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

Question 154: To ask the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform further to previous parliamentary questions, the extent to which an investigation has been undertaken to confirm the safety and well-being of a person (details supplied) in Dublin 7 in the event of them being deported to their homeland in view of the fact that they have lived here for five years and have serious concerns for their safety in the event of their deportation; if he has studied reports of the ORAC or RAT and other information relevant in this case; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [43624/06]

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

I would refer the Deputy to my earlier Replies to his previous Parliamentary Questions in this matter. As previously stated, the person concerned arrived in the State on 11 April 2001 and applied for asylum. His application was refused following the consideration of his case, at first instance 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). Additionally, each of those bodies is required to examine all elements of each asylum application it receives and, this being the case, I am entirely satisfied that all elements of the asylum application and appeal submitted by the person concerned was examined in detail before any final position was arrived at by those bodies. Equally, I am satisfied that any documentation or correspondence included as part of the asylum application or appeal was given appropriate consideration by those bodies.

I would refer the Deputy again to my Reply to Parliamentary Question No. 86 of Thursday 26 October 2006 where I explained how a Deportation Order came to be made against the person concerned. The Deputy will note from that Reply that a Deportation Order was signed by me only after all relevant factors and documentation had been taken into account. Consequently a Deportation Order was signed by me on 11 September 2003.

I am satisfied that all elements of the asylum application, appeal and application for permission to remain in the State submitted by the person concerned have been fairly and comprehensively examined. As a result, I am satisfied that the decision to issue a Deportation Order in respect of the person concerned was entirely justified.