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

Question 697: To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the position regarding an application for residency in respect of a person (details supplied) in County Louth; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [38126/09]

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

I refer the Deputy to his earlier Parliamentary Questions, Nos. 271 of Tuesday, 13 October, 2009 and 125 of Thursday, 12 February, 2009, and the written Replies to those Questions.

As stated in my last Reply, the case file of the person concerned now falls to be decided by reference to the provisions of 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. All representations submitted will be considered before the file is passed to me for decision. Once a decision has been made, this decision and the consequences of the decision will be conveyed in writing to the person concerned.

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

Question 698: To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the position regarding an application for residency in respect of a person (details supplied) in Dublin 5; if a full investigation of the circumstances of this case has been undertaken. [38127/09]

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

The person concerned applied for asylum on 19 March 2009. In accordance with Section 9 of the Refugee Act 1996 (as amended), the person concerned was entitled to remain in the State until his application for asylum was decided. 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.

Arising from the refusal of his asylum application, and in accordance with the provisions of Section 3 of the Immigration Act 1999 (as amended), the person concerned was notified, by letter dated 31 August 2009, 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 a Deportation Order should not be made against him. In addition, he was notified of his 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 application for Subsidiary Protection is refused, the position in the State of the person concerned will then be decided by reference to the provisions of 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. This refoulement consideration will include a detailed assessment of the prevailing political and human rights conditions in the country of origin of the person concerned. Additionally, all representations submitted will be considered before the file is passed to me for decision. Once a decision has been made, this decision and the consequences of the decision will be conveyed in writing to the person concerned.

The Deputy might wish to note that following the initial refusal of the asylum application of the person concerned, he applied to be re-admitted to the asylum process in accordance with the provisions of Section 17 (7) of the Refugee Act 1999 (as amended). This application was approved which gave rise to the fresh, and ultimately unsuccessful, consideration of his asylum claim.

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

Question 699: To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the position regarding an application for long-term residency in respect or a person (details supplied) in Dublin 15; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [38128/09]

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

The person concerned applied for asylum on 2 October 2001. 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 15 October 2002, 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 were received from the person concerned.

On 2 November 2006 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 18 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.

The person concerned was notified by letter dated 6 October 2009 of the requirement that he present himself at the Offices of the Garda National Immigration Bureau on 27 October 2009 in order to make arrangements for his removal from the State. He failed to present and was classified as evading his deportation. Should he come to the notice of the Gardaí, he would be liable to arrest and detention. He should, therefore, present himself to the GNIB without any 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.