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

Question 115: To ask the Minister for Justice and Law Reform if he will outline the procedures followed in the case of a person (details supplied) in Dublin 8 in respect of their residency status; if a favourable review of their case can be entertained in view of the fact that they are the parent of an Irish born child; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16240/10]

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

It is noted that the address of the person concerned as supplied by the Deputy does not match the address currently on record for the person concerned. As it is incumbent on an applicant to notify my Department when they change address it would be in the best interest of the person concerned to inform my Department of his correct address without delay.

The person concerned applied for asylum on 4 January 2006. His application was refused following consideration of his case by the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner and, on appeal, by 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 16 January 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 be allowed to remain temporarily in the State. 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).

By correspondence dated 6 February 2007, an application for Subsidiary Protection was made on behalf of the person concerned by his legal representative. 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 12 March 2010.

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 25 March 2010, 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 25 April 2010.

I am satisfied that the applications made by the person concerned for asylum and for temporary leave to remain in the State, were fairly and comprehensively examined and, therefore, 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 Orders is an operational matter for the GNIB.

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

Question 116: To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if he will indicate the extent to which a person (details supplied) in Dublin 8 can be facilitated to complete their third level educational course in view of the fact that they have been issued with a deportation order; if there are circumstances appertaining to the case which might be used to assist them; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16241/10]

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

The case of the person concerned was 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. On 23 March 2010, I refused the person concerned permission to remain temporarily in the State and instead signed a Deportation Order in respect of him. The effect of the Deportation Order is that the person concerned must leave the State by 25 April 2010 and remain thereafter out of the State. If new information or circumstances have come to light, which have a direct bearing on his case and which have arisen since the original decision to deport was made, there remains the option of applying to me for revocation of his Deportation Order pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (11) of the Immigration Act, 1999, as amended. However I wish to make clear that such an application would require substantial grounds to be successful. The enforcement of the Deportation Order is, and remains, an operational matter for the GNIB.