Dáil Éireann Debate, Tuesday - 21 June 2005
458 Mr. Crawford asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the steps he has taken to review the deportation of persons (details supplied); if he has read the file in detail or made a reply to the different written requests he received from persons in Castleblayney, County Monaghan; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20591/05]
Amharc ar fhreagraThe position is that the persons concerned, a woman and her three children, arrived in the State in November 2001 and claimed asylum. Their asylum applications was examined, in turn, by the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner and on appeal, by the Refugee Appeals Tribunal, both of whom concluded that the persons concerned did not meet the criteria for recognition as a refugee. These positions were conveyed in writing to the persons concerned.
The persons concerned were notified of my decision to refuse them a declaration of refugee status by letter dated 30 December 2002. They were informed in this letter of the three options open to them at that point, namely, to leave the State before their case was considered for deportation, to consent to the making of deportation orders in respect of them or to make written representations within 15 working days to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform setting out reasons as to why they should not be deported or why they should be allowed to remain temporarily in the State.
Their case was examined under section 3 of the Immigration Act 1999 and section 5 of the Refugee Act 1996, prohibition of refoulement, having due regard for the representations submitted by and on behalf of the persons concerned. Consideration was given to all representations received on this family’s behalf, including those from the Castleblayney committee. On 11 February 2005 deportation orders were made in respect of the persons concerned. The orders were served on them by registered post together with a covering letter requiring them to attend at the offices of the Garda national immigration bureau in order that travel arrangements could be put in place to effect their return to their country of origin. The persons concerned were deported from the State on 14 March 2005 by charter flight.
I am satisfied that the asylum applications and requests for leave to remain in the State made by the persons concerned were examined comprehensively and fairly. As a result, it is not my intention to further review this case. In regard to the consideration process generally and the making of deportation orders, I refer the Deputy to my response to Question No. 66 of 12 April 2005.
