M. and his wife are foreign nationals working in the field of humanitarian assistance, M’s appeal for a tourist visa (B/2 visa) for visiting his wife, was denied by the Israeli Ministry of Interior.
In August 2014, when M.’s wife was holding a temporary position in a humanitarian organization in the West Bank, M. reached the Allenby Bridge and requested entry to visit his wife. To his great surprise, his entry was denied. At the time, M. was working in Afghanistan for the same humanitarian organization as his wife. The Population and Immigration Authority officials at the border accused him of trying to work for his organization in Israel without a visa. M. presented proof of his return ticket and explained that he had to return for his son’s wedding, but Israel insisted that he was misrepresenting the purpose of his visit and denied his entry.
Several months later, M.’s wife was appointed to a permanent position in her organization and tried to obtain permission for her husband to receive a tourist visa (B/2 visa) so that he could live with her in accordance with the Ministry of Interior’s “Policy on Handling Entry of International Humanitarian NGO Workers into Israel.” M.’s wife met the requirements of the Ministry of Interior’s policy and received the mandatory recommendation from the Ministry of Social Affairs and Social Services (“MOLSA”) to work in Israel with a B/1 visa and to receive a tourist visa on behalf of her husband.
After numerous failed attempts to clarify the status of M.’s application, the couple contacted BBH Law. From inquiries conducted by our lawyers, we learned that M.’s application to live alongside his wife was denied on the grounds of “suspicion of establishing permanent residence in Israel”.
Our attorneys rushed to appeal the denial, arguing that the decision had no basis in fact: all of M.’s ties – family and otherwise – were in his home country. Save for his wife, M. had no ties to Israel. We also argued that the couple had no intention to immigrate to Israel. They were in the winter of their careers, preparing for retirement. The couple are homeowners, and after the end of M.’s wife’s contract with her NGO, the couple planned to return to their home.
Lastly, we argued that at the time of the appeal, the couple had already been living in forced separation by the Ministry of Interior for a year and a half. The separation created grave hardship and severely damaged their family life.
As a result of our appeal, the Ministry of Interior decided to nullify its decision and grant M. a tourist visa.