Paul Gogarty (Dublin Mid West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 657: To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if he will make an inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the deportation of a person (details supplied) to Nigeria; his views on whether this person is a high risk case and would have posed a danger had they been able to collect their belongings; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9952/05]

Paul Gogarty (Dublin Mid West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 658: To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the reason for the deportation of a person (details supplied) in their school uniform without identity papers to Nigeria; if his attention has been drawn to the fact that this person was subsequently attacked and molested; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9953/05]

Paul Connaughton Snr (Galway East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 681: To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the reason it was necessary to deport a person (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10227/05]

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

I propose to take Questions Nos. 657, 658 and 681 together.

In my statement to the Dáil during the Adjournment Debate on Tuesday, 22 March 2005, I outlined the basis for the deportation of the person concerned and in my statement in the Seanad Adjournment Debate on Thursday, 24 March 2005, I outlined the basis for my decision to allow the person return.

The proposal put to me to deport this person was made in the belief of the proposing immigration service official that the order when made would not be implemented before June, when the young man in question would be sitting the leaving certificate examination for which he had been studying at Palmerstown community school since September 2002.

As is the usual practice in relation to persons in respect of whom deportation orders are made, this person was instructed to present himself to the Garda national immigration bureau, GNIB, on 3 March 2005. He did not do so and was classified as an evader. He subsequently presented himself at GNIB on the day of a deportation flight, rather than on the earlier date specified in a letter written to him. He was, therefore, both arrested as an evader and deported by different officials acting in good faith. The assumption that he would not be deported before June was simply not acted on. So while the deportation was authorised, its actual timing was unfortunate and I reached the view that for me to leave matters stand in those unusual circumstances was inappropriate. The person concerned subsequently returned to Ireland and was assisted to do so by the Irish embassy in Nigeria.

It should be made clear that in respect of every person who has no legal entitlement to remain in the State, including those who have had their applications for asylum refused after consideration by two independent bodies, a letter issues under the terms of section 3(3) of the Immigration Act 1999, as amended, informing him or her of the Minister's intention to deport. The person is allowed 15 days in which to opt for one of the following: make representations to the Minister setting out the reasons he or she should not be deported, that is, be allowed to remain temporarily in the State; leave the State before an order is made; or consent to the making of a deportation order.

If a person opts to return voluntarily, assistance will be provided, including by way of special programmes established in cooperation with the International Organisation for Migration, IOM. For the three-year period up to 31 December 2004, a total of 1,879 voluntary returns have been facilitated by the IOM and my Department.

If a person opts to make representations as to why he or she should not be deported, a range of factors must be taken into account in deciding the matter. The specific legislative provisions are 11 factors, including humanitarian considerations, as set out in section 3(6) of the Immigration Act 1999, as amended, and section 5 of the Refugee Act 1996. Section 5 forbids the sending of a person in any manner whatsoever to a place where the life or freedom of the person would be threatened on account of that person's race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. I have seen reports that the person in question was mugged and assaulted in Nigeria but I am unable to comment on the veracity of those claims. This refoulement provision does not mean that persons may not be returned to countries which would have inferior welfare, educational and health services to ours.

The deportation order in this case was made in full accordance with the above legal provisions. I do not understand the reference in the question to the person concerned being a high risk. He was not made the subject of a deportation on that basis nor did the Garda treat him as such. I accept the account of the Garda that its officers offered to escort him to his home to collect his belongings, which he declined. Furthermore, I accept that the officers did not see any adult on the charter flight wearing clothes which could be described as a school uniform. The Nigerian embassy issued a travel document in respect of this person to enable him re-enter Nigeria and, following the revocation of the deportation order against him, he was able to acquire a Nigerian passport allowing him return to Ireland.