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

Question 149: To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if further action will be deferred in respect of deportation to Belgium or the Democratic Republic of Congo in the case of a person (details supplied) in County Dublin until such time as persons can assemble the necessary documentation from the DRC and having particular regard to the seriously life threatening situation for them in the DRC; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2668/06]

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

I would like to clarify at the outset that the person concerned is not the subject of a deportation order. She is, however, subject to a transfer order under the Dublin II Regulation — Council Regulation (EC) No. 343/2003. This regulation is intended to prevent the phenomenon of "asylum shopping" across Europe and sets out criteria for determining which member state is responsible for examining an asylum application. At the same time, it guarantees applicants that one state will process their application, thereby preventing the creation of "refugees in orbit", a situation which had pertained in Europe prior to the introduction in 1995 of its predecessor, the Dublin Convention. Under the Dublin II Regulation, the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner can, on the basis of the relevant criteria, request another state to accept responsibility for an asylum application and have it processed in that other state.

The person concerned arrived in Ireland on 14 October 2005 and claimed asylum. Following investigation, it was determined by the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner that pursuant to the provisions of the Dublin regulation, Belgium was the appropriate state to process her application as she had already made an earlier asylum claim there on 4 April 2005. She was offered an opportunity to appeal the determination of the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner to the Office of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal but chose not to do so. She was kept informed of developments throughout the course of her asylum application in Ireland and was made aware that her case fell to be dealt with under the terms of the Dublin II Regulation.

Belgium accepted responsibility for this case and a transfer order was signed on 11 January 2006 in respect of the person concerned, requiring her to return to Belgium. The order issued to her on 16 January 2006 requiring her to present herself to the Garda National Immigration Bureau, GNIB, 13-14 Burgh Quay, Dublin 2, on Monday 23 January 2006. She presented as required. Her removal from the State and transfer to Belgium is now an operational matter for GNIB.

Belgium, and not Ireland, is responsible for examining the asylum application of the person concerned. Indeed it is for the Belgian authorities to assess the protection needs, if any, of the person concerned. Belgium is a party to and thus bound by international human rights instruments which prohibit refoulement. I am, therefore, satisfied that any medical and-or protection needs arising in this case can be suitably dealt with by the Belgian authorities.