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

Question 299: To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform further to his reply to Parliamentary Question No. 811 of 24 September 2008, the position regarding a person (details supplied) in County Kildare; if his attention has been drawn to the seriousness of their situation after they were deported and that their mother legally works here; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [33625/08]

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

The person concerned arrived in the State on 5 September 2002 and subsequently claimed asylum. Her application was refused following consideration of her 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 19 November 2004 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 in the State. On 4 May 2005 the then Minister refused permission to remain temporarily in the State and instead signed a Deportation Order in respect of her. Notice of this order was served by registered post requiring the person concerned to present herself at the Garda National Immigration Bureau (GNIB),13-14 Burgh Quay, Dublin 2 on Tuesday 7 June 2005 in order to make travel arrangements for her removal from the State. She presented as required and was given further presentation dates which she kept. On 6 July 2005, she was removed from the State and returned to Nigeria.

The Deputy might wish to note that, in addition to the 11 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 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 United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR), in evaluating the safety of making returns to Nigeria and other third countries. In this case, I am entirely satisfied that there were no refoulement related reasons to prevent the deportation of the person concerned.

Further, I am satisfied that the applications made by the person concerned for asylum and subsequently for temporary leave to remain in the State were fairly and comprehensively examined and, as such, the decision to deport her was justified.

The effect of the Deportation Order is that the person concerned, having been removed by the State, must remain out of the State.