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

Question 155: To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if a decision to refuse refugee status in the case of a person (details supplied) in Dublin 8 takes full account of the health, safety and well-being of this person if returned to their homeland; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2749/06]

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

The person concerned arrived in the State on 1 July 2005 and claimed asylum on that date. His asylum claim was investigated by the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner who concluded that the person concerned did not meet the criteria for recognition as a refugee. This position was conveyed to the person concerned by letter dated 9 August 2005. This communication also advised the person concerned of his entitlement to appeal this determination to the Refugee Appeals Tribunal which he duly did. The Refugee Appeals Tribunal considered this appeal and, having done so, decided to affirm the recommendation of the Refugee Applications Commissioner. This position was conveyed to the person concerned by letter dated 16 November 2005.

In accordance with normal procedures, the file of the person concerned was forwarded to the ministerial decisions unit of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform for the purposes of having the Minister's formal decision conveyed to the person concerned, in accordance with the provisions of section 17(1) of the Refugee Act 1996, as amended. As a result, by letter dated 16 January 2006, my Department's ministerial decisions unit wrote to the person concerned to advise him that he had been refused a declaration of refugee status. This communication also advised him that his entitlement to be in the State had expired and advised him of the options open to him at that point in time, namely, to leave the State voluntarily, to consent to deportation or to submit, within 15 working days, written representations to the Minister setting out reasons why he should not be deported, that is, why he should be permitted to remain in the State.

Any representations received from or on behalf of the person concerned will be fully considered before a final decision is taken in relation to his position in the State. In arriving at such a decision, I must have regard for the 11 headings set out in section 3(6) of the Immigration Act 1999, as amended, for example, the family and domestic circumstances of the person concerned, the duration of their residence in the State and other humanitarian considerations and I must also have regard for section 5 of the Refugee Act 1996, as amended, on the prohibition of refoulement.

The Deputy should note that all elements of an asylum claim advanced by an applicant are fully investigated by the Refugee Applications Commissioner at first instance and, on appeal, by the Refugee Appeals Tribunal before they reach a conclusion in each individual case. Additionally, where an applicant is found, on investigation, by those bodies to not be a refugee, he or she is afforded an opportunity to set out reasons as to why he or she should not be deported. As a result, I am satisfied that the State's refugee status determination processes provide sufficient safeguards to ensure that all issues related to the health, safety and well-being of an applicant, if returned to their homeland, are given full consideration.