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

Question 429: To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the status in respect of residency and work permit eligibility in the case of a person (details supplied) in County Kildare; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23845/06]

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

I would refer the Deputy to my Reply to Dáil Question No. 469 of 31 January 2006. The position is relation to the person concerned is as set out therein.

The person concerned continues to be classified as having evaded his deportation. The effect of the deportation order is that he must leave the State and remain thereafter out of the State.

The enforcement of the deportation order remains an operational matter for the Garda National Immigration Bureau.

Pat Carey (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 430: To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if a person (details supplied) in Dublin 8 will be granted permission to remain in the State on the grounds that they are the parent of an Irish born child; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23846/06]

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

The person in question applied for permission to remain in the State under the revised arrangements for non EU national parents of Irish children born prior to 1 January 2005, commonly referred to as the IBC/05 scheme.

It is a requirement under the IBC/05 scheme that each applicant is resident with their child on a continuous basis since the child's birth and that evidence of such residence be provided with each application. The person in question has not provided satisfactory evidence of being continuously resident in the State since his child was born on 24 September 2004. As he failed to meet the criterion of continual residence in the State his application for permission to remain in the State under the IBC/05 scheme was refused. This information was communicated to the applicant on 12 August 2005. A further letter to the applicant's solicitor containing this information was issued on 25 August 2005.

As a result of a recent court settlement the person in question has made further representations to be allowed remain in the State. These representations will be considered in the context of Section 3 of the Immigration Act 1999 and will be dealt with in due course.