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

Question 317: To ask the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if he will exercise his discretionary powers not to refer the application for refugee status to the UK in the case of a person (details supplied) in County Mayo; if he will personally intervene to prevent such tragedy; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29118/06]

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

Question 342: To ask the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the way in which investigations were undertaken to determine the safety and well-being in the case of a person (details supplied); if due regard has been taken of the situation in their homeland; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29144/06]

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

Question 344: To ask the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if he will arrange to have an application for residency processed in this jurisdiction in the case of a person (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29146/06]

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

Question 364: To ask the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if he will defer action to transfer to the UK a person (details supplied) in County Mayo, until such time as they have had an opportunity to have their appeal heard, in view of the fact that under Irish law such a person having indicated their intention to appeal is entitled to have their appeal heard and determined before taking precipitate action; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29166/06]

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

I propose to take Questions Nos. 317, 342, 344 and 364 together.

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. 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 member 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 18 April, 2006. Following investigation it was established that the person had previously made an asylum application in the United Kingdom. It was therefore 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 there on 15 February, 2005, albeit under a different name, date of birth and nationality. The person concerned was afforded an opportunity to appeal the determination of the ORAC to the Refugee Appeals Tribunal which she duly did on 18 July, 2006 through her legal representatives, the Refugee Legal Service.

Following consideration of the Appeal, the Tribunal upheld the determination of the ORAC, that is, 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 30 August, 2006. The person concerned was kept informed of developments throughout the course of her asylum application in Ireland 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 14 July, 2006. This Order was issued to the person concerned on 17 July, 2006, requiring her to present herself to the Garda National Immigration Bureau (GNIB), 13/14 Burgh Quay, Dublin 2 on 24 July, 2006 to make arrangements for her transfer to the United Kingdom. As a consequence of the Transfer Order, she was transferred to the United Kingdom on 4 September, 2006.

The situation in the home country of the person concerned and her need, if any, for international protection are matters for the United Kingdom to consider as part of its examination of her asylum claim.

In relation to appeals under the Dublin II Regulation, I must point out to the Deputy that the making of an appeal to the Tribunal does not, of itself, operate to suspend the transfer of a person's asylum application nor indeed the person themselves. The appeal can be pursued from the receiving country. Of course, if an appeal is successful, arrangements are made to allow the person concerned to re-enter the State and have their asylum application determined substantively by the ORAC.