Michael D Higgins (Galway West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 551: To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the position of an application by a person for asylum by a person (details supplied) which dates back into the late 1990's; the reason for the delay which is being experienced in this application; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32417/07]

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

The person concerned and her daughter arrived in the State on 17 May 1998 and claimed asylum. Their application was refused following consideration of their case by the Asylum Division and, on appeal, by the Asylum Appeals Unit.

The person concerned was informed by letter dated 15 August 2000 that the Minister proposed to make a Deportation Order in respect of her and afforded her 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, written representations to the Minister setting out the reasons why she should be allowed to remain temporarily in the State i.e. why she should not be deported.

Her case was examined under Section 3 (6) of the Immigration Act, 1999 (as amended), and Section 5 of the Refugee Act, 1996 (as amended) on the Prohibition of Refoulement. Consideration was given to all representations submitted on her behalf for permission to remain temporarily in the State. On 24 May 2001 the then Minister refused permission to remain temporarily in the State and instead signed Deportation Orders in respect of the person concerned and her daughter. A notice of these Orders dated 8 June 2001 was served by registered post requiring the person concerned to present herself and her daughter at Mill Street Garda Station, Mill Street, Galway on Friday 15 June 2001, in order to make travel arrangements for their deportation from the State. She failed to present herself and her daughter as required and they were classified as evading their deportation.

Subsequently the person concerned took Judicial Review proceedings challenging the decision of the then Minister to deport her. The basis for the review was that the details of the daughter of the person concerned were not included in the notice of intention to deport letter dated 15 August 2000. The case was settled on 23 October 2001 and the terms of the settlement were complied with. The outcome of the settlement was that the deportation orders made in respect of the person concerned and her daughter were revoked by the then Minister and Revocation Orders were signed by him on 26 February 2002. In addition the Minister exercised his option to serve a new notice of intention to deport letter dated 28 February 2002 on the person concerned and her daughter. Said notice was served by registered post.

A supplementary application for temporary leave to remain in the State was made by the Refugee Legal Service on 25 February 2004 on behalf of the person concerned. Subsequent to this application, consideration was again given to the person concerned under Section 3 (6) of the Immigration Act, 1999, as amended, for permission to remain temporarily in the State.

On 26 August 2004, my immediate predecessor refused permission to remain and instead signed Deportation Orders in respect of the person concerned and her daughter. Notice of these Orders was served by registered post requiring her to present herself and her daughter to the Garda National Immigration Bureau, on Thursday 23 September, 2004, in order to make travel arrangements for their deportation from the State. She failed to present herself and her daughter as required and they were classified as evading their deportation. I would urge the person concerned to come forward and begin presenting herself, and her daughter, at the offices of the Garda National Immigration Bureau without further delay. The effect of the Deportation Orders is that the person concerned and her daughter must leave the State and remain thereafter out of the State.

I am satisfied that the applications made on behalf of the person concerned and her daughter for asylum and 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 them is justified. The enforcement of the Deportation Orders remains an operational matter for the Garda National Immigration Bureau.