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

Question 163: To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform when it is expected an application for residency will be concluded in the case of a person (details supplied) in County Cork; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [45879/08]

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

The person concerned applied for asylum on 11 February 2002. His application was refused following consideration of his 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 14 May 2003, that the Minister proposed to make a Deportation Order in respect of him. He 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 he should be allowed to remain temporarily in the State.

Representations have been submitted on behalf of the person concerned and these representations will be fully considered, 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, before the file is passed to me for decision.

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

Question 164: To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform when it is expected that residency status in the case of a person (details supplied) in County Cork will be concluded; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [45880/08]

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

The person concerned arrived in the State on 26 February 2004 and applied for asylum. Her application was refused and a Deportation Order was signed in respect of her on 15 November 2005. Judicial Review proceedings challenging the Deportation Order were instituted on 20 December 2005. These proceedings were determined on 18 January 2008 and the reliefs sought were refused by the High Court. Costs were awarded in favour of the Respondents on the 29 January 2008.

The person concerned submitted an application for Subsidiary Protection pursuant to the European Communities (Eligibility for Protection) Regulations, 2006 S.I. No. 518 of 2006 ('The Regulations') on 13 February 2007. She was informed on 22 February 2007 that her application was invalid as the Deportation Order had been made in respect of her prior to the coming into force of the Regulation on 10 October 2006. Judicial Review proceedings challenging this decision were instituted on 4 May 2007.

These Judicial Review proceedings were settled following the Judgment of Mr. Justice Feeney in the cases of Hila & Djolo, where he determined that under Regulation 4(2) of the European Communities (Eligibility for Protection) Regulations, 2006 S.I. No. 518 of 2006 that I have discretion to accept and consider applications for Subsidiary Protection from persons who do not have an automatic right to apply but who have identified new facts or circumstance which demonstrate a change of position from that which pertained at the time the Deportation Order was made.

Subsequently the person concerning submitted an application pursuant to Regulation 4(2) of the European Communities (Eligibility for Protection) Regulations, 2006 S.I. No. 518 of 2006 on 23 November 2007, requesting that I exercise discretion to accept and consider an application for Subsidiary Protection. Following a consideration of the material submitted it was concluded that the applicant had established no grounds which would enable me to exercise discretion under Regulation 4(2). The person concerned was notified of my decision on 18 March 2008. Judicial Review proceedings challenging the Regulation 4(2) decision were instituted on the 8 April 2008 and are still on going and as the matter is sub judice, I do not propose to comment further.