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

Question 167: To ask the Minister for Justice and Law Reform further to Parliamentary Question No. 150 of 25 November 2010, if he will set out the circumstances whereby a person (details supplied) in County Dublin, who arrived here as an unaccompanied minor on 10 January 2005, was sent to hostel accommodation, had two interviews with the Irish National Immigration Service and was then released into the custody of their older sibling; if his attention has been drawn to the vulnerability of young persons in this category who have no status and no friends or relatives in their homeland and whose sibling in this case has regularised status; the steps he will take to regularise the position in this case in view of the fact that this applicant competed their leaving certificate examination in 2008; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1982/11]

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

As stated previously in my reply to the Deputy's previous PQ No. 150 of 25 November 2010, the information contained in the Deputy's Question does not tally with the information contained in the file of the person concerned. Specifically, my Department's records show that the person concerned had her first interaction with my Department on the date she lodged her asylum application i.e. on 26 August 2008. She did, however, claim on that occasion to have arrived in this State on 10 January 2005, however, no documentary evidence has been produced that would support that contention.

In any event, the person concerned applied for asylum on 26 August 2008 and, in accordance with Section 9 of the Refugee Act 1996 (as amended), she 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 10 February 2010, that the Minister proposed to make a Deportation Order in respect of her. She 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 her. 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 submitted an application for Subsidiary Protection and this application will be considered first. 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 Deputy should note that all cases are considered on their individual merits and this will also apply in the case referred to by the Deputy. Equally, as stated already, all representations submitted for consideration will be carefully considered before a final decision is taken. I should remind the Deputy that queries in relation to the status of individual immigration cases may be made directly to INIS by Email using the Oireachtas Mail facility which has been specifically established for this purpose. The service enables up-to-date information on such cases to be obtained without the need to seek this information through the more administratively expensive Parliamentary Questions process.