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

Question 696: To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if all aspects of the case have been fully examined in the proposal to deport persons (details supplied) in County Meath; if references to the common good incorporate the well being and safety of the applicants; if his attention has been drawn to the safety and life threatening situation in the event of deportation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10888/06]

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

The person concerned, together with one child, arrived in the State on 2 January 2005. It is understood that she gave birth to a second child on the day of her arrival in the State. The person concerned, on behalf of herself and her two dependent children, applied for asylum on 6 January 2005. Her asylum application was refused following consideration of her 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 23 September 2005, that the Minister proposed to make deportation orders in respect of her and her children and afforded them 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 deportation orders or to submit, within 15 working days, representations to the Minister, in writing, setting out the reasons why they should be allowed to remain temporarily in the State.

In determining whether to make a deportation order or grant temporary leave to remain in the State, I must have regard for the eleven factors set out in section 3(6) of the Immigration Act 1999 (as amended). These factors include an examination of the common good and any humanitarian considerations. In addition to the eleven factors contained in section 3(6) of the Immigration Act 1999, as amended, I must also have regard for section 5 of the Refugee Act 1996 on the prohibition of refoulement.

The case of the persons concerned was examined under section 3(6) of the Immigration Act 1999 as amended, and section 5 of the Refugee Act 1996, prohibition of refoulement. Consideration was given to all representations received on their behalf for temporary leave to remain in the State. On 3 March 2006 I refused temporary leave to remain in the State and instead signed deportation orders in respect of the persons concerned. Notice of these orders was served by registered post requiring the persons concerned to present themselves to the Garda National Immigration Bureau, GNIB, on 13 March 2006, in order to make arrangements for their removal from the State. The persons concerned presented as required and were given a further presentation date of 16 March 2006. The persons concerned failed to present as required on that date and are now classified as evading their deportation. They should present themselves to the GNIB without delay. The effect of the deportation orders is that the persons concerned must leave the State and remain thereafter out of the State.

In addition to the asylum application, the person concerned also submitted an application for permission to remain in the State on the basis of her parentage of an Irish-born child born in the State before 1 January 2005, under the revised arrangements I announced on 15 January 2005. However, following the citizenship referendum of 2004 and the subsequent Immigration and Citizenship (Amendment) Act 2004, which came into effect on 1 January 2005, a child born in Ireland after 1 January 2005 is not entitled to Irish citizenship solely by virtue of being born in Ireland. The person concerned therefore did not qualify for residency under the revised arrangements referred to because the child in question was born in the State after 1 January 2005. The person concerned was notified of the decision to refuse her application by letter dated 7 October 2005.

The safety of returning a person, or refoulement, as it is referred to, is fully considered in every case when deciding whether 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 United Nations High Commission for Refugees, UNHCR, in evaluating the safety of making returns to countries of origin, including Nigeria as in this case.

I am satisfied that applications for asylum and leave to remain in the State of the persons concerned, together with all refoulement issues, have been comprehensively and fairly considered and, as such, it is my intention that their deportation from the State should proceed. The enforcement of the deportation orders is now an operational matter for the Garda National Immigration Bureau.