The person concerned arrived in the State on 2 December 2005 and claimed asylum. Her daughter was born in the State on 22 January 2006 and thereafter included with her mother's asylum application as a dependant. Their application was refused following consideration of their case by the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner and, on appeal, by the Refugee Appeals Tribunal.
The persons concerned were informed by letter dated 19 October 2007 that the Minister proposed to make Deportation Orders in respect of them and afforded them three options in accordance with 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 to the Minister setting out the reasons why they should be allowed to remain temporarily in the State i.e. why they should not be deported. In addition, i.e. since 10 October 2006, a person who is refused refugee status and who has been served with a notice of intention to deport is afforded a fourth option, viz. to apply for Subsidiary Protection pursuant to the European Communities (Eligibility for Protection) Regulations, 2006 — Statutory Instrument No. 518 of 2006.
On 9 January 2008, a valid application for Subsidiary Protection in respect of the person concerned was received in my Department. On 13 March 2008 confirmation was sought as to whether it was intended to include her daughter in her application for Subsidiary Protection. Confirmation to this effect was received from her legal representatives by letter dated 26 March 2008. Following consideration of the information submitted, it was found that the person concerned and her daughter were not eligible for Subsidiary Protection under the Regulations. She was informed of this decision by letter dated 8 April 2008.
Subsequently this family's case 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. Consideration was given to all representations submitted on their behalf for permission to remain temporarily in the State. On 30 October 2008 I refused temporary leave to remain in the State and instead signed Deportation Orders in respect of the person concerned and her daughter. A notice of these Orders dated 6 November 2008 was served by registered post requiring the person concerned and her daughter to present themselves to the Garda National Immigration Bureau (GNIB), on Thursday 27 November, 2008, in order to make travel arrangements for their removal from the State. They presented as required and were given a further presentation date. They are due to present again on Thursday 4 December 2008. The effect of the Deportation Orders is that the person concerned and her daughter must leave the State and remain thereafter out of the State.
I am satisfied that the applications made on behalf of the person concerned and her daughter for asylum, temporary leave to remain in the State and for Subsidiary Protection, together with all refoulement issues, were fairly and comprehensively examined and, as such, the decision to deport them is justified. The enforcement of the Deportation Orders is an operational matter for the GNIB.