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

Question 693: To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the reason it is proposed to transfer persons (details supplied) in County Clare to France to have their refugee status determined when it is known that application was already made there and refused and that the applicants were returned to Democratic Republic of Congo where they were imprisoned, raped and tortured; his views on whether the likely outcome is a repeat of this treatment to the event of return to France and Democratic Republic of Congo; if he will grant extended leave to reside here to facilitate a full examination of the case and the human rights consequences; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10885/06]

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

Before dealing with the specifics of the question, I should briefly explain the workings of 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 where applications have been lodged in more than one state. 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, namely, the Dublin Convention. Under the Dublin Convention, and now 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 persons concerned, a mother and child, made an asylum claim in Ireland on 8 November 2005. Following investigation, it was determined by the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner that, pursuant to the provisions of the Dublin II Regulation, France was the appropriate state to process their applications as they had already made asylum claims there on 11 June 2004, albeit under different names and dates of birth. The persons concerned were offered an opportunity to appeal the determination of the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner, ORAC, to the Office of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal which they duly did on 19 January 2006 through their legal representatives. The Refugee Appeals Tribunal upheld the determination of the ORAC, i.e. that the persons concerned should have their asylum claims examined in France and the persons concerned were formally notified of this decision by letter dated 21 February 2006. The persons concerned were kept informed of developments throughout the course of their asylum applications in Ireland and were made aware as soon as it was possible to do so that their cases came under the terms of the Dublin II Regulation.

France accepted responsibility for the cases of the persons concerned with the consequence that transfer orders were signed in respect of them on 10 January 2006. These orders issued to the persons concerned on 16 January 2006, requiring them to present themselves to the Garda National Immigration Bureau, GNIB, 13-14 Burgh Quay, Dublin 2 on Monday 23 January 2006. They failed to present as required and, as such, are classified as having evaded their transfers. Consequently the adult involved is now liable to arrest and detention. The persons concerned should present themselves to the Garda Síochana without further delay so that travel arrangements can be made to effect their transfer to France.

In accordance with the provisions of the Dublin II Regulation, France, not Ireland, is responsible for examining the asylum claims of the persons concerned. As a result, it is not my intention to examine their asylum claims here, nor is it my intention to grant the persons concerned any period of leave to reside here. Given that the persons concerned lodged their initial asylum claims in France, it is entirely appropriate that the persons concerned be transferred to that state.