Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 331: To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the position regarding an application for asylum by persons (details supplied) in County Cork; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27223/09]

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

If an application for asylum has been made by the persons concerned the Deputy will of course be aware that it is not the practice to comment on asylum applications that are pending.

Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 332: To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the position regarding an application for asylum by persons (details supplied) in County Cork; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27224/09]

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

If an asylum application has been made in respect of the first named person, the Deputy should note that it is not the practice to comment on asylum applications that are pending.

The second named person arrived in the State on 23 November, 2007 and applied for asylum. On 5 December, 2007 she gave birth to a daughter, the third named person, and included her in her asylum application. Their application was refused following consideration of their 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 second person was informed, by letter dated 22 September, 2008, that the Minister proposed to make Deportation Orders in respect of her and her daughter. The person concerned and her daughter were given the options, to be exercised within 15 working days, of leaving the State voluntarily, of consenting to the making of Deportation Orders or of making representations to the Minister setting out the reasons why they should be allowed to remain temporarily in the State, i.e. why they should not be deported.

She was also notified of her entitlement to apply for Subsidiary Protection pursuant to the European Communities (Eligibility for Protection) Regulations 2006. By correspondence dated 10 October, 2008, an application for Subsidiary Protection was made on behalf of the second named person by her legal representative. Following consideration of the information submitted, the application was refused. The second named person and her legal representative were notified of this decision by letter dated 26 January, 2009.

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 4 February, 2009, I refused the person concerned permission to remain temporarily in the State and signed Deportation Orders in respect of her and her daughter. Notice of these orders was served by registered post requiring the person concerned and her daughter to present themselves at the Garda National Immigration Bureau (GNIB) 13-14 Burgh Quay, Dublin 2 on Monday 23 February, 2009 in order to make travel arrangements for their removal from the State.

By letter dated 2 February, 2009, representations were received from the legal representative of the second named person seeking re - consideration of the refusal of the application for temporary leave to remain in the State. The representations received were considered as an application pursuant to Section 3 (11) of the Immigration Act 1999, as amended, seeking the revocation of the Deportation Order of the person concerned. Following consideration of the information submitted, the Deportation Order was affirmed and the second named person was notified of this decision by letter dated 23 February, 2009.

On 23 February, 2009 Judicial Review proceedings were instituted seeking leave to challenge the Deportation Orders. Leave to apply was refused in the High Court on 17 June, 2009. I am satisfied that the applications made by the second named person and her daughter 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 them is justified.

The effect of the Deportation Orders is that the second named person and her daughter must leave the State and remain thereafter out of the State. The enforcement of the Deportation Orders is, and remains, an operational matter for the GNIB.

Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 333: To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the position regarding an application for political asylum by persons (details supplied) in County Cork; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27225/09]

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

If an application for asylum has been made by the first and second named person concerned the Deputy will of course be aware that it is not the practice to comment on asylum applications that are pending. The third named person concerned is the infant daughter of the first and second named person concerned. On 24 November 2008 an application for asylum in the State was made on her behalf. Her application was refused following consideration of her case by the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner. She did not appeal this recommendation to 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 29 May 2009, 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. In addition, she was notified of her entitlement to apply for Subsidiary Protection in the State in accordance with the European Communities (Eligibility for Protection) Regulations, 2006 (S.I. No. 518 of 2006). The person concerned submitted an application for Subsidiary Protection in the State in accordance with these Regulations 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.

In the event that the Subsidiary Protection application is refused, the case file of the person concerned, including all representations submitted, will then be 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. When this latter consideration has been completed, the case file is passed to me for decision.