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

Question 620: To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if a review will be undertaken regarding an application for leave to remain here in the case of a person (details supplied) in County Cork; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1174/09]

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

Question 639: To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the current or expected residency status in the case of persons (details supplied) in County Cork; if a review will be undertaken in this regard; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1326/09]

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

I propose to take Questions Nos. 620 and 639 together.

The first person referred to by the Deputy, a Nigerian woman, arrived in the State on 25 January 2005 and applied for asylum on 27 January 2005. 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. Subsequently, in accordance with section 3 of the Immigration Act 1999, as amended, the person concerned was informed, by letter dated 31 March 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 she should be allowed to remain temporarily in the State i.e. why she should not be deported. Her case was then 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 representations submitted on her behalf by her legal representative for permission to remain in the State. On 18 November 2005, my predecessor 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 her to present herself at the Garda National Immigration Bureau (GNIB) 13-14 Burgh Quay, Dublin 2 on Thursday, 1 December 2005 to make travel arrangements for her removal from the State. She failed to present on this occasion.

A request for leave to remain on humanitarian grounds was received from the legal representative of person concerned by correspondence dated 14 December 2005 seeking revocation of her deportation order. A stay was put on the order until the matters raised were considered. This decision was notified to the legal representative of the person concerned by letter dated 22 December 2005. Subsequently, a decision was taken to affirm the deportation order and this decision was communicated to the legal representative of the person concerned by letter dated 15 March 2006. Further representations were then received from the said legal representative by correspondence dated 22 and 27 March 2006 seeking to have the decision to affirm the deportation order set aside.

At this point my predecessor put a stay on a decision regarding the affirmation of the deportation order until July 2006 to allow for the lodgment of additional medical reports for his consideration. Further medical reports were lodged by the legal representative of the person concerned on 3 July 2006 together with a follow-up letter dated 30 August 2006 enclosing a doctor's letter dated 29 August 2006. All these matters were considered and a decision was taken to once again affirm the deportation order. This decision was communicated to the person concerned and her legal representative by letter dated 27 September 2006. In addition, the person concerned was required to present herself at the Garda National Immigration Bureau on Tuesday, 17 October 2006 to make arrangements for her removal from the State. This letter was returned to my Department marked "not collected by addressee". A further letter dated 28 November 2006 was issued to a new address following advice that the person concerned had not received the earlier correspondence. On this occasion she was again advised that the earlier decision to make a deportation order was unchanged and she was required to present herself at the Garda National Immigration Bureau on Thursday, 14 December 2006 to make arrangements for her removal from the State. She presented on this occasion and was given further presentation dates. However, she was due to present on 22 February 2007 but failed to do so.

In the meantime and by letter dated 7 July 2008, further representations seeking temporary leave to remain in the State were received from the person concerned. Following consideration of same, the deportation order was affirmed by me on 4 December 2008. The person concerned was notified of this decision by letter dated 23 December 2008 which also required her to present herself at Anglesea Street Garda station in Cork on Monday, 12 January 2009 to make arrangements for her removal from the State. She presented on this occasion and is due to present again on 9 February 2009. I am satisfied that the applications made by the person concerned 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 her is justified. The effect of the deportation order is that the person concerned must leave the State and remain thereafter out of the State. The enforcement of the deportation order is an operational matter for the GNIB.

The second person referred to by the Deputy, a Nigerian man, arrived in the State on 13 January 2007 and applied for asylum on 22 January 2007. His application was refused following consideration of his case by the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner, and, on appeal, by 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 September 2007, 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 he should be allowed to remain temporarily in the State i.e. why he should not be deported. I should also mention that a person who has been refused refugee status and has been served with a notice of intention to deport is, since 10 October 2006, afforded a fourth option, viz. to apply for Subsidiary Protection pursuant to the European Communities (Eligibility for Protection) Regulations, 2006 — Statutory Instrument No. 518 of 2006.

By correspondence dated 13 November 2007, an application for subsidiary protection was made on behalf of the person concerned by his legal representative. Following consideration of the information submitted, the application was refused. The man and his legal representative were notified of this decision by letter dated 26 June 2008. His case was then 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 representations submitted on his behalf by his legal representative for permission to remain in the State. On 30 October 2008, I refused permission to remain temporarily in the State and instead signed a deportation order in respect of him. Notice of this order was served by registered post requiring the person concerned to present himself at the Garda National Immigration Bureau (GNIB) 13-14 Burgh Quay, Dublin 2 on Thursday, 27 November 2008 to make travel arrangements for his removal from the State.

He failed to present and was classified as evading his deportation. If he comes to the notice of the Garda, he will be liable to arrest and detention. He should, therefore, present himself to the GNIB without further delay. I am satisfied that the applications made by the person concerned for asylum, for temporary leave to remain in the State and for subsidiary protection, together with all refoulement issues, were fairly and comprehensively examined and, as such, the decision to deport him is justified. The effect of the deportation order is that the person concerned must leave the State and remain thereafter out of the State. The enforcement of the deportation order is an operational matter for the GNIB.

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

Question 621: To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the current or expected residency status in the case of a person (details supplied) in County Limerick; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1176/09]

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

I wish to inform the Deputy that the person in question has been granted temporary permission to remain in the State, as an exceptional measure, until 18 December 2011. This permission only becomes operative when the person registers with his local registration office,. The person concerned was informed of this decision by letter dated 18 December 2008.

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

Question 622: To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the position in relation to an application for family reunification in the case of a person (details supplied) in Dublin 6; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1177/09]

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

The person concerned was granted temporary permission to remain in the State on 14 November 2006, following the consideration of his case under Section 3 of the Immigration Act 1999, as amended. This permission was subsequently renewed for a year to 18 November 2008 and the person concerned was informed of this decision by letter dated 19 November 2007. The person concerned has applied for this permission to be renewed for a further one year period and this application is currently under consideration. The person will be notified in writing of the outcome. There are no records in my Department of the person having submitted an application for family reunification. The Deputy might wish to note that the position in the State of the person is not such as would confer any statutory entitlement under family reunification provisions.