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

Question 165: To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if his attention has been drawn to the likely danger to the life and well being in the event of deportation in the case of a person (details supplied) in Dublin 8; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17818/06]

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

The person concerned arrived in the State on 22 October, 2001 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 25 June, 2003, 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 why he should be allowed to remain temporarily in the State.

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 representations received on his behalf from the Refugee Legal Service for temporary leave to remain in the State. On 3 August 2004, I refused temporary leave to remain in the State and signed a deportation order in respect of him. 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 27 January 2005, in order to make travel arrangements for his deportation from the State. The person concerned presented as required and was given further presentation dates throughout 2005. He is due to present again on 8 June 2006.

The Deputy might wish to note that, in addition to the eleven factors contained in Section 3 (6) of the Immigration Act, 1999 (as amended), I must, as stated earlier, also have regard for Section 5 of the Refugee Act, 1996 (as amended) on the Prohibition of Refoulement before making a deportation order. This essentially means that the safety of returning a person, or refoulement as it is commonly referred to, is fully considered in every case when deciding whether or not to make a deportation order i.e. 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 UNHCR, in evaluating the safety of making returns to Angola and other third countries. In this case, I am entirely satisfied that there are no refoulement related reasons to prevent the deportation of the person concerned.

The person concerned is awaiting deportation following a comprehensive examination of his asylum claim and of his application to remain temporarily in the State. Late representations made on 26 January 2005 regarding his medical condition were considered but were deemed not to constitute sufficient grounds for revoking the deportation order. The decision to deport therefore remains unchanged.

An application for re-admission to the asylum process, pursuant to the provisions of Section 17 (7) of the Refugee Act, 1996 (as amended), was submitted on behalf of the person concerned by his legal representatives in November 2005. A decision was taken by my Department that the new evidence presented was not such as to warrant re-admittance to the asylum process and consequently the re-admission request was refused. I am satisfied that the applications made by the person concerned for asylum and subsequently for temporary leave to remain in the State, together with all refoulement issues, were fairly and comprehensively examined and, as such, the decision to deport him is justified. The enforcement of the deportation order is now an operational matter for the Garda National Immigration Bureau.