Written answers

Thursday, 20 October 2005

Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform

Residency Permits

5:00 pm

Photo of Bernard DurkanBernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 145: To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if he will further extend residency in the case of a person (details supplied) in County Dublin; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29969/05]

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

The persons concerned entered the State on 16 April 2003 and applied for asylum. Their application was refused following consideration of their case by the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner and, on appeal, by the Refugee Appeals Tribunal.

In accordance with section 3 of the Immigration Act 1999, they were informed on 27 September 2004 that it was proposed to make deportation orders in respect of them and were given the following options: to make written representations within 15 working days to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform setting out reasons why they should be allowed to remain in the State, to voluntarily leave the State or to consent to deportation. Representations were received by the Department on their behalf.

The persons concerned were granted temporary leave to remain in the State until 29 November 2005. An application was received on 14 October 2005 for a renewal of this permission to remain in the State. Their case file will be submitted to me for a decision in due course.

Photo of Bernard DurkanBernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 146: To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if he will review the case of persons (details supplied) in Dublin 6; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29970/05]

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

The persons concerned applied for permission to remain in the State under the revised arrangements announced by me on 15 January 2005 for the processing of applications for leave to remain from the non-national parents of Irish born children born before 1 January 2005. It is a requirement under the revised arrangements that each applicant parent is residing with their Irish born child in the State on a continuous basis since the child's birth. Evidence of such residence is also required.

In this case, the child in question was born in the State on 14 January 2004. The applicant mother left the State with her child in October 2004 and claimed asylum in the UK on 9 November 2004, notwithstanding the fact that she had already claimed asylum in the State. She was returned to the State by the UK authorities under the terms of the Dublin Convention on 16 March 2005. Limited evidence was submitted by the applicant father as to his place of residence since the child's birth. However, he cannot have been residing in the State with the child while the child was with his mother in the UK.

The applicants do not meet the criteria for the granting of permission to remain in the State under the revised processing arrangements in so far as continuous residency is concerned and their applications were refused on this basis.

Photo of Bernard DurkanBernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 147: To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the reason the green card was not issued in the case of a person (details supplied) in County Dublin; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29971/05]

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

The person in question made an application for permission to remain in the State on the basis of family dependency in December 2004. An initial request for documentation issued in March 2005 and although some documentation was received in April 2005 it was insufficient to finalise the application. A further request for documentation was issued on 19 May 2005 and again on 8 September 2005. The matter in question relates to the provision of an identity document which is required before a decision can be made. It is expected that on receipt of the documentation requested the case could be finalised within a short period of time.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.