Published for publicity
Israel is considering the application on granting the status according to a number of laws and clearly defined directives. But it is not provided; the daily, the Ministry of interior («misrad») received requests for citizenship or a residence permit, which under certain criteria not covered.
As a rule, in these cases the claimants get from the interior Ministry unequivocal rejection for the phrase: «legal grounds for request not found». Thus, the Ministry of internal Affairs denies the majority of applicants whose applications do not strictly correspond to the conditions spelled out in the law or regulations.
But failure is not a reason for despair. At the interior there is a special interdepartmental Commission on humanitarian issues, which was formed to consider the special cases not falling under the General rules. The Commission includes representatives of several ministries and departments: Ministry of foreign Affairs, Ministry of health, Ministry of social security, national insurance Institute, the Israel police and the liaison office «Nativ».
The interdepartmental Commission is expected to examine carefully the complaints of the granting of status in Israel from the point of view of their humanitarian component, and in appropriate cases to satisfy the request.
But according to the relevant Directive before the statement will be submitted for consideration to the interdepartmental Commission, the case is sent to the responsible official of the interior Ministry, which has the right to refuse to consider and transfer the request to the Commission.
In fact, a huge number of petitions in General does not come to the interdepartmental Commission. The sad statistics shows that officials are too famously refused to consider the requests, «threshold», not even really finding it difficult to substantiate such a cruel decision.
In the past, the courts tried to intervene in the work of the officials of the Ministry of interior in the transfer of applications to the humanitarian Committee. Thus, the vast majority of petitions declared to the court against decisions of the interior Ministry, failed miserably.
But the fact of Avery Acebrock heard by the Supreme court in March 2015, punched a hole in the old concept of laissez-faire. Judge Professor Daphne Barak-Erez, famous for his scientific works on human rights and unacceptable arbitrariness of the Executive power, issued a decision fundamentally changing the idea of the powers of the officials of the Ministry of internal Affairs and the limits of bureaucratic arbitrariness. Judges Miriam Naor and Zvi Silbertal agreed with the Barak-Erez.
The decision noted that officials of the interior Ministry too eager to weed out the petitions, filed with the Commission on humanitarian issues. Thus, fair treatment often do not pass even the preliminary stage of consideration. Justice Barak-Erez decided the concept of the Ministry of internal Affairs is unacceptable and contrary to the principles of administrative law.
The interior Ministry, noted Barak-Erez, is obliged to change the approach, allowing the professional fee to see the large number of calls, trusting it to the Commission the bulk of the work for consideration of the applications.
The requirement of the MIA to the Complainant of the provision is obvious compelling evidence in the context of petitions on humanitarian grounds – is unacceptable, said Professor Barak-Erez. In this context, it is sufficient to provide only initial evidence for the fact that the statement was sent to the Commission, which in turn will take a decision on the merits.
The Supreme court reminded the Executive power that the work of the official of the interior Ministry does not replace the functions of a professional Committee which was formed and is intended for consideration by the deliberately difficult and unusual situations.
In another famous case, the Supreme court chastised not only the officials of the Ministry of internal Affairs, and humanitarian Affairs Commission. In the Canons of the Nava, etc. (11.7.13) the judges Edna Arbel and Hanan Meltzer have condemned the principle of consideration of applications traditionally used by the Commission.
The court considered that the Commission for humanitarian Affairs too often forgets its main purpose – the consideration of special cases from a humanitarian point of view, which, as a rule, are not subject to existing regulations and criteria.
«The impression is made, – noted in the decision, that in the study of petitions, the Commission gives too much weight to the existing rules and directives, while the humanitarian Affairs Commission exists to consider claims in a certain frame does not fit».
Many applicants mistakenly accept the decision of the Ministry of interior for the sentence, taking for granted all that compose the official. Experience shows that unfair and unreasonable decisions at times are cancelled in a judicial order. To successfully fight bureaucratic arbitrariness is possible only with the help of lawyer, which naturally incurs costs. But when at stake is the question of the imminent deportation, it is best to use chances to seek professional help.
The author of the article: lawyer Arthur Blaer
Herzliya, street Belinson 1 (2nd floor)
Official website of attorney Arthur Blair