Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for allowing me to raise this issue on the Adjournment. It relates to an unaccompanied minor who arrived in the State from Angola some years ago in need of care and attention and has been reporting to the Garda National Immigration Bureau on a regular basis. This person is highly respected and unassuming and is of good character and behaviour. He has been well received by the local community and has never been in any trouble. For some reason, however, he has received a double alert in recent days, which indicates that something is happening.

This person was not granted refugee status. Despite numerous parliamentary questions to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, his case has not been re-examined. There is a substantial threat to his well-being in the event of him being deported. Until his arrival in Ireland, his life was spent in the shadow of war, threat, intimidation and danger. His behaviour while living here has been exemplary and his case is supported by the Dún Laoghaire relief project and by the people in his local community in Francis Street. He has great respect for the laws and institutions of the State.

He is one of a number of young people who arrived here as minors and are now adults. They know more about this country and have more friends here than in the countries in which they were born. They were, with good reason, allowed to remain here for several years. The assumption is that there is no danger or threat to them in returning to their home countries, but I do not accept that. A considerable threat remains to this person and the approximately 200 others in the same category. They have been allowed to remain here but their status has not been reviewed. They have not been allowed to work although they are quite willing to work. They have been educated here and were highly respected and given recognition by their teachers. I urge the Minister to take a compassionate and humanitarian approach and recognise the problem in respect of a specific group of young people, of whom this gentleman is one. He should address the issue, review this case and the others and offer an amnesty.

We have, rightly, campaigned for the legalisation of the undocumented Irish in the United States. The circumstances are vastly different, but as a wealthy country we should be conscious of the issues and compassionate in our dealings with people in this category.

Michael Ahern (Cork East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

On behalf of the Tánaiste, I will reply to Deputy Durkan. The Tánaiste has no intention to grant any amnesty to asylum seekers currently in the asylum determination process. Such a move would impact negatively on the very considerable progress made in terms of the reduction in asylum applications on hand, on processing timescales and on the State's ability to accommodate the individuals concerned. Moreover, it would also act as a pull factor by increasing applications being made in the State. The Deputy will be aware that the present trend in applications for asylum is substantially downward from a high of nearly 12,000 in 2002 to some 4,300 in 2006, a fall of almost 64%.

By way of illustration of pull factors, the Tánaiste would refer the Deputy to the fact that a considerable increase in asylum numbers was experienced in the aftermath of the July 1999 decision to allow asylum seekers access to the labour market. This led to a three-fold increase in the average number of applications per month, rising to 1,217 applications in December 1999 as compared to an average of 364 per month for the period January to July 1999.

With regard to what follows the asylum determination process, the Deputy will be aware that following the making of a negative recommendation to the Minister by the independent office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner, or by the Refugee Appeals Tribunal if an appeal was unsuccessfully made, the person concerned is informed in writing that it is proposed to make a deportation order in respect of him or her. The person concerned is then afforded three options vis-À-vis his or her position in the State, in accordance with section 3(3)(b)(ii) of the Immigration Act 1999, namely, to leave the State voluntarily; to consent to the making of a deportation order; or to submit, within 15 working days, written representations setting out the reasons he or she should not be deported, namely, why he or she should be allowed to remain temporarily in the State. The enforcement of any deportation order is an operational matter for the Garda National Immigration Bureau.

There is in place, between the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the International Organisation for Migration, IOM, a memorandum of understanding regarding voluntary return. The persons dealt with under these arrangements are those who wish to return permanently to their countries, but who do not have the means and-or travel documentation to do so. This programme has recently been extended to cover persons aged between 18 and 20 years who entered the asylum process as children.

Furthermore, in determining whether to make a deportation order or to grant temporary leave to remain in the State to a failed asylum applicant, the Tánaiste must have regard for the eleven factors set out in section 3(6) of the Immigration Act 1999, including consideration of any representations submitted by or on behalf of the person concerned in support of his or her application to be granted temporary leave to remain in the State. The Tánaiste must also have regard for the provisions of section 5 of the Refugee Act 1996 on the prohibition of refoulement before signing a deportation order. This means in essence that the safety of returning a person to their country of origin, or refoulement as it is commonly referred to, is fully considered in every case when deciding whether to make a deportation order. Refoulement means that a person shall not be expelled from the State or returned in any manner whatsoever to a state where, in the Tánaiste's opinion, the life or freedom of that person would be threatened on account of his or her race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. The Tánaiste's Department uses extensive country of origin information, drawn from different independent sources, including the United Nations High Commission for Refugees, in evaluating in each case the safety of making returns to third countries.

Overall, the Tánaiste is satisfied that asylum applications and applications made by rejected asylum applicants for temporary leave to remain in the State are processed in a case specific and comprehensive way and he sees no justification for the granting of any amnesty in this area.

With regard to the case in question, the person referred to by the Deputy arrived in the State on 22 October 2001 as an unaccompanied minor and applied for asylum. I am constrained by law from making public the exact details of the asylum claim. The important point to note is that his claim was assessed by the two independent bodies, the office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner and, on appeal, by the Refugee Appeals Tribunal, both of which recommended that he did not qualify for refugee status under the 1996 Refugee Act.

I understand the Tánaiste has directed his officials to look again at the circumstances surrounding the proposed deportation of the individual concerned. It should be noted, however, that the person's credibility was called into question by the office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner and the Refugee Appeals Tribunal. His evidence as to his departure, travel arrangements and arrival in this jurisdiction were found to be without credibility. He has not provided any documentation as evidence of his identity. I should also add that he was stopped by UK immigration at Holyhead in 2002 travelling into the UK from Ireland on a false Portuguese passport. He pleaded guilty to an offence under section 9(4)(a) of the Refugee Act 1996 and his case was dealt with under section 1(1) of the Probation Act.

On 25 June 2003, the person concerned was informed by letter that the Minister proposed to make a deportation order in respect of him and he was afforded three options in accordance with section 3(3)(b)(ii) of the Immigration Act 1999.

His case was examined under section 3(6) of the Immigration Act 1999, as amended, and section 5 of the Refugee Act 1996 on the prohibition of refoulement. Consideration was given to representations received on his behalf from the refugee legal service for temporary leave to remain in the State. On 3 August 2004, the Minister refused temporary leave to remain and signed a deportation order in respect of him. Notice of this order was served by registered post requiring him to present himself to the Garda National Immigration Bureau, 13/14 Burgh Quay, Dublin 2, on 27 January 2005 in order to make travel arrangements for his deportation from the State.

The person concerned presented as required and has continued to comply with his reporting requirements. He is due to present again on Friday, 23 March 2007 at noon. He is awaiting deportation following a comprehensive examination of his asylum claim and of his application to remain temporarily in the State.