The person concerned applied for asylum on 6 October 2005. In accordance with Section 9 of the Refugee Act 1996 (as amended), the person concerned was entitled to remain in the State until his application for asylum was decided. His asylum application was refused following consideration of his case by the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner and, on appeal, the Refugee Appeals Tribunal.
Arising from the refusal of his asylum application, and in accordance with the provisions of Section 3 of the Immigration Act 1999 (as amended), the person concerned was notified, by letter dated 30 June 2006, that the 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. Representations were received on behalf of the person concerned.
Following consideration of these representations, under 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, it was decided to not issue a Deportation Order in respect of the person concerned. Instead, the person concerned was granted Leave to Remain in the State for a three year period to 24 March 2012. This decision was conveyed in writing to the person concerned by letter dated 23 March 2009.
On 29 May 2009 the legal representative of the person concerned advised my Department that they had, on their client's behalf, lodged an application for Subsidiary Protection in the State. In response, my Department advised that legal representative that as their client had been granted permission to remain in the State, he was not entitled to apply for Subsidiary Protection. However, as an exceptional measure, my Department agreed to consider an application under Regulation 4(2) of the European Communities (Eligibility for Protection) Regulations, 2006 i.e. a formal request to the Minister that he exercise his discretion to facilitate the consideration of an application for Subsidiary Protection.
The Regulation 4(2) request was approved, and the person concerned was considered for Subsidiary Protection. Following consideration of this application, it was determined that the person concerned was not eligible for Subsidiary Protