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

Question 545: To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the position regarding an application for residency in the case of a person (details supplied) in Dublin 7; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15122/10]

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

The person in question arrived in the State on 29 March 2005 and applied for asylum. Following investigation by the Office of the Refugee Appeals Commissioner, it was determined that the person in question had previously made an asylum application in France and, as such, his asylum claims should be examined by the French authorities in accordance with the provisions of the Dublin II Regulations. This determination was upheld following an appeal to the Refugee Appeals Tribunal. Consequently, a Dublin II Regulation Transfer Order was signed in respect of him on 29 July 2005, obliging him to 'present' to the Garda National Immigration Bureau (GNIB), on 15 August 2005, to make arrangements for his return to France. The person in question failed to 'present' for transfer and became illegally present in this State at that time. However, after 18 months the extended Transfer Order expired and Ireland became responsible for processing the asylum application. At this point the person in question was admitted into the Irish asylum process at the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner for the purposes of having his asylum claims investigated.

His asylum application was refused following consideration of his case by the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner. The person in question was notified of his entitlement to appeal this recommendation to the Refugee Appeals Tribunal but he did not do so. As a result, in accordance with the provisions of Section 3 of the Immigration Act 1999 (as amended), the person in question was informed, by letter dated 9 July 2007, 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 not have a Deportation Order 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). No response was received in my Department to this letter.

The position in the State of the person in question will now 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. Any 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 in question.

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

Question 546: To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the position regarding an application for residency in the case of a person (details supplied) in Limerick; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15123/10]

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

The person concerned applied for asylum on 26 August 2008. 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 7 October 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. 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 547: To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the position regarding residency in the case of a person (details supplied) in County Louth; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15124/10]

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

The person concerned applied for asylum on 9 September 2003. She was accompanied to the State by her daughter and nephew, both minors at that time and both of whom were included in the asylum application of the person concerned. In accordance with Section 9 of the Refugee Act 1996 (as amended), the person concerned was 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 15 June 2005, that the Minister proposed to make Deportation Orders in respect of her, her daughter and her nephew. 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 against her and the children. Representations were received on behalf of the person concerned at that time.

The person concerned subsequently 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).

The person concerned initiated Judicial Review proceedings in the High Court, challenging the decision of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal in her case. Following the refusal of the Judicial Review proceedings, the legal representative of the person concerned was advised that as the daughter and nephew of the person concerned had reached the age of 18, their cases would be considered as individuals and, as such, they were advised of their respective entitlements to submit representations and/or applications for Subsidiary Protection in the State in their own right. No such applications have been received to date.

The case file of the person concerned now falls to be considered for Subsidiary Protection in the State in accordance with the European Communities (Eligibility for Protection) Regulations, 2006 (S.I. No. 518 of 2006) 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. 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 case files of the daughter and nephew of the person concerned will receive individual consideration under Section 3 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 files are passed to me for decision. Once decisions have been made in each case, these decisions and the consequences of the decisions will be conveyed in writing to the persons concerned.