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

Question 382: 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. [5024/10]

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

I refer the Deputy to his recent Parliamentary Question, No. 270 of Tuesday, 13 October, 2009, and the written Reply to that Question. The position in the State of the person concerned is as set out in that Reply.

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

Question 383: To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform his views on whether the imminent threat of female genital mutilation in the event of deportation is considered ground for a full review of an application for residency and refugee status or the exercise or his discretionary powers in such issues; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5025/10]

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

The Deputy might wish to note that fears relating to female genital mutilation are regularly advanced to support asylum applications for Subsidiary Protection and in representations submitted under Section 3 of the Immigration Act 1999 (as amended).

Where such fears are represented as part of an asylum claim, it is a matter for the two statutory independent refugee status determination bodies, namely the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner and the Refugee Appeals Tribunal, to investigate such claims and, in each individual case, to make a recommendation to the Minister as to whether each applicant/appellant should, or should not, be declared to be a refugee, as defined in Section 2 of the Refugee Act, 1996 (as amended). Such investigations will have regard for the claims made by the applicant/appellant and measured against reputable, objective, up to date information relating to the applicant/appellant's country of origin. I, as Minister, ultimately decide whether to grant or refuse refugee status, based on the recommendations of the aforementioned statutory bodies and in accordance with the provisions of Section 17 of the same Act.

The Deputy might also wish to note that where an asylum application is refused at both first instance and appeal stages, the unsuccessful applicant is then afforded the opportunity to apply, separately, to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform for Subsidiary Protection in the State, in accordance with the provisions of the European Communities (Eligibility for Protection) Regulations 2006. Where such an application is made which contains an alleged fear of serious harm for reasons relating to female genital mutilation, the application is considered on the basis of its individual merits, having regard for the claims made by the applicant and measured against objective, reputable up to date information relating to the applicant's country of origin.

In addition to the above, each unsuccessful asylum applicant is afforded the opportunity, pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 of the Immigration Act 1999 (as amended), to submit written representations to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform setting out reasons as to why a Deportation Order should not be made against him/her. Any such representations submitted are 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. Where such representations represent issues relating to female genital mutilation, a detailed consideration is carried out to assess the validity of such claims having regard to the prevailing conditions in that person's country of origin.

In light of the above, the Deputy will appreciate that the State has a very comprehensive mechanism in place for the examination of cases where a fear of female genital mutilation is advanced by a person as part of an asylum application or as grounds to support a case to remain in the State.

The Deputy will also appreciate that in the absence of specific details being provided, it is not possible to comment on the case or cases to which he might be referring.