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

Question 151: To ask the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform further to his reply to Parliamentary Question No. 56 of 30 November 2006 and the full circumstances surrounding this case, if his attention has been drawn to the fears and concerns of the person concerned in the event of being deported to Belgium from whence they were previously returned to their homeland with serious consequences; the way it is proposed to give effective support to an application under council regulation, EC No. 343/2003 if the appeal procedure is ignored while the appeal is pending the applicant is then transferred or deported but subsequently given permission to return here; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [43602/06]

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

I would refer the Deputy to my reply to Dáil Question number 56 of 30 November, 2006, in respect of the person concerned. First of all I would like to advise the Deputy that the person concerned has still failed to present herself to the Garda National Immigration Bureau, (GNIB), as requested and continues to be illegally present in the State. She should, without any further delay, present herself to the appropriate authorities, in this case either the GNIB or An Garda Síochána.

I would also like to inform the Deputy that the person concerned is not being deported, but rather transferred to Belgium in accordance with the provisions of Council Regulation (EC) No. 343/2003. Belgium is the appropriate State to process her application for asylum on the basis that she made an asylum application there on 18 February, 2005.

I also wish to advise the Deputy that Belgium is a party to and thus bound by international human rights instruments which prohibit refoulement. The current development of a common EU asylum policy is predicated on the full and inclusive application of the 1951 Geneva Convention relating to the status of refugees and its 1967 New York Protocol, thus maintaining its principle of non-refoulement. Council Regulation (EC) No. 432/2003 is based on this common policy. Belgium respects the principle of non-refoulement thus ensuring that a person is not sent back to face persecution.

In relation to the appeals procedure and as I previously illustrated to the Deputy, in my reply to his previous Dáil Question in relation to this case, an appeal of the determination of the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner, (ORAC), can be appealed to the Refugee Appeals Tribunal. However the appeal can be pursued from the receiving Regulation State, in this case Belgium. If the appeal is successful, my Department will make arrangements with the appropriate authorities in Belgium in order to arrange for the person concerned to be returned to Ireland and for her asylum application to be examined substantively by the ORAC.

In conclusion, I would like to remind the Deputy that the person concerned continues to evade her transfer and is illegally present in the State. She should present herself to the GNIB or An Garda Síochána without any further delay.

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

Question 152: To ask the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if an investigation has been carried out to ascertain if the transfer to France in the case of a person (details supplied) in County Kildare will result in a direct deportation to the Democratic Republic of Congo which in turn will result in serious endangerment; if he will defer transfer pending such an investigation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [43603/06]

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

As the Deputy is no doubt aware, 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 Regulation State is responsible for examining an asylum application where applications have been lodged in more than one Regulation State or whereby an asylum seeker has been granted a visa to enter another Regulation State and has entered that other State before entering Ireland and making an asylum application here. 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 previously pertained in Europe. Under the Dublin II Regulation, the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner (ORAC) can, on the basis of relevant criteria, request another Regulation 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 19 May, 2006. Following investigation by the ORAC and pursuant to the provisions of the Dublin II Regulation, it was established that France was the appropriate State to process the application as the person concerned had previously lodged an asylum claim there on 14 January, 2005, and the appropriate authorities in France have accepted their responsibilities accordingly. The ORAC informed the person concerned of their determination on 08 August, 2006, whilst at the same time affording her an opportunity to appeal the determination to the Refugee Appeals Tribunal (RAT). The person concerned appealed the ORAC determination to RAT which the RAT upheld and the person concerned was informed of this by way of letter on 28 September, 2006.

As a direct consequence of the ORAC determination, a Transfer Order was signed in respect of the person concerned on 10 August, 2006. This Order was issued to her on 24 August, 2006, requiring her to present herself to the Garda National Immigration Bureau (GNIB), 13-14 Burgh Quay, Dublin 2 on 29 August, 2006, in order for arrangements to be made for her transfer to France. The person failed to attend the GNIB on this date and was recorded as having evaded her transfer pursuant to the provisions of the Dublin II Regulation.

The situation in the home country of the person concerned and her need, if any, for international protection are matters for France to consider as part of its examination of her asylum claim. The Deputy may also wish to know that France is a party to and thus bound by international human rights instruments which prohibit refoulement. The current development of a common EU asylum policy is predicated on the full and inclusive application of the 1951 Geneva Convention relating to the status of refugees and its 1967 New York Protocol, thus maintaining its principle of non-refoulement. Council Regulation (EC) No. 432/2003 is based on this common policy and every Regulation State respects the principle of non-refoulement thus assuring that no person is sent back to face persecution.

This said I do not propose to instigate any investigation into the asylum process in France as the Dublin II Regulation is binding on all EU Member States and the transfer of the person concerned will be effected at the earliest possible opportunity.