Mary Upton (Dublin South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 579: To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if he will reconsider the plight of a person (details supplied) in Dublin 8; and if he will allow this person to remain here. [19044/05]

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

The person concerned was refused refugee status in the State following consideration of his case by the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner and, on appeal, by the Office of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal. The person concerned was informed of these recommendations by letters dated 15 July 2002 and 28 February 2003.

A notification under section 3(3)(a) of the Immigration Act 1999 was issued to the person concerned on 16 April 2003 advising him of my decision to refuse to give him a declaration of refugee status and setting out the options open to him at that point, that is, to leave the State voluntarily, to consent to the making of a deportation order or to make written representations within 15 working days to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform setting out reasons as to why he should not be deported.

Representations for temporary leave to remain in the State were made on behalf of the person concerned by his legal representatives. The case was examined under section 3 of the Immigration Act 1999 and section 5 of the Refugee Act 1996, prohibition of refoulement, having due regard for the representations received, following which, on 6 May 2005, a deportation order was made in respect of the person concerned. The person concerned was notified of this decision by letter dated 12 May 2005. That letter made the person concerned aware that he was required to present himself on 19 May 2005 at the offices of the Garda national immigration bureau in order that arrangements could be made for his removal from the State. The person concerned failed to present himself on this occasion and, as such, is now classified as an evader who is subject to arrest and detention.

This person's case was considered comprehensively and fairly. I see no reason to alter my decision to issue a deportation order in respect of the person concerned. The enforcement of that order is now an operational matter for the Garda national immigration bureau.

Mary Upton (Dublin South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 580: To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if he will reconsider the plight of a person (details supplied) in Dublin 8; and if he will allow this person to remain here. [19045/05]

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

The persons concerned, a mother and son, were refused refugee status in the State following consideration of their case by the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner and, on appeal, by the Office of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal. The persons concerned were informed of these recommendations by letters dated 25 July 2002 and 11 December 2002 respectively.

A notification under Section 3(3)(a) of the Immigration Act 1999 issued to the persons concerned on 31 January 2003 advising them of my decision to refuse to give them a declaration of refugee status and setting out the options open to them at that point, that is, to leave the State voluntarily, to consent to the making of deportation orders or to make written representations, within 15 working days, to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform setting out reasons as to why they should not be deported.

Representations for temporary leave to remain in the State were made on behalf of the persons concerned by their legal representatives. Their case was examined under section 3 of the Immigration Act 1999 and section 5 of the Refugee Act 1996, prohibition of refoulement, having due regard for the representations received, following which, on 5 May 2005, deportation orders were made in respect of the persons concerned. The persons concerned were notified of this decision by letter dated 19 May 2005. That letter made the persons concerned aware that they were required to present themselves on 7 June 2005 at the offices of the Garda national immigration bureau and they presented themselves as required. The persons concerned are due to present themselves again at the offices of the Garda national immigration bureau on 21 June 2005 by which time it is expected that travel arrangements in the context of their removal from the State will have been put in place.

The asylum claim and the request for leave to remain in the State made by the persons concerned have been considered comprehensively and fairly. As a result, I see no reason to alter my decision to issue deportation orders in respect of the persons concerned. The enforcement of these deportation orders is now an operational matter for the Garda national immigration bureau.

Mary Upton (Dublin South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 581: To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if he will reconsider the plight of a person (details supplied) in Dublin 1; and if he will allow this person to remain here. [19046/05]

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

The person concerned, a Nigerian national, arrived in the State on 3 February 2005 and claimed asylum. His application was refused by the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner on 28 February 2005. His subsequent appeal was refused by the Office of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal and he was notified of this recommendation by letter on 24 March 2005.

He was notified of the decision to refuse him refugee status by letter on 30 March 2005 in which he was informed of the three options open to him at that point, that is, to leave the State before his case was considered for deportation; consent to the making of a deportation order in respect of him; make written representations, within 15 working days, to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform setting out the reasons why he should not be deported.

His case was examined under section 3 of the Immigration Act 1999 and section 5 of the Refugee Act 1996, prohibition of refoulement, including consideration of representations received on his behalf from his solicitors for temporary leave to remain in the State. On 5 May 2005, a deportation order was made in respect of him. Notice of the order was served by registered post on 12 May 2005 requiring him to present himself to the Garda national immigration bureau on Thursday, 19 May 2005 to make arrangements for his deportation. This person did not attend as required and is now evading deportation.

Further documentation was received from the applicant's legal representatives on 17 May 2005 with the new information that the person concerned was possibly suffering from a liver condition that may require medical treatment, a condition that presumably predated his arrival in Ireland. An undertaking was sought that the person concerned would not be deported to Nigeria until his medical treatment was completed.

This case was dealt with as part of the accelerated process which came into operation on 25 January 2005. This provided for the speedier processing of asylum applications in respect of nationals of five states, including Nigerians, which are the subject of prioritisation orders made by me under section 12 of the Refugee Act 1996, as inserted by the Immigration Act 2003. The new arrangements also provide for the speedier processing of deportation orders for those applicants who are found not to be in need of refugee protection and have no other protection or humanitarian needs.

There is no obligation to delay the deportation of this person pending the completion of treatment over an indeterminate period for what would appear to be a chronic medical condition. This person was allowed enter the State to have his protection claim assessed and this was done fairly and promptly. It would be unfair and unreasonable to hold that the State has a greater obligation to provide medical treatment to this person than it would to someone who, for example, fails to gain entry to the State by way of a visa to receive the same medical treatment.

Mary Upton (Dublin South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 582: To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if he will reconsider the plight of a person (details supplied) in Dublin 3; and if he will allow this person to remain here; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19047/05]

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

The person concerned arrived in the State on 11 May 2001 and claimed asylum. Her application for asylum was refused and a deportation order issued in respect of her. Judicial review proceedings have been instituted challenging the deportation order. Accordingly, as the matter is sub judice, I do not propose to comment further on this case.