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

Question 89: To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the status of a person (details supplied) in County Kildare; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15073/09]

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

The person concerned arrived in the State on 14 June 2001 and applied for asylum on 18 June 2001. 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 9 January 2004, 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 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 3 February 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 the person concerned to present herself at the Garda National Immigration Bureau (GNIB) 13-14 Burgh Quay, Dublin 2 on Tuesday 13 November 2007 in order to make travel arrangements for her removal from the State. She failed to present as required and was classified as evading her deportation. Should she come to the notice of the Gardaí, she would be liable to arrest and detention. She should, therefore, present herself to the GNIB without any further delay.

An application for Family Reunification was made in respect of the person concerned by her husband in April 2007. Said application was withdrawn by the husband of the person concerned and he was notified of this by letter dated 17 October 2007. A fresh application for Family Reunification was made in February 2008. Subsequently by letter dated 12 January 2009, the legal representative of the person concerned advised my Department that its client wished to withdraw her application for Family Reunification. Said application was deemed withdrawn and the legal representative of the person concerned was notified of this by letter dated 29 January 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, and remains, an operational matter for the GNIB.