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

Question 405: To ask the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the position in relation to the deportation order in the case of a person (details supplied) in Dublin 24; if extended leave to remain in the State will be granted to the person; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2328/07]

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

The person concerned arrived in the State on 4 May 2000 and applied for asylum. His application was refused following consideration of his case by the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner and, on appeal, by the Office of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal.

The person concerned was informed by letter dated 11 August 2003, that the Minister proposed to make a deportation order in respect of him and afforded him three options in accordance with Section 3 (3) (b) (ii) of the Immigration Act, 1999, as amended, namely to leave the State voluntarily, to consent to the making of a deportation order or to submit, within 15 working days, representations to the Minister, in writing, setting out the reasons why he should be allowed to remain temporarily in the State.

His case was examined under Section 3 (6) of the Immigration Act, 1999 as amended, and Section 5 of the Refugee Act, 1996 on the Prohibition of Refoulement. Consideration was given to representations received on his behalf from the Refugee Legal Service for temporary leave to remain in the State. On 3 August 2004, I refused temporary leave to remain in the State and signed a deportation order in respect of him. Notice of this order was served by registered post requiring him to present himself to the Garda National Immigration Bureau (GNIB), 13/14 Burgh Quay, Dublin 2, on 18 November 2004, in order to make travel arrangements for his deportation from the State. The person concerned failed to present as required and was classified as evading his deportation. As such he is liable to arrest and detention under Section 5 of the Immigration Act, 1999, as amended, for the purposes of ensuring his removal from the State. I would urge the person concerned to come forward and present himself to the GNIB as soon as possible.

The Deputy might wish to note that, in addition to the eleven factors contained in Section 3 (6) of the Immigration Act, 1999 (as amended), I must, as stated earlier, also have regard for Section 5 of the Refugee Act, 1996 (as amended) on the Prohibition of Refoulement before making a deportation order. This essentially means that the safety of returning a person, or refoulement as it is commonly referred to, is fully considered in every case when deciding whether or not to make a deportation order i.e. that a person shall not be expelled from the State or returned in any manner whatsoever to a State where, in my opinion, the life or freedom of that person would be threatened on account of his or her race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. My Department uses extensive country of origin information drawn from different independent sources, including the UNHCR, in evaluating the safety of making returns to the Country in question and other third countries. In this case, I am entirely satisfied that there are no refoulement related reasons to prevent the deportation of the person concerned.

The person concerned is awaiting deportation following a comprehensive examination of his asylum claim and of his application to remain temporarily in the State. I am satisfied that the applications made by the person concerned for asylum and subsequently for temporary leave to remain in the State, together with all refoulement issues, were fairly and comprehensively examined and, as such, the decision to deport him is justified. The enforcement of the deportation order is now an operational matter for the Garda National Immigration Bureau.