Dáil Éireann - Volume 661 - 24 September, 2008

Written Answers. - Asylum Applications.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the position on an application for family reunification in the case of a person (details supplied) in Dublin 24; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29791/08]

  Deputy Dermot Ahern: I refer the Deputy to my previous answer to Parliamentary Question numbers 178 of 1 May 2008, 164 of 19 June 2008 and 169 of 26 June 2008.

I am informed by the Immigration Division of my Department that the person in question was granted permission to remain in the State under the Family Reunification Scheme. The person in question did not seek to renew her permission to remain status prior to its expiration.

The onus is on the person in question to ensure that her registration details are kept up to date at all times and maintained satisfactorily and in accordance with the instructions provided by my Department at the time of her initial registration.

However, in order to assist the person in question, the Immigration Division of my Department contacted the person concerned on 26 June 2008 and provided her with details of how she could renew her permission to remain.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the position on an application for naturalisation or residency in the case of a person (details supplied) in County Cork. [29792/08]

  Deputy Dermot Ahern: The person concerned applied for asylum on 3 September 2003. His application was refused following consider[446] ation 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 30 January 2006, 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. Representations have been submitted on behalf of the person concerned and will be fully considered before the file is passed to me for decision.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the current or expected residency status in the case of a person (details supplied) in Dublin 8; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29793/08]

  Deputy Dermot Ahern: As the Deputy will be aware, applications for refugee status in the State are determined by an independent process comprising the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner and the Refugee Appeals Tribunal, which make recommendations to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform on whether such status should be granted.

While it is not the practice to comment in detail on individual asylum applications, I would point out to the Deputy that delays in finalising cases can occur for a variety of reasons, including giving applicants and appellants the fullest opportunity possible to present their cases and the determination of Judicial Review proceedings, where appellants pursue such a course of action.

Where the latter is relevant, the time taken to discharge any proceedings is a matter for the Courts and is not something that I, as Minister, can comment on. It is, of course, open to the applicant or the appellant to withdraw any Judicial Review proceedings which they may have instigated and this would allow for their appeal to be processed in the normal manner.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the current or expected residency status in the case of a person (details supplied) in Dublin 1; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29794/08]

  Deputy Dermot Ahern: The person concerned applied for asylum on 21 June 2006. His application was refused following consideration of his case by the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner and, on appeal, 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 20 April 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). The person concerned submitted an application for Subsidiary Protection in the State in accordance with these Regu[447] lations 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 Subsidiary Protection application is refused, the case file of the person concerned, including all representations submitted, will then be 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. When this latter consideration has been completed, the file is passed to me for decision.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the current or expected residency status in the case of a person (details supplied) in County Mayo; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29795/08]

  Deputy Dermot Ahern: It is not the practice to comment in detail on individual asylum applications.

As the Deputy will be aware, applications for refugee status in the State are determined by an independent process comprising the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner and the Refugee Appeals Tribunal which make recommendations to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform on whether such status should be granted.

A final decision on each application is made following receipt of the recommendation of the Refugee Applications Commissioner or the decision of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal, as appropriate.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the current or expected residency status in the case of a person (details supplied) in County Meath; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29796/08]

  Deputy Dermot Ahern: As the Deputy will be aware, applications for refugee status in the State are determined by an independent process comprising the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner and the Refugee Appeals Tribunal, which make recommendations to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform on whether such status should be granted.

While it is not the practice to comment in detail on individual asylum applications, I would point out to the Deputy that delays in finalising cases can occur for a variety of reasons, including giving applicants and appellants the fullest opportunity possible to present their cases and the determination of Judicial Review proceedings, where appellants pursue such a course of action.

Where the latter is relevant, the time taken to discharge any proceedings is a matter for the Courts and is not something that I, as Minister, can comment on. It is, of course, open to the applicant or the appellant to withdraw any Judicial Review proceedings which they may have instigated and this would allow for their appeal to be processed in the normal manner.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if permission to remain in the State on humanitarian grounds will be offered to persons (details supplied) in County Clare; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29797/08]

  Deputy Dermot Ahern: The persons concerned are a husband and wife and their three children.

The first named person concerned entered the State with one of his daughters and claimed asylum in the State on 29 December 2004. They were refused asylum, following the consider[448] ation of their claims 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), they were informed, by letter dated 12 September 2005, that the Minister proposed to make Deportation Orders in respect of them. They were 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 they should be allowed to remain temporarily in the State. Representations were received on their behalf.

Following consideration of their case 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, the Minister signed Deportation Orders in respect of the first named person concerned and his daughter on 22 March 2006. These Deportation Orders were formally served by letter dated 24 March 2006.

On the 10 May 2006, an application was made on behalf of the daughter of the first named person concerned requesting that she be re-admitted to the asylum process in accordance with the provisions of Section 17(7) of the Refugee Act, 1996 (as amended). Following consideration of this application, the application was refused and this decision was conveyed by letter dated 4 September 2006. The first named person concerned and his aforementioned daughter remain the subjects of Deportation Orders.

The second named person concerned claimed asylum in the State on 23 December 2004. Her application was refused following the consideration of her claim 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 second named person concerned was informed, by letter dated 20 May 2008, 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 she should be allowed to remain temporarily in the State. 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 second named person concerned has 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 second named person concerned will be notified in writing of the outcome. In the event that the Subsidiary Protection application is refused, her case file, including all representations submitted, will then be 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. When this latter consideration has been completed, the case file of the person concerned is passed to me for decision.

The couple’s other two children have lodged separate asylum applications. It is not the practice to comment in detail on individual asylum applications where a final decision has not been made.

As the Deputy will be aware, applications for refugee status in the State are determined by an independent process comprising the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner and the Refugee Appeals Tribunal which make recommendations to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform on whether such status should be granted.

[449] A final decision on each application is made following receipt of the recommendation of the Refugee Applications Commissioner or the decision of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal, as appropriate.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the position regarding the residency status in the case of a person (details supplied) in County Tipperary; if extension of residency will be offered to the person; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29798/08]

  Deputy Dermot Ahern: The person concerned applied for asylum on 19 September 2005. Her application was refused following consideration of her case by the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner and, on appeal, 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 26 February 2007, 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 she should be allowed to remain temporarily in the State. 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 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 Subsidiary Protection application is refused, the case file of the person concerned, including all representations submitted, will then be 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. When this latter consideration has been completed, the case file of the person concerned passed to me for decision.