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

Question 701: To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if he will reconsider his decision to refer the application for refugee status in the case of persons (details supplied) to the UK authorities in view of the fact that they had no control over where they were landed in Europe; if they were the victims of trafficking; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15012/06]

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

Before dealing with the specific case of the persons concerned, I would like to explain briefly 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 asylum 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.

In respect of the case of the persons concerned, a husband and wife, they both lodged asylum claims in this State on 8 December 2005. Following investigation, it was determined by the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner that pursuant to the provisions of the Dublin II regulation, the United Kingdom was the appropriate state to process their applications as they had already made asylum claims there on 28 September 2004, albeit under different names, nationalities and dates of birth. The persons concerned were offered an opportunity to appeal the determination of the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner to the Refugee Appeals Tribunal which they duly did on 10 April 2006 through their legal representatives, and their appeal, which has non-suspensive effect, is still ongoing.

The United Kingdom accepted responsibility for the cases of the persons concerned with the consequence that transfer orders were signed in respect of them on 31 March 2006. These orders issued to the persons concerned on 4 April 2006 requiring them to present themselves to the Garda National Immigration Bureau, GNIB, 13-14 Burgh Quay, Dublin 2 on Monday, 10 April 2006. They presented as requested on that occasion and in accordance with the transfer orders signed in respect of them and the Dublin II regulation, they were duly transferred to the United Kingdom on 13 April 2006.

I have no doubt the Deputy shares my abhorrence of the practice of people trafficking. The tackling of such practices requires co-operation between states, particularly within the EU. It can reasonably be contended that the proper operation of the Dublin II regulations inhibits the practice of people trafficking. The clear spirit and intent of the Dublin II regulation is to have an asylum application examined in the state where such a claim was first lodged, which is what happened here. A system in which persons can move from state to state within the EU claiming asylum would recreate the phenomenon of "asylum shopping", which would benefit only people traffickers.

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

Question 702: To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the most appropriate procedure to be followed in the case of a person (details supplied) in County Kildare; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15013/06]

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

The person concerned arrived in the State on 16 June 2001 and applied for asylum. Her application was refused following consideration of her case by the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner and, on appeal, by the Refugee Appeals Tribunal.

Subsequently, in accordance with section 3 of the Immigration Act 1999, as amended, she was informed by letter dated 24 June 2003 that the Minister proposed to make a deportation order in respect of her. She was given the options, to be exercised within 15 working days, of making representations to the Minister setting out the reasons why she should be allowed to remain temporarily in the State; leaving the State before an order is made or consenting to the making of a deportation order. Representations have been received on behalf of the person concerned.

This person's case file, including all representations submitted, will be considered under section 3(6) of the Immigration Act 1999, as amended, and section 5 of the Refugee Act 1996, prohibition of refoulement.

The person concerned is not entitled to take up employment as she has not been granted permission to remain in the State. I expect the file to be passed to me for decision in due course.

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

Question 703: To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the residency status in the case of a person (details supplied) in Dublin 1; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15014/06]

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

The person concerned arrived in the State on 25 April 2003 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 Refugee Appeals Tribunal.

Subsequently, in accordance with section 3 of the Immigration Act 1999, as amended, he was informed by letter dated 30 August 2005 that the Minister proposed to make a deportation order in respect of him. He was given the options, to be exercised within 15 working days, of making representations to the Minister setting out the reasons why he should be allowed to remain temporarily in the State, leaving the State before an order is made or consenting to the making of a deportation order. Representations have been received on behalf of the person concerned.

This person's case file, including all representations submitted, will be considered under section 3(6) of the Immigration Act 1999, as amended, and section 5 of the Refugee Act 1996, prohibition of refoulement, and account will be taken of his recent marriage to a person who has been granted leave to remain in the State. I expect the file to be passed to me for decision in due course.