Willie Penrose (Westmeath, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 193: To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform further to Parliamentary Question No. 722 of 12 April 2005, the reason a person's spouse (details supplied) was granted a re-entry visa while their passport and permission to remain in the State was due to expire on the same date as their passport and permitted time to remain in the State; the way in which two different decisions were arrived at based upon the same particulars in respect of authorised permission to remain in the State and the valid dates of passports in view of the fact that they have now been authorised to remain in the State until 21 February 2008; if he will take steps to ensure that a re-entry visa is granted; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12619/05]

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

The visa application referred to by the Deputy was for a re-entry visa for a non-EEA national resident in the State. The applicant in question entered the State illegally in May 1999 with her husband and one son. They subsequently claimed asylum and later obtained permission to remain in the State based on parentage of an Irish born child. In October 2004, two applications were received for re-entry visas for the non-EEA national and her husband. Under a scheme known as delegated sanction, the Department of Foreign Affairs is permitted in limited circumstances to grant visa applications without reference to the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. In cases where these circumstances are not met or where the initial inspection identifies potential complications, the application is forwarded to my Department for more in-depth assessment.

As the application for the wife requested the inclusion of her child on any visa issued, the Department of Foreign Affairs was not in a position to process the application without reference to my Department. This is necessary for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the widespread abuse of the re-entry visa system. Following the extensive examination of the application and its supporting documentation, as is standard with referred applications, it was discovered that the applicant's permission to remain was due to expire in the near future. For this reason alone the application was refused.

As the husband's application did not mention or require the inclusion of a child, the Department of Foreign Affairs was permitted to process it under the delegated sanction scheme. It would not be normal practice to grant a re-entry visa in a case where the applicant's permission to remain is due to expire in the near future and this was a central factor in the decision to refuse the wife's application. However a visa was exceptionally approved in this case. There was no mention at initial or appeal stage of the applicants having had their permission to remain extended. As this application has already been the subject of an appeal and as each application may be appealed only once, it is not possible to facilitate further examination of this application. However, in light of the information provided by the Deputy to the effect that the applicants now have permission to remain until 2008, it is open to the lady in question to submit a fresh application which will be considered on its own merits.

Willie Penrose (Westmeath, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 194: To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if an application for a visa by a person (details supplied) will be reviewed; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12620/05]

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

The application in question has recently been approved on appeal by my Department. The applicant will be notified of this decision as soon as possible.