Vol. 547 No. 1
918 Mr. B. Hayes asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the position concerning an application by persons (details supplied) in Dublin 24 for refugee status here; if his attention has been drawn to the fact that both applicants are in full-time employment and are contributing significantly to their local community; the likely timeframe involved before an appeal in both cases is determined; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1237/02]
The persons in question, who are married, arrived in Ireland on different dates, namely, 15 February 1999 and 3 March 2000. Both applied for asylum on the same date that they arrived in the State. The husband was informed on 18 November 1999 that his application for refugee status was refused. He appealed this decision but was informed on 27 September 2001 that his appeal had been rejected by the Refugee Appeals Tribunal and the original decision upheld. He was further informed on 19 October 2001 that it was proposed to make a deportation order in respect of him and that he had 15 working days to make written representations setting out any reasons as to why he should be allowed to remain temporarily in the State, leaving the State before the Minister decided whether or not to order his deportation, or consenting to the making of the deportation order. Representations were received on 13 November 2001 which made reference to his having worked since he was issued with a right to work letter on 25 April 2000 and these are being considered at present.
His wife was informed on 22 June 2000 that her application for refugee status had been refused as it was deemed to be manifestly unfounded. She appealed this decision but was informed on 27 February 2001 that her appeal had been rejected by the Refugee Appeals Tribunal and the original decision upheld. She was further informed on 28 May 2001 that it was proposed to make a deportation order in respect of her and that she had 15 working days to make written representations setting out any reasons as to why she should be allowed to remain temporarily in the State, leaving the State before the Minister decided whether to order her deportation, or consenting to the making of the deportation order. Representations were received on 19 June 2001. I expect the case file in relation to the persons in question to be submitted to me for decision very shortly.
