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

Question 303: To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if he will reconsider on humanitarian or other grounds his previous decision to deport a person (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3463/06]

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

The person concerned, along with her child, arrived in the State on 7 September 2000 and applied for asylum. Her husband arrived in the State on 8 December 1999 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 Office of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal.

The person referred to by the Deputy was informed by letter dated 19 February 2002, as was her husband, that the Minister proposed to make deportation orders in respect of them and afforded them three options under section 3(3)(b)(ii) of the Immigration Act 1999, as amended, namely, to make representations to the Minister setting out the reasons they should be allowed to remain temporarily in the State; to leave the State voluntarily; or to consent to the making of deportation orders.

Their case was examined under section 3(6) of the Immigration Act 1999, as amended, and section 5 of the Refugee Act 1996, prohibition of refoulement, including consideration of representations for temporary leave to remain in the State lodged on her behalf by her legal representative. On 23 December 2002, deportation orders were signed in respect of the family. Notice of the deportation orders was served by registered post requiring the family to present itself to the Garda in Naas on Friday 31 January 2003 in order to make arrangements for their deportation from the State. The family presented as required and were given further presentation dates throughout 2003. On 11 February 2004, the family failed to present themselves as required and were classified as "evaders." The father subsequently came to the notice of the Garda and was deported on 15 December 2004. He subsequently returned to the State on 16 July 2005 contrary to the provisions of his deportation order.

Following consideration of late representations on behalf of the mother for revocation of the deportation order and for leave to remain in the State on medical grounds, the deportation orders were affirmed. The legal representative of the person concerned was notified of this by letter dated 27 April 2005.

The mother gave birth to a child in the State on 3 February 2005. Thereafter she applied for leave to remain in the State under the provisions of the Irish-born child 2005 scheme. She was notified of the refusal of her application for residency in the State under the revised arrangements for the processing of such claims by letter dated 4 August 2005. Following consideration of yet further representations for temporary leave to remain in the State, the deportation orders were reaffirmed by me on 17 January 2006. This decision was made known to the legal representative by letter of the same date.

In addition to the 11 factors contained in section 3(6) of the Immigration Act 1999, as amended, I must also have regard to section 5 of the Refugee Act 1996, prohibition of refoulement, before making a deportation order. The safety of returning a person, or refoulement as it is referred to, is fully considered in every case when deciding whether or not to make a deportation order. This means that a person shall not be expelled from the State or returned in any manner whatsoever to a state where, in my opinion, the life or freedom of that person would be threatened on account of his or her race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. My Department uses extensive country of origin information drawn from different independent sources, including UNHCR, in evaluating the safety of making returns to Moldova and other third countries.

I am satisfied that applications for asylum and leave to remain in the State of the family concerned, together with all refoulement issues, were comprehensively and fairly considered and, as such, their deportation should proceed. To this end, I urge the family concerned to come forward and present themselves to the GNIB as soon as possible. The enforcement of the deportation orders is now an operational matter for the GNIB.