Mary Upton (Dublin South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 15: To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform his plans to revoke the deportation order against a person (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3497/06]

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

I would refer the Deputy to the reply I gave to Dáil Question No. 1085 on Wednesday, 25 January 2006 in which I outlined the position.

The person concerned arrived in the State on 17 December 1999 and applied for asylum. His application was refused following consideration of his case by the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner and, on appeal, by the Office of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal.

The person concerned was informed by letter dated 31 December 2002 that the Minister proposed to make a deportation order in respect of him and afforded him three options in accordance with section 3(3)(b)(ii) of the Immigration Act 1999, as amended, namely, to leave the State voluntarily, to consent to the making of a deportation order or to submit, within 15 working days, representations to the Minister, in writing, setting out the reasons he should be allowed to remain temporarily in the State. Representations were submitted on behalf of the person concerned by his legal representatives.

His case was examined under section 3(6) of the Immigration Act, 1999 as amended, and section 5 of the Refugee Act 1996 on the prohibition of refoulement. Consideration was given to all representations received on his behalf. On 9 November 2005, a deportation order was signed in respect of the person concerned. Notice of this order was served by registered post requiring him to present himself to the Garda National Immigration Bureau, GNIB, 13-14 Burgh Quay, Dublin 2, on 24 November 2005, in order to make arrangements for his deportation from the State. The person concerned presented as required and was given a further presentation date of 1 December 2005. He again presented as required and was given a final presentation date of 8 December 2005. The person concerned was deported from the State on a charter flight to Lagos on the night of 8-9 December 2005.

The person concerned was deported following a comprehensive examination of his asylum claim and of his application to remain temporarily in the State. Consequently, I do not intend to revoke the deportation order in this case.

Jerry Cowley (Mayo, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 16: To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the reason a person (details supplied) who was detained in Mountjoy Prison and is facing deportation was not allowed a reprieve; the action he will take in this case; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3573/06]

Willie Penrose (Westmeath, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 33: To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if the asylum application of a person (details supplied) will be reviewed with a view to rescinding the deportation order; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3506/06]

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

I propose to take Questions Nos. 16 and 33 together.

The person referred to by the Deputy and her two children entered the State in January 2005 and applied for declarations of refugee status. Following consideration of their claims by the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner and the Refugee Appeals Tribunal they were refused refugee status and deportation orders were signed in respect of them on 23 November 2005.

The deportation orders were subsequently challenged by way of judicial review proceedings in the High Court. Arising from these proceedings the person concerned was released from prison on order from the High Court on conditional terms on 23 January 2006, pending the determination of the judicial review proceedings. These proceedings are ongoing. As the issues involved in the case are sub judice, it would be inappropriate to comment further on the matter at the present time.