I refer the Deputy to my many previous and comprehensive Replies in this matter. As previously stated, the people concerned arrived in the State on 7 March 2005 and 1 July 2005 and applied for asylum. Their applications were refused following the consideration of their cases by the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner (ORAC) and, on appeal, by the Refugee Appeals Tribunal. The people concerned, following refusal recommendations by the ORAC and the appeals tribunal on their asylum applications, were informed, by letters dated 27 September 2005 and 16 January 2006, that the Minister proposed to make deportation orders in respect of them and afforded them three options under Section 3(3)(b)(ii) of the Immigration Act, 1999 (as amended), namely to leave the State voluntarily, to consent to the making of deportation orders or to submit, within 15 working days, written representations setting out the reasons they should be allowed to remain temporarily in the State i.e. why they should not be deported.
Their cases were examined having regard for the 11 factors specified in Section 3(6) of the Immigration Act, 1999 (as amended), including consideration of representations for temporary leave to remain in the State lodged on their behalf by their legal representatives. Their cases were also considered having regard for the provisions of section 5 of the Refugee Act, 1996 (as amended) on the Prohibition of Refoulement. Refoulement, in essence, relates to the safety of returning a person to their country of origin. After their cases had been comprehensively assessed under all the relevant headings, on 27 February 2006, one of my predecessors signed Deportation Orders in respect of the people concerned. Notice of the Deportation Orders was served by registered post requiring the people concerned to present themselves to the Garda National Immigration Bureau (GNIB) on Thursday 9 March 2006 to make arrangements for their deportation from the State. They failed to present themselves on that occasion, as required, and were thus classified as evading their deportation. They should, therefore, present themselves to the GNIB without further delay. The effect of the Deportation Orders is that the people concerned must leave the State and remain thereafter outside the State. The current position in respect of the husband and wife, the subject of this Question, is that an undertaking was given to the legal representatives acting on behalf of the wife by letter dated 26 April 2007 to the effect that her Deportation Order will not be enforced until such time as the asylum application of her infant son has been considered. At present, Judicial Review proceedings have been instituted challenging the negative recommendation of the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner.