Michael McGrath (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 372: To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the position in relation to an application for subsidiary protection and an application for a temporary visa to return home by a person (details supplied) in County Cork. [32059/08]

Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The person concerned applied for Asylum on 2 August 2005. Her application was refused following consideration of her case by the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner and, on appeal, the Refugee Appeals Tribunal. Subsequently, in accordance with Section 3 of the Immigration Act 1999 (as amended), the person concerned was informed, by letter dated 6 February 2006, 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 leaving the State voluntarily, of consenting to the making of a Deportation Order or of making representations to the Minister setting out the reasons why she should be allowed to remain temporarily in the State. Representations have been submitted on behalf of the person concerned.

The case of the person concerned 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 28 August 2006, a Deportation Order was signed in respect of the person concerned. This Order was formally served by registered letter dated 9 March 2007. This communication also advised the person concerned of the coming into force of the European Communities (Eligibility for Protection) Regulations, 2006 (S.I. No. 518 of 2006) on 10 October 2006 and as the Deportation Order relating to the person concerned had not been served on the date the new Regulations took effect, the person concerned was notified of her entitlement to submit, if she so wished, an application for Subsidiary Protection in the State in accordance with the provisions of the new Regulations.

An application for Subsidiary Protection in the State was submitted on behalf of the person concerned and this application is under consideration at present. When consideration of this application has been completed, the person concerned will be notified in writing of the outcome. The Deputy might wish to note that while the Deportation Order referred to remains in force, this will not be effected pending the determination of the application for Subsidiary Protection.

In relation to the visa issue, the Deputy might wish to note the person concerned has, through her lodgement of an asylum application and appeal and more recently her application for Subsidiary Protection in this State, led the statutory independent refugee status determination bodies and my Department to believe that her position in her country of origin was intolerable and, as such, she has claimed that it is not safe for her to return there. Such a position would be entirely incompatible with the thrust of the Deputy's enquiry regarding a possible return home to her country of origin by the person concerned. Additionally, my Department would have no desire to prevent the person concerned from returning to her country of origin, however, as a person who is the subject of a valid Deportation Order, the person concerned would be precluded from obtaining a re-entry visa to facilitate her return to this State in the event that she decided to leave this State.