Jack Wall
Question:477. Deputy Jack Wall asked the Minister for Justice and Equality the position regarding a naturalisation issue in respect of a family (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [43131/12]
View answerTuesday, 9 October 2012
Questions (477)
Written answers
The person concerned arrived in the State on 6 January, 2004 and made an application for asylum on 21 January, 2004. The Refugee Applications Commissioner refused her a declaration of refugee status. This decision was subsequently upheld by the Refugee Appeals Tribunal. The decision to refuse by the Refugee Appeals Tribunal was notified to the person concerned on 27 September, 2004. On 18 January, 2005 the then Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform informed the person concerned that it was proposed to make a Deportation Order in her case and she was invited to make representations as to why a Deportation Order should not issue. This notification was subsequently re-issued on 16 February 2005.
Representations in support of the person concerned were made by her solicitors by letter dated 3 February, 2005. Having considered the representations made the Minister signed a Deportation Order on 13 May, 2005. Having considered further representations, made by letter dated 1 June, 2005, the Deportation Order signed in respect of the person concerned was affirmed on 8 June, 2005. By letter dated the 12 January, 2006 the person concerned made further representations on the basis that she had become the parent of a child born on 1 October, 2005. Having considered representations the Deportation Order signed in respect of the person concerned was once again affirmed, and this was notified to the person concerned by letter dated 27 June, 2006.
On 10 June, 2005, Judicial Review proceedings were lodged in the High Court challenging the Deportation Order made in respect of the person concerned. These proceedings were heard before the High Court on 8 and 9 May, 2007 and in his judgment of 24 May, 2007 Mr. Justice Feeney upheld the validity of the deportation order. By letter dated 16 February, 2007 an application was made on behalf of the person concerned for subsidiary protection. The then Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform informed the person concerned that such an application was not validly made and notified the person concerned of this by letter dated 19 February, 2007.
Subsequent to the decision of the High Court in Hila v. Minister for Justice, the then Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform wrote to the solicitors acting on behalf of the person concerned, by letter dated 5 November, 2007 and informed them that if the person concerned wished to invoke the Minister's discretion under Regulation 4(2) of the European Communities (Eligibility for Protection) Regulations 2006 she should make representations setting out any new facts or circumstances, relevant to her or to her country of origin which had arisen since the original decision to deport was made. By letter dated 23 November, 2007 solicitors acting on behalf of the person concerned replied to that letter and applied for the discretion to be exercised. Having considered all representations made, the then Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform decided that there were no grounds which would enable him to exercise his discretion under Regulation 4(2) of the European Communities (Eligibility for Protection) Regulations 2006. On 4 April, 2008 Judicial Review proceedings were lodged in the High Court challenging the refusal decision. On 3 January, 2011 these proceedings were struck out.
The person concerned has three children who were born in the State, a daughter born on 28 April, 2008, another daughter born on 14 October, 2006, and a son born on 1 October, 2005. Deportation Orders were signed in respect of all three children on 24 November, 2010. On 14 December, 2010 Judicial Review proceedings were lodged in the High Court challenging the Deportation Order made in respect of one of the daughters of the person concerned. Accordingly, as the matter is sub judice, I do not propose to comment further.
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.