Seanad debates

Thursday, 26 April 2007

Adjournment Matters

Citizenship Applications.

4:00 pm

Photo of David NorrisDavid Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This is a serious matter and I am glad that the Minister of State who heard my opinions on the Criminal Justice Bill is here because I made the point that this is all of a piece with the situation wherein a citizen of this country, presumed innocent, can be brought before a court and, effectively, jailed for seven days on the word of a garda who is immune from cross-examination and does not have to reveal his or her reasons.

I am involved in a case concerning a young man who is here in the House. I wish the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, were here so I could point out that this is the person of whom he has such an extraordinary and irrational fear. The man is a friend of mine and my partner, Tevfik. My attention was brought to the fact that a difficulty had ensued when he applied for naturalisation. If the Minister's response is not completely favourable, I propose to pursue this matter through the courts because an extraordinarily dangerous precedent has been set.

The young man in question is a respectable professional from Algeria in north Africa. He is an architect by profession and his brother, his brother's wife and her family live here. Having been accepted as an asylum seeker, he has been legitimately in the country as a refugee for a considerable number of years. After the statutory period of years elapsed, he applied for naturalisation and a decision was made by an assistant principal in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform to refuse the application. In the documentation sent to him he was informed he could appeal the decision and when considering making a re-application he should "give due regard to the reasons for refusal given in the attached submission". The document was signed by Joan Brown from the citizenship section. In other words, he could appeal the decision but ought to include the reasons for the refusal. Naturally, he requested details of the reasons for the refusal but, astonishingly, his request was refused. He pursued the matter under the Freedom of Information Act and was again refused.

I wonder what country we are living in. This is Kafkaesque. If a person who is a resident of the country is such a danger, why was it considered appropriate that he be given refugee status? I have pursued the cavalier refusal to grant his application as much as I could and was more or less warned off the case. It was indicated to me that I did not want to know but I do want to know, as does the gentleman in question. I have asked him at every stage of this process whether there is any matter, including of a criminal nature, in his background of which he is ashamed or if he has any links to so-called Islamic terrorist groups. He has assured me again and again that this is not the case. His only crime that I can determine is that he is from a Muslim background. He has told me he wants to know of what he is accused in order that he can defend his good name and reputation. I wonder what has been put into the system and what is the reason for the refusal of the citizenship application.

This case is reminiscent of a series of other cases dating back to the Dreyfus case and constitutes a clear breach of natural justice. I assume there has been a mistake but it is not one for which the gentleman in question should pay. If the Minister can produce a scrap of evidence, I demand he place it before the House. My informant, the person in question, has indicated to me that he is happy to answer any questions. Let us get to the bottom of this case and ascertain what black mark there is against him. Let us see if he can explain it because I believe he can. If he cannot do so, that is a different matter.

I believe a serious, fundamental matter of human rights is once again being broached today. I seriously distrust the professionalism of those engaged in the relevant section of the Department. I receive complaint after complaint about it and it is simply not good enough. I await with interest the Minister of State's response. I shall, with my informant's consent and encouragement, take this matter further if it is not satisfactorily resolved today.

Tim O'Malley (Limerick East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956, as amended, provides that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform may, in his or her absolute discretion, grant an application for a certificate of naturalisation provided certain statutory conditions are fulfilled. These conditions are that the applicant must be of full age, or by way of exception, be a minor born in the State; be of good character; have had a period of one year's continuous residency in the State immediately before the date of the application and, during the eight years immediately preceding that period, have had a total residence in the State amounting to four years; intend in good faith to continue to reside in the State after naturalisation; and have made a declaration in the prescribed manner of fidelity to the nation and loyalty to the State either before a judge of the District Court in open court or in such a manner as the Minister, for special reasons, allows.

In the context of naturalisation, certain periods of residence in the State are excluded. These include periods of residence in respect of which an applicant does not have permission to remain in the State, periods granted for the purposes of study and periods granted for the purposes of seeking recognition as a refugee within the meaning of the Refugee Act 1996.

