The persons concerned comprise a father and a mother and their two children. The father applied for asylum on 4th March, 2008. His asylum claim was refused. Arising from the refusal of his asylum application, and in accordance with the provisions of Section 3 of the Immigration Act 1999 (as amended), he was notified, by letter dated 5th December, 2008, that the then 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 a Deportation Order should not be made against him. In addition, he was notified of his entitlement to apply for Subsidiary Protection in accordance with the provisions of the European Communities (Eligibility for Protection) Regulations 2006.
The person concerned initiated Judicial Review Proceedings in the High Court, challenging the decision of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal in his case. The Judicial Review proceedings were struck out on 12th October, 2010 meaning that the earlier decisions of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal and the then Minister stood.
The position in the State of the father will now 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. Any representations submitted will be considered before a final decision is made. Once a decision has been made, this decision, and the consequences of the decision, will be conveyed in writing to the person concerned.
The mother also applied for asylum on 4th March, 2008. Her asylum claim was also refused. Arising from the refusal of her asylum application, and in accordance with the provisions of Section 3 of the Immigration Act 1999 (as amended), she was notified, by letter dated 15th November, 2010, that the then 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 accordance with the provisions of the European Communities (Eligibility for Protection) Regulations 2006.
The mother submitted an application for Subsidiary Protection. When consideration of this application has been completed, she 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. Any representations submitted will be considered before a final decision is made. Once a decision has been made, this decision, and the consequences of the decision, will be conveyed in writing to the mother concerned.
A separate asylum application was lodged on behalf of the couple's eldest child on 13th May, 2008. This application was also refused. Arising from the refusal of this asylum application, and in accordance with the provisions of Section 3 of the Immigration Act 1999 (as amended), this child was notified, by letter dated 15th November, 2010, that the then 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 accordance with the provisions of the European Communities (Eligibility for Protection) Regulations 2006.
This child lodged an application for Subsidiary Protection. When consideration of this application has been completed, the child 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 child 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. Any representations submitted will be considered before a final decision is made. Once a decision has been made, this decision, and the consequences of the decision, will be conveyed in writing to the child concerned.
An asylum application was lodged in respect of the couple's second child on 10th July, 2012. The Deputy will appreciate that it is not my practice to comment on individual asylum applications where a final decision has not been made.
It is unlikely that the Zambrano Judgment will have any impact on the cases of the couple in question given that no evidence has been submitted to date to suggest that any of the couple's children can claim an entitlement to Irish citizenship. The Deputy will appreciate that, in an Irish context, the terms of the Zambrano Judgment can only be applied to third country national parents of an Irish born minor citizen child who are residing in this State with their Irish born minor citizen child or children.
Queries in relation to the status of individual immigration cases may be made directly to the INIS by e-mail using the Oireachtas Mail facility which has been specifically established for this purpose. This service enables up to date information on such cases to be obtained without the need to seek information by way of the Parliamentary Questions process. The Deputy may consider using the e-mail service except in cases where the response from the INIS is, in the Deputy’s view, inadequate or too long awaited.
