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

Question 236: To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if he or the Office of the Refugee Application Commission of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal studied the documentation submitted by the various referees in the case of a person (details supplied) in Dublin 8; if their particular case was examined by a person alleged to have never granted refugee status to an applicant; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20251/06]

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

I would refer the Deputy to my Reply to his Dáil Question No. 165 of 11 May 2006. The position in the State of the person concerned remains as set out in that Reply.

Representations for temporary leave to remain in the State pursuant to Section 3 (3) (b) (ii) of the Immigration Act, 1999 (as amended) were submitted on behalf of the person concerned by the Refugee Legal Service and from various third parties and were duly considered before a decision was taken to issue a Deportation Order in his case. As I have previously advised, the enforcement of such an Order is an operational matter for the Garda National Immigration Bureau. These representations were not considered by either the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner (ORAC) or the Refugee Appeals Tribunal (RAT) as these representations were submitted only after the asylum claims of the person concerned had been independently refused by both of those bodies. The Deputy should note also that the statutory brief of both of those bodies, as set out in the Refugee Act, 1996 (as amended) is to examine asylum claims, at first instance in the context of the ORAC and, on appeal, in the context of the RAT, and to make recommendations to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, in each individual case, as to whether each applicant should or should not be declared to be a refugee. The person concerned had his asylum claims examined by both bodies, both of whom concluded that he did not meet the criteria for recognition as a refugee. The Deputy will appreciate that these bodies are not charged with responsibility for considering applications for permission to remain in the State pursuant to the provisions of the Immigration Act, 1999 (as amended).

Furthermore, the Deputy should note that the Refugee Appeals Tribunal is a statutory body, independent in the performance of its functions under the provisions of sections 15 and 16 of the Refugee Act, 1996 (as amended). The effective management of the Tribunal is the responsibility of the Chairperson who in accordance with the section 14 of the second schedule of the Refugee Act, 1996 (as amended) shall endeavour to ensure that the business of the Tribunal is managed efficiently and that the business assigned to each division is disposed of as expeditiously as may be consistent with fairness and natural justice. It would therefore be inappropriate for me to comment further on the matter.

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

Question 237: To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform further to Parliamentary Question No. 166 of 11 May 2006 and previous parliamentary questions and the replies thereto, the way in which he is satisfied that the case in question has been properly decided in view of serious evidence to indicate a substantial threat to the lives and well-being of persons in the event of their return to their homeland; if his attention has been drawn to the UN concerns regarding the situation there; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20252/06]

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

I would refer the Deputy to my many previous and comprehensive Replies in this matter. As previously stated, the persons concerned arrived in the State on 7 March 2005 and 1 July 2005 and applied for asylum. Their applications were refused following the consideration of their cases by the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner (ORAC) and, on appeal, by the Refugee Appeals Tribunal. As the Deputy is aware, the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner is a statutory body, independent in the performance of its functions, in accordance with the provisions of Section 6 of the Refugee Act, 1996 (as amended). Similarly the Refugee Appeals Tribunal is a statutory body, independent in the performance of its functions, in accordance with the provisions of sections 15 and 16 of the Refugee Act, 1996 (as amended).

The persons concerned, following refusal recommendations by both the ORAC and the Refugee Appeals Tribunal on their asylum applications, were informed, by letters dated 27 September 2005 and 16 January 2006, 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 i.e. why they should not be deported.

Their cases were examined having regard for the eleven factors specified in 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. Their cases were also considered having regard for the provisions of Section 5 of the Refugee Act, 1996 (as amended) on the Prohibition of Refoulement. Refoulement, in essence, relates to the safety of returning a person to their country of origin. After their cases had been comprehensively assessed under all the relevant headings, 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 persons concerned 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 on that occasion, as required, and were thus classified as evading their deportation. They should, therefore, present themselves to the GNIB without delay. The effect of these Deportation Orders is that the persons concerned must leave the State and remain thereafter outside the State.

The asylum claims and the applications for temporary leave to remain in the State made by the persons concerned have been considered comprehensively and fairly. Consequently I see no reason to alter my decision to issue Deportation Orders in these cases. The enforcement of the Deportation Orders remains an operational matter for the GNIB.