Brian O'Shea (Waterford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 200: To ask the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the position regarding the granting of residency to a person (details supplied) in County Waterford; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12950/07]

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

The person concerned arrived in the State on 28 December 2005 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 Refugee Appeals Tribunal.

The person concerned was informed by letter dated 23 August 2006, 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 is currently under consideration pursuant to Section 3(6) of the Immigration Act, 1999 as amended, and Section 5 of the Refugee Act, 1996 on the Prohibition of Refoulement. Consideration will be given to representations received on his behalf from the Refugee Legal Service for temporary leave to remain in the State.

The person concerned made an application for residency in the State pursuant to the revised arrangements announced by the Minister on 15 January 2005 for the processing of applications for permission to remain in the State from the non-national parents of Irish born children born before 1 January 2005. The closing date for applications under the IBC '05 Scheme as it became known was 31 March 2005. As the application of the person concerned was received by my Department on 3 January 2006, which was after the date of expiry of the scheme, it was refused.

I wish to advise the Deputy that the circumstances of the application for residency by the person concerned under the IBC '05 Scheme are similar in nature to those of another individual whose case was heard before the High Court late last year and is now referred to as the Adio Judgement. This judgement challenged the power of the Minister to refuse applicants under the IBC '05 Scheme whose applications were lodged after the expiry date of the Scheme. Following the Adio Judgement, and several other judgements concerning various criteria for refusing applications under the scheme, my Department lodged an appeal of the various judgements to the Supreme Court.

No action will be undertaken by my Department in respect of the case of the person concerned until the decision of the Supreme Court in these matters is known.