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

Question 241: To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the residency status in the case of a person (details supplied) in County Dublin, having particular reference to their health needs and the treatment required; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20256/06]

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

The person concerned arrived in the State on 19 March, 1996 and applied for asylum. Her application was refused following consideration of her case by Asylum Division and, on appeal, by the Appeals Authority.

Subsequently, in accordance with Section 3 of the Immigration Act, 1999, she was informed by letter dated 2 May, 1999, that the Minister proposed to make a deportation order in respect of her. She was given the options, to be exercised within 14 working days, of making representations to the Minister setting out the reasons why she should be allowed to remain temporarily in the State, or leaving the State before an order is made. Representations have been received on behalf of the person concerned.

It must also be noted that the last correspondence received on behalf of the person concerned was in November, 2004. In the circumstances, the Deputy may wish to note that a letter recently issued to the person concerned giving her the opportunity to make further representations on her own behalf. Once these representations have been received, an assessment of her case as it currently stands can be made.

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). I expect the file to be passed to me for decision shortly thereafter.

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

Question 242: To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the citizenship or residency status in the case of a person (details supplied) in Dublin 22; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20257/06]

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

The two persons referred to by the Deputy in the details accompanying his Question are husband and wife. The wife has already been naturalised and the husband has submitted an application on the basis that he is the spouse of an Irish citizen. The reference number quoted by the Deputy refers to the husband's application.

I informed the Deputy in response to Parliamentary Question No. 150 on 26 January 2006 that the husband's case would be finalised in or around July 2006.

Processing of the application is due to commence in the next few months but, in view of the increasing volume of applications for naturalisation being received, I cannot be certain at this stage if it will be finalised by July.

I will be in touch with both the Deputy and the applicant when I have reached a decision in the matter.

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

Question 243: To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the progress which has taken place in the application for reunification in the case of a person (details supplied) in Dublin 8, in view of the fact that the Court has struck out the alleged fraud; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20258/06]

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

The person concerned made an application in 2003 for Family Reunification on behalf of his wife and his children. Documents submitted in support of the application were examined and found not to be genuine.

The person was arrested on suspicion of commission of an offence contrary to Section 26 Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act, 2001 and charged with the offence of possession of a false instrument. He pleaded guilty before Kilmainham District Court and was fined €100.

The Family Reunification application by the person in question was refused and their legal representative was notified of this decision on the 10 February 2005.

It should be noted that the person concerned was naturalised in August 2004 and became an Irish citizen at that time. Under Section 18 of the Refugee Act, 1996 only refugees may apply to have family members join them in the State. As such the person in question has no longer any entitlement to make an application for Family Reunification.

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

Question 244: To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the residency status in the case of a person (details supplied) in Dublin 15; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20259/06]

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

I wish to advise the Deputy that the case of the person concerned falls under the terms of the Dublin II Regulation, Council Regulation (EC) No. 343/2003. Consequently, I wish to preface my Reply by briefly explaining the workings of this Regulation.

The Dublin II 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 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 (ORAC) can, on the basis of relevant criteria, request another State to accept responsibility for an asylum application and have it processed in that other State.

The person concerned lodged an asylum claim in this State on 13 April 2005. Following investigation, it was determined by the ORAC that, pursuant to the provisions of the Dublin II Regulation, the United Kingdom was the appropriate State to process the application as the person concerned had previously lodged an asylum claim in that State, on 4 March 2003, albeit under a different name and date of birth. The person concerned was offered an opportunity to appeal the determination of the ORAC, to the Refugee Appeals Tribunal, which she duly did on 7 July 2005. Following consideration of the Appeal, the Tribunal upheld the determination of the ORAC i.e. that the person concerned should have her asylum claim examined in the United Kingdom and she was formally notified of this decision by letter dated 8 September, 2005. The person concerned was kept informed of developments throughout the course of her asylum application in this State and was made aware as soon as it was possible to do so that her case came under the terms of the Dublin II Regulation.

The United Kingdom accepted responsibility for the case of the person concerned with the consequence that a Transfer Order was signed in respect of her on 29 June 2005. This Order was issued to the person concerned on 1 July 2005, requiring her to present herself to the Garda National Immigration Bureau (GNIB), 13-14 Burgh Quay, Dublin 2 on 11 July 2005 to make arrangements for her transfer to the United Kingdom. She failed to present, as required, and is therefore classified as having evaded her transfer. Consequently, she is now liable to arrest and detention. She should therefore present herself to An Garda Síochána without further delay so that travel arrangements can be made to effect her transfer to the United Kingdom.

In accordance with the provisions of the Dublin II Regulation, the United Kingdom, and not Ireland, is responsible for examining the asylum claim of the person concerned. As a result, it is not my intention to grant the person concerned any period of leave to reside here. Given that the person concerned lodged her initial asylum claim in the United Kingdom, it is entirely appropriate that she be transferred to that State.