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

Question 219: To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if he has satisfied himself that the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner and the Refugee Appeals Tribunal were fully conversant with the personal circumstances, persecution, torture or possible threat to life in the event of deportation to their homeland in the case of persons (details supplied) in County Dublin; his likely response in the event of misadventure after deportation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12730/06]

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

I refer the Deputy to the replies I gave to parliamentary questions concerning this couple, specifically Parliamentary Question No. 155 on 26 January 2006 and Parliamentary Question No. 191 on 9 March 2006 concerning the husband together with Parliamentary Question No. 185 on 9 March 2006 concerning the wife.

There is a statutory framework governing the asylum determination process in Ireland set out in the Refugee Act 1996. The 1996 Act established two independent statutory offices to consider applications and appeals in respect of refugee status and to make recommendations to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform on whether such status should be granted. These offices are the Refugee Applications Commissioner, ORAC, and the Refugee Appeals Tribunal, RAT.

The processing of applications within the framework of the 1996 Act, in particular has due regard to the definition of a "refugee" in section 2 of that Act, which states that a "refugee" is: "a person who, owing to a well founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his or her nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his or her former habitual residence, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it."

Every asylum applicant is guaranteed an investigation and determination of his or her claim at first instance by the Refugee Applications Commissioner. Each application is assessed on the basis of the circumstances of the individual case and having regard to both the subjective elements, the applicant's own account or personal history, and objective elements, up-to-date information on the applicant's country or place of origin. This country of origin information comes from a wide variety of sources, including organisations such as the UNHCR, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, UK Home Office, Canadian International Refugee Board, US State Department and other EU member states as well as media and Internet sources.

ORAC and RAT also consider how well-founded each individual applicant's claim is and whether there are sufficient facts to permit the finding that, if returned to his or her country of origin, the applicant would face a serious risk of persecution. Credibility is also central to assessing an application, and it falls to the ORAC and RAT to decide whether the applicant's account is credible and whether they have a well-founded fear of persecution. Issues of relevance in assessing credibility include contradictions and inconsistencies, the plausibility of the applicant and the level of detail in the claim. A negative finding as to overall credibility will generally lead to a conclusion that the applicant does not qualify for protection.

There must also be a link between the persecution as alleged and one or more of the grounds set out in both the 1996 Act and the 1951 Geneva Convention relating to the status of refugees, namely, being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. Our system also guarantees every asylum applicant a right of appeal to a statutorily independent and separate body, the Refugee Appeals Tribunal. Every asylum applicant is also guaranteed access to legal assistance provided by the refugee legal service.

The Deputy should also be aware that the UNHCR is given full access to our refugee determination process and can examine any case at any time to ensure fair procedures and compliance with our Geneva Convention obligations. The persons concerned arrived in the State on 1 July 2005 and 7 March 2005, respectively, and applied for asylum. Their applications were refused following consideration of their cases by the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner and, on appeal, by the Refugee Appeals Tribunal.

The persons concerned were informed, by letters dated 16 January 2006 and 27 September 2005 respectively, 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 leave the State voluntarily, to consent to the making of deportation orders or to submit, within 15 working days, written representations setting out the reasons why they should be allowed to remain temporarily in the State.

Their cases were examined under section 3(6) of the Immigration Act 1999, as amended, including consideration of representations for temporary leave to remain in the State lodged on their behalf by their legal representatives. In addition to the 11 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, as amended, on the prohibition of refoulement before signing a deportation order. This means in essence that the safety of returning a person to their country of origin, or refoulement as it is referred to, is fully considered in every case when deciding whether or not to make a deportation order. Refoulement 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 the United Nations High Commission for Refugees, UNHCR, in evaluating, in each individual case, the safety of making returns to Nigeria, as is the case here, and other third countries.

On 27 February 2006, I signed deportation orders in respect of the persons concerned. Notice of the deportation orders was served by registered post requiring the couple to present themselves to the Garda National Immigration Bureau, GNIB, on Thursday, 9 March 2006 in order to make arrangements for their deportation from the State. The persons concerned failed to present themselves as required and were thus 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. The enforcement of the deportation orders remains an operational matter for the GNIB.