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

Question 197: To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the residency status in the case of a person (details supplied) in Dublin 8; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [43886/09]

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

The person concerned and her infant child applied for asylum on 29 March 2007. The infant child was included in his mother's asylum application. The person concerned gave birth to another child in the State in early 2007 and this child was also included in his mother's asylum application. In accordance with Section 9 of the Refugee Act 1996 (as amended), the person concerned, and her children, were entitled to remain in the State until her application for asylum was decided. 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.

Arising from the refusal of her 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 6 March 2008, that the Minister proposed to make Deportation Orders in respect of her and her children. She was 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 Deportation Orders should not be made in respect of her and her children. 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 initiated Judicial Review Proceedings in the High Court challenging the decision of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal in her case. On 22 October 2009, the High Court refused the Judicial Review Leave Application with the consequence that the earlier decisions of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal and the Minister stood.

Subsequently, the legal representative of the person concerned was informed, by letter dated 4 November 2009, that the person concerned could submit, within 15 working days, 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) and/or make representations to the Minister setting out the reasons why Deportation Orders should not be made in respect of her and her children.

The 15 day period referred to in my Department's letter of 4 November 2009 expires on 26 November 2009. It is open to the person concerned to make representations and/or apply for Subsidiary Protection within that period. In any event, the case of the person concerned will not be further processed until the 15 day period referred to has elapsed.

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

Question 198: To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, further to Question No. 278 of 17 November 2009, if he will review the case of a person (details supplied) in County Kildare as reference was made to application for permission to remain in the State dated 20 June 2008 which should have read 20 June 2006; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [43887/09]

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

I would like to assure the Deputy that the date given in my previous reply was correct i.e. the person concerned submitted what can only be termed as an application for permission to remain in the State on the basis of his parentage of an Irish-born child on 20 June 2008. This application was essentially a copy of a similar application submitted in October 2006, some 18 months after the closing date for receipt of completed applications under the IBC/05 Scheme i.e. 31 March 2005.

In light of the fact that the information given in my earlier Reply was correct, there is no basis for any review of the case of the person concerned. Instead, the case of the person concerned will be determined as set out in the concluding paragraph of my earlier reply.