Tom Hayes (Tipperary South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 129: To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the position regarding the case of a person (details supplied) who was deported from Cloverhill Prison and has applied for repatriation. [26109/05]

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

The person concerned arrived in the State on 22 August 2003 and claimed asylum the same day. He failed to attend for interview at the Office of Refugee Applications Commissioner as arranged on 5 January 2004, or to subsequently pursue his application. His application was, therefore, deemed withdrawn and was refused. He was notified of this refusal by way of letter dated 4 March 2004.

In accordance with section 3 of the Immigration Act 1999, as amended, he was informed that the Minister proposed to make a deportation order in respect of him. He was given three options, first, to make representations to the Minister within 15 working days setting out the reasons he should not be deported, second, voluntarily leave the State or consent to the making of a deportation order against him. No response was received from him. The Minister went on to consider his case for deportation under section 3(6) of the Immigration Act 1999, as amended, and section 5 of the Refugee Act 1996, prohibition of refoulement. A deportation order was signed in respect of him on 2 July 2004.

He was requested to present himself to the Garda national immigration bureau on 11 November 2004 to make arrangements for his removal from the State. However, I understand that he came to the adverse attention of the Garda prior to this date and was detained pending his removal. He was returned to Moldova on 15 December 2004 on foot of the deportation order.

The person concerned claimed asylum in the State as a single adult. The only mention of a spouse was on his asylum application form where he stated that she was residing in Moldova. The effect of a deportation order is that the person concerned must leave the State and remain outside it thereafter.