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

Question 933: To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the reason references to Romania have been ignored in successive replies to Parliamentary Questions in the name of a person (details supplied) in Dublin 15; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20298/07]

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

Question 995: To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the position in relation to the application for asylum/residency in the case of a person (details supplied) in Dublin 15; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20361/07]

Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I propose to take Questions Nos. 933 and 995 together.

I refer the Deputy to Parliamentary Questions Nos. 233 of Thursday, 28th June, 2007, No. 101 of Thursday, 1st March 2007, No. 51 of Thursday, 15th February, 2007, No. 377 of Wednesday, 31st January, 2007, No. 54 of Thursday, 30th November 2006, No. 83 of Thursday, 26th October, 2006, No. 187 of Thursday, 1st June 2006, and the written replies to those questions.

The person referred to by the Deputy applied for asylum in the State on 23 May, 2002. The claim was assessed by the Refugee Applications Commissioner who concluded that the person concerned did not meet the criteria for recognition as a refugee. The Commissioner's recommendation was communicated to her by letter dated 21 October, 2002. This communication advised the person of her entitlement to appeal the Commissioner's recommendation to the Refugee Appeals Tribunal, which she duly did.

The Refugee Appeals Tribunal considered the person's appeal, following which the Tribunal affirmed the Commissioner's earlier recommendation to reject her claim. The outcome of the appeal was made known to the applicant by letter dated 30 April, 2004.

A complete read of the Tribunal's report clearly shows that the member in arriving at his decision to refuse her asylum appeal was fully aware of her country of origin, Angola, which is mentioned no less than 16 times in the text. A single reference to "Romania" was clearly an unintended typographical error which I am satisfied did not in any way prejudice the decision.

In accordance with normal procedures, the applicant's file was forwarded to my Department for final processing of the Asylum claim. A letter issued to the person in question on 20 September, 2004 informing her that her asylum claim had been rejected and that the Minister proposed to make a deportation order in respect of her. She was given the options, to be exercised within 15 working days, of making representations to the Minister setting out the reasons why she should be allowed to remain temporarily in the State; leaving the State before an order is made or consenting to the making of a deportation order. Representations were received on behalf of the person concerned.

This person's case file, including all representations submitted, will be considered under Section 3(6) of the Immigration Act, 1999, as amended, and Section 5 of the Refugee Act, 1996 (Prohibition of Refoulement). I expect the file to be passed to me for decision in due course.