Breeda Moynihan-Cronin (Kerry South, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 386: To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the reason his Department cannot give a detailed reply to a query (details supplied) raised by this Deputy in March 2005 regarding an application for a visitor's visa; and if a detailed response will now be provided. [13404/05]

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

It is my understanding that there was some difficulty in identifying the applications referred to by the Deputy in her letter dated 8 March 2005 as no reference numbers were supplied. Given the number of applications processed by my Department, identifying records based on the applicant's name alone is, I understand, often difficult. However, I am informed that the records have recently been identified and that the situation is as follows.

The applications in question were for the stated purposes of allowing the spouse and dependent children of a non-EEA national working in the State under the employment permit scheme visit him on a short-term basis. The central tenet of the visa process in this State has been and continues to be that the onus is at all times on the applicant to satisfy my Department that it would be appropriate to issue them with a visa. In the case of the applications in question, the applicants failed to do so.

In assessing any visa application, the visa officer will consider various matters, including whether it is reasonable in all the circumstances to conclude that the applicant would fully honour the conditions of the visa, for example, whether it is unlikely that the applicant would overstay the length of time applied for, or would seek to work illegally in the State, etc. The visa officer will also have regard to information provided and to such factors as the applicant's ties and general circumstances in their country of origin. The application in question was refused because the visa officer could not reasonably be satisfied, on the basis of the documentation supplied to my Department, that the applicant would observe the conditions of the visa applied for. Additionally, in the case of one of the children's applications, 1547219, the failure to supply a birth certificate for the child was noted and contributed to the refusal decision.

Notification of the reasons for refusal was sent, by e-mail, from my Department on 27 January 2005. The applicants were informed of their right of appeal. However, no such appeal has been received by my Department. As the latest date for receipt of an appeal in respect of these applications has passed, no further action is possible.

If the applicants still wish to travel, they must submit fresh applications, accompanied by extra documentation designed to address the reasons for refusal outlined.