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

Question 358: To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if leave to remain will be granted to a person (details supplied) in County Limerick; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37172/09]

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

The person concerned applied for asylum on 7 January 2005. His asylum application was refused following consideration of his case by the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner and, on appeal, the Refugee Appeals Tribunal.

The person concerned was informed, by letter dated 23 November 2005, that the Minister proposed to make a Deportation Order in respect of him. He was given three options in accordance with Section 3(3)(b)(ii) of the Immigration Act, 1999 (as amended), to be exercised within 15 working days. Namely, to leave the State voluntarily, to consent to the making of a Deportation Order or to make representations to the Minister setting out the reasons why he should be allowed to remain temporarily in the State i.e. why he should not be deported.

The person concerned submitted an application for Subsidiary Protection in the State in accordance with the European Communities (Eligibility for Protection) Regulations, 2006 (S.I. No. 518 of 2006). Following consideration of the information submitted the application was refused. The person concerned and his legal representative were notified of this decision by letter dated 21 September 2009.

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 23 September 2009, 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 leave the State by 23 October 2009.

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 359: To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if a review of the case of a person (details supplied) in County Sligo will be undertaken; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37173/09]

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

The person concerned applied for asylum on 30 March 2004. His asylum application was refused following consideration of his case by the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner and, on appeal, the Refugee Appeals Tribunal.

The person concerned was informed, by letter dated 16 November 2004, that the Minister proposed to make a Deportation Order in respect of him. He was given three options in accordance with Section 3(3)(b)(ii) of the Immigration Act, 1999 (as amended), to be exercised within 15 working days. Namely, to leave the State voluntarily, to consent to the making of a Deportation Order or to make representations to the Minister setting out the reasons why he should be allowed to remain temporarily in the State i.e. why he should not be deported.

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 11 May, 2005 my predecessor 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 to present themselves at the Garda National Immigration Bureau (GNIB) 13-14 Burgh Quay, Dublin 2 on 16 June, 2005 in order to make travel arrangements for their removal from the State.

The person concerned lodged a request for revocation of the Deportation Order pursuant to Section 3(11) of the Immigration Act, 1999, (as amended). This application was refused and the Deportation Order was affirmed. The person concerned was notified of this decision by letter dated 19 November 2008.

The person concerned lodged a further request for revocation of the Deportation Order pursuant to Section 3(11) of the Immigration Act, 1999, (as amended). This application was refused and the Deportation Order was affirmed. The person concerned was notified of this decision by letter dated 2 October 2009.

The person concerned continues to meet the presentation requirements of the Garda National Immigration Bureau (G.N.I.B.) in accordance with Section 8(1)(b) of the Immigration Act 1999 (as amended). He is due to present again on 10 November 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 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 360: To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if leave to remain will be awarded in the case of a person (details supplied) in County Westmeath; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37174/09]

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

The person concerned applied for asylum on 7 September 2006 on her own behalf and on behalf of her child. Her asylum application was refused following consideration of her case by the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner and, on appeal, the Refugee Appeals Tribunal.

The person concerned was informed, by letter dated 22 November 2007, that the Minister proposed to make a Deportation Order in respect of her and her child. She was given three options in accordance with Section 3(3)(b)(ii) of the Immigration Act, 1999 (as amended), to be exercised within 15 working days. Namely, to leave the State voluntarily, to consent to the making of a Deportation Order or to make 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.

The person concerned submitted an application for Subsidiary Protection in the State in accordance with the European Communities (Eligibility for Protection) Regulations, 2006 (S.I. No. 518 of 2006). Following consideration of the information submitted the application was refused. The person concerned and her legal representative were notified of this decision by letter dated 2 October 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 15 October 2009, I refused permission to remain temporarily in the State and instead signed a Deportation Order in respect of her and her child. Notice of this order was served by registered post requiring the person concerned and her child to leave the State by 2 November 2009.

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 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.

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

Question 361: To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if leave to remain will be awarded in the case of a person (details supplied) in County Westmeath; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37175/09]

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

The person concerned applied for asylum on 23 February 2007. His asylum application was refused following consideration of his case by the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner and, on appeal, the Refugee Appeals Tribunal.

The person concerned was informed, by letter dated 19 November 2008, that the Minister proposed to make a Deportation Order in respect of him. He was given three options in accordance with Section 3(3)(b)(ii) of the Immigration Act, 1999 (as amended), to be exercised within 15 working days. Namely, to leave the State voluntarily, to consent to the making of a Deportation Order or to make representations to the Minister setting out the reasons why he should be allowed to remain temporarily in the State i.e. why he should not be deported.

The person concerned submitted an application for Subsidiary Protection in the State in accordance with the European Communities (Eligibility for Protection) Regulations, 2006 (S.I. No. 518 of 2006). Following consideration of the information submitted, the application was refused. The person concerned and his legal representative were notified of this decision by letter dated 2 October 2009.

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 15 October 2009, 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 leave the State by 2 November 2009.

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.