HCJ 10650/03 Abu Gwella et. al v

Examples of the correspondence on the subject between Petitioner 6 and Respondent 3
and the Legal Department of the Respondents are attached as Appendix P/20, above.
65. However, although the wording of the government’s decision does not mention that it
applies to residents’ minor children, the Respondents did not inform the public of their
decision. The Respondents operate a Website that is supposed to publish the
procedures instituted pursuant to their powers and functions. The Website, too,
contained no information on how to arrange the status of children in the situation of
the children who are the subject of this petition, or about the government’s decision on
this subject.
The Respondents’ policy in 2003
66. As in other years, this year, too, changes in the Respondents’ policy on arranging the
status of children were detected.
67. The most significant change, about which we shall expand below, is the adoption into
law of the government’s decision also as regards arranging the status of residents’
children.
An exception that did not appear in the government’s decision was added to the
statute, whereby the minister or the regional commander may grant a permit to reside
in Israel to prevent the separation of a child under age 12 from his resident parent.
The statute’s language is clear: a child over age 12 is not entitled, by law, to have
discretion exercised on whether to grant him a status in Israel, the country in which he
lives together with his parent, a permanent resident of the state.
68. As regards children under 12 who were born outside of Israel, who may be granted a
status pursuant to the statute, it appears that the Respondents changed the procedures
for considering the request. They decided to institute a graduated test period of 5 /4
years that commences upon initial approval of the request. The arrangement is
prolonged, expensive, and exhausting, and has been used only for requests for
residency status on behalf of the spouse, which has always been referred to as a
“request for family unification,” to distinguish them from a “request for child
registration.” Furthermore, it is clear that the Respondents will not grant permanentresident
status to children over 12 years old; thus, at best, only children up to age six
can benefit from the arrangement.
The Respondents’ new policy was never published, and no public announcement was
made. Petitioner 6 learned of it in the course of its handling of the petition currently
21