HCJ 10650/03 Abu Gwella et. al v

The correspondence between Petitioner 6 and the Respondents is attached hereto,
marked P/27, A-E.
57. Even after receiving this information, a pre-High Court petition submitted to the State
Attorney’s Office was necessary to change the status of children who were not
registered with a permanent status. Following the pre-High Court petition, the
Respondents allowed the registration of children, whether born inside or outside of
Israel, as permanent, rather than temporary, residents.
The pre-High Court petition that Petitioner 6 submitted to the State Attorney’s Office
is attached hereto, marked P/28.
58. Following the above-mentioned action, the Respondents undertook to publish a notice
in their office stating that a child whose mother proves center of life in Israel
(regardless of where the child was born), and yet received a temporary status, could
amend the registration. Nevertheless, it was still not possible to assess the effect of
registering many children as temporary, rather than permanent, residents. It is unclear
how many children were registered with a temporary status and did not go to
Petitioner 6’s office, or the Respondents’ office shortly, following the directive, and
thus remained with a temporary status, until it “expired” at the end of the twelvemonth
period, when they found themselves, unknowingly, with no status. These
children will likely not become aware of the fact that they are not residents only when
they turn 16 and go to the Respondent’s office to obtain an identity card.
The Respondents’ policy in 2001
59. Before 2001, the office of Respondent 3 processed requests to register residents’
children born outside of Israel in the same manner as requests to register children born
in the country. In mid-2001, Petitioner 6 again found that the Ministry of the Interior
was granting a status to children where only one of their parents held temporaryresident
status; this time, the child received a status for two years. The undersigned
immediately wrote to Respondent 3, the director of the East Jerusalem office, and to
Ms. Sharon, who had handled the subject the year before. The two of them promised
that they would provide an orderly response on the subject.
The said letter of the undersigned is attached hereto, marked P/29.
60. Following a number of telephone requests to Respondent 3, the undersigned was
finally informed verbally that a new policy had been instituted. Because the new
policy could not be applied to children born in Israel, in that Section 12 of the Entry
into Israel Regulations prohibited it, Respondent 3 ultimately stated, in a telephone
19