appellant's attorney, and not to the Appellant herself. It was further determined that a summons for such an interview would be given at least 14 days before the scheduled date of the interview, and that the appellant would be entitled to be represented. Contrary to the aforesaid, the appellant was served with a summons for a hearing to be held 12 days later. The Authority clerk, according to the appellants, added that if the appellant did not appear for the hearing on that date, she would be deported (even though there is a temporary relief in this proceeding that prevents removal proceedings until the end of the proceeding). The appellant called her counsel on the same occasion, and the authority clerk confirmed by telephone to her counsel that a hearing had indeed been scheduled for August 3, 2021, without providing any details about the place and manner of the hearing. Counsel for the appellants clarified to the authority clerk that this was contrary to the court's decision, but he insisted on the obligation to appear for the hearing (the summons to the hearing that was given to the appellant was attached as Appendix 2 to the appellants' request to cancel the hearing of August 1, 2021). Counsel for the appellants contacted the Authority in a letter dated July 27, 2021, and asked the Authority to act in accordance with the court's decision, and to provide the appellants' counsel with a summons to the hearing at least 14 days prior to the scheduled date. A messenger on behalf of the appellants' counsel tried to deliver the letter at the authority's offices and was refused, while he was told that the documents could be submitted by email. The letter was sent again by email on July 28, 2021 (the letter was attached to the request of the appellants' counsel of August 1, 2021 to cancel the hearing). A copy of the letter was sent both to the Authority's legal department and to the attorney handling the proceeding who appeared in the hearing before me.
- In the absence of a response (except for notice that the letter was received and forwarded for processing), on August 1, 2021, counsel for the appellants filed a motion with the court to order the cancellation of the hearing, the manner and place of which were not specified, and to instruct the Authority to comply with the court's decisions in this matter. Since the application was filed during the summer recess, it was transferred for hearing before the Honorable Judge Abigail Cohen, who was a Torah judge at the time. The Honorable Justice Cohen instructed the Authority to respond to the request by August 2, 2021 at 12:00 p.m. On August 2, 2021, the Authority issued a laconic notice, stating: "The hearing scheduled for the appellants on August 3, 2021 will be postponed to a later date. When a new date for the hearing is set, the respondents will notify the appellants' attorney 14 days after the date to be set."
- At this stage, the Authority took other proceedings in order to burden the Appellant. I will detail these matters, which were conducted in the framework of this appeal, both for the sake of the completeness of the picture, and because according to the appellants, this has an impact on the outcome of the appeal, in light of "the abusive conduct of the Authority vis-à-vis the appellants", as they put it. On September 14, 2021, the Applicant, accompanied by an attorney, appeared for a hearing before the Border Control Officer, as part of the conditions of her release. On that date, the appellant was given an oral notice, according to which her and her children's humanitarian application had been closed. In addition, the Commissioner decided that since the appellant had appeared at the authority's office in Beit Dagan once every two weeks for the purpose of renewing her temporary license, as stipulated in the conditions of release that were agreed upon at the time between the parties, she must report twice a week, on Tuesdays and Thursdays. The reason for the decision was: "a long period of criminal silence with the law authorities in Israel, and in particular the Population and Immigration Authority, as well as a great concern that it will settle in Israel" (the decision was attached to the motion to cancel the decision of November 2, 2021). The appellant's counsel applied to the court on November 2, 2021, and requested that this decision be annulled, arguing that it was unreasonable and was intended only to abuse and make it difficult for the appellant. Counsel for the appellants noted in the application that the appellant cooperated fully with the authorities, including through her counsel, and that no other claim was ever made by the authority. He further argued that the appellant was not required to leave Israel at that time, and that she did indeed apply for status, a matter that was discussed in the framework of the humanitarian proceeding.
- In my decision of November 3, 2021, I held as follows:
"In the hearing on October 29, 2020, the essence of the postponement was to examine the children's situation in depth before making a final decision in their case without making any significant changes. Therefore, it was also determined that the respondent must give advance notice of each proceeding...