The granting of Irish citizenship through naturalisation is an honour. Applications must be processed in a manner which preserves the necessary checks and balances to ensure citizenship is not undervalued and is given only to persons who are suitably qualified. Upon receipt, each application is examined to determine if the statutory application is completed fully. It should be noted that approximately one third of all applications for naturalisation received are not completed correctly, necessitating the forms and accompanying documentation being returned to the applicant with an explanation of the problem involved. Valid applications are examined to determine if the applicant meets the statutory residency criteria set out in the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956, as amended. Passports and other documentation are examined in detail and inquiries with the Garda National Immigration Bureau may also be necessary.

Since this procedure was introduced on 1 April 2005, more than 1,500 applicants who applied since that date have been found to have insufficient residency in the State for the purposes of naturalisation. All such applicants are informed of any shortfall in their residency and will be able to re-apply when they have the required residency.

The next stage of the process involves assessing an applicant's financial status in respect of his or her ability to support himself or herself in the State. Inquiries with the Revenue Commissioners and the Department of Social and Family Affairs may be necessary in this regard. At the same time, inquiries are also made with the Garda Síochána to ascertain if the applicant can be deemed to be of good character. There may also be circumstances in individual cases which require a greater level of investigation than other cases.

Once all inquiries have been completed, the file is referred to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform for a decision. These procedures have been developed and refined over a number of years and the Tánaiste is satisfied they are necessary to maintain the integrity of the naturalisation process. The Senator will appreciate that these processes can, by their nature, take quite some time to complete.

The person referred to in the Senator's question arrived in the State on 27 July 2001. On 30 July 2001 he applied for asylum. His application was refused by the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner on 12 April 2002. On appeal, this decision was set aside by the Refugee Appeals Tribunal and the person in question was declared a refugee under section 17 of the Refugee Act 1996, as amended, on 19 February 2003. On 28 October 2004, he made an application for the granting of a certificate of naturalisation. This application was considered under the provisions of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Acts 1956 and 1986 and the Minister decided on 8 March 2006 not to grant naturalisation. A copy of the submission prepared by officials in the Department at the time was forwarded to the applicant for his information.

In reaching his decision the Minister exercised the absolute discretion as provided by the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Acts. While the said Acts do not provide for a formal process of appeal of his decision to refuse naturalisation, the Minister is obliged to make the reasons for his decision available to the applicant under the provisions of section 18 of the Freedom of Information Act 1997. The Minister understands the applicant submitted a request under the Act for records held by his Department in this matter and a decision on that request was communicated to him on 15 May 2006. If, following an examination of the copy of his or her case file, an applicant considers the Minister's decision has been based on incorrect or incomplete information, it is open to him or her to seek a review of that decision.

The applicant was also informed that he may re-apply for the grant of a certificate of naturalisation at any time and the Minister understands a second application was lodged in the citizenship section of his Department on 23 March 2006. That section is processing applications made in the latter half of 2004. Applications are dealt with in chronological order as this is deemed fairest to all applicants and the individual in question might therefore expect to receive a decision in his case in the latter half of next year.

Photo of David NorrisDavid Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister of State for his reply, the last paragraph of which was helpful. The antepenultimate paragraph of the reply states, "A copy of the submission prepared by officials of the Department at the time was forwarded to the applicant for his information." I have just confirmed with the person involved, who is present in the Visitor's Gallery, that it was not forwarded to him.

The Minister of State has not addressed the subject of the matter, which was the need for the Minister to provide the information, which he has not done. There has been some back-tracking. The Minister of State said, "If ... an applicant considers the Minister's decision has been based on incorrect or incomplete information, it is open to him or her to seek a review of that decision." We are seeking such a review.

The Minister of State should take back to the persons responsible in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform that it is not good enough in a 21st century European democracy to behave in this Kafkaesque way. The gentleman in the Visitor's Gallery demands to know who put a black mark against him and what is that black mark. I want the officials in the Department to know I will pursue this matter to the bitter end. Woe for them if they have behaved wrongly because, if I cannot get an answer in the Oireachtas, I will make sure in the courts of this land that I get an answer in justice and decency for all the people in this country.