John Perry (Sligo-Leitrim, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 348: To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if he will rescind the decision made regarding a visa for a person (details supplied) in view of all the documentation submitted; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7727/05]

Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The application referred to by the Deputy was refused by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform at an initial stage on 11 January 2005. An appeal in respect of the application was subsequently received and examined by the visa appeals officer who was unable to conclude based on the additional evidence supplied that the initial decision should be overturned. At both stages it was noted that in the letter received from the spouse of the applicant, he stated that applications for family reunification residency visas were submitted and refused on two previous occasions. Such a history of applying for long-term visas would have been considered in the decision to refuse the appeal on an application purportedly for a short-term visa. As the application has been re-examined on appeal, it is not possible to facilitate a further review.

John Perry (Sligo-Leitrim, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 349: To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if he will rescind the decision made regarding a visa for a person (details supplied) in view of all the documentation submitted; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7728/05]

Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The visa application in question, which was requested for the stated purpose of a short visit, was refused by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform on 5 January 2005 because it was considered that the applicant had not shown any obligation to return home after the proposed visit and that she may not observe the conditions of the short visit visa for which she applied. It was noted that she had previously been refused a visa for the purpose of entering and residing in the State. An appeal in respect of the application was subsequently received and examined by the visa appeals officer who was unable to conclude, based on the additional evidence supplied, that the initial decision should be overturned. As the application has been re-examined on appeal, it is not possible to facilitate a further review.