Dáil Éireann Debate, Thursday - 27 April 2006
147 Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the progress to date in the determination of residency status in the case of a person (details supplied) in Dublin 22; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15895/06]
Amharc ar fhreagraThe person concerned arrived in the State on 2 November 2004 and applied for asylum. Her application was refused following consideration of her case by the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner and, on appeal, by the Refugee Appeals Tribunal.
Subsequently, in accordance with section 3 of the Immigration Act 1999, as amended, she was informed by a letter dated 17 November 2005 that the Minister proposed to make a deportation order in respect of her. She was given the options, to be exercised within 15 working days, of making representations to the Minister setting out the reasons why she should be allowed to remain temporarily in the State, leaving the State before an order is made or consenting to the making of a deportation order. Representations have been received on behalf of the person concerned.
This person's case file, including all representations submitted, will be considered under section 3(6) of the Immigration Act 1999, as amended, and section 5 of the Refugee Act 1996, prohibition of refoulement. I expect the file to be passed to me for decision in due course.
148 Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the residential status in the case of a person (details supplied) in Dublin 6 in view of the likely and serious consequences in the event of being returned to their homeland; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15896/06]
Amharc ar fhreagraI wish to advise the Deputy at the outset that the case of the person concerned falls under the terms of the Dublin II regulation, Council Regulation (EC) No. 343/2003. This regulation is intended to prevent the phenomenon of asylum shopping across Europe and sets out criteria for determining which member state is responsible for examining an asylum application where applications have been lodged in more than one State. At the same time, it guarantees applicants that one state will process their application, thereby preventing the creation of refugees in orbit, a situation which had obtained in Europe prior to the introduction in 1995 of its predecessor, the Dublin Convention. Under the Dublin Convention and the Dublin II regulation, the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner, ORAC, can on the basis of the relevant criteria request another state to accept responsibility for an asylum application and have it processed in that state.
The person concerned made an asylum claim in Ireland on 29 March 2005. Following investigation, it was determined by the ORAC, pursuant to the provisions of the Dublin II regulation, that France was the appropriate state to process his application as he had already made an asylum claim there on 2 July 2004. The person concerned was offered an opportunity to appeal the determination of the ORAC to the Refugee Appeals Tribunal, which he duly did through his legal representative, the refugee legal service on 18 August 2005. The tribunal upheld the determination of the ORAC that the person concerned should have his asylum claim examined in France and he was formally notified of this decision by letter dated 7 November 2005. The person concerned was kept informed of developments throughout the course of his asylum application in Ireland and he was made aware as soon as it was possible to do so that his case came under the terms of the Dublin II regulation.
France accepted responsibility for the case of the person concerned, with the consequence that a transfer order was signed in respect of him on 29 July 2005. This order issued to him on 2 August 2005, requiring him to present himself to the Garda National Immigration Bureau, 13-14 Burgh Quay, Dublin 2, on 8 August 2005. He failed to present as required and is now classified as having evaded his transfer. Consequently, he is now liable to arrest and detention. He should therefore present himself to the Garda Síochana without further delay so that travel arrangements can be made to effect his transfer to France.
In accordance with the provisions of the Dublin II regulation, France and not Ireland is responsible for examining the asylum claim of the person concerned. As a result, it is not my intention to examine his asylum claim here nor is it my intention to grant the person concerned any period of leave to reside here. Given that the person concerned lodged his initial asylum claim in France, it is entirely appropriate that he be transferred to that State.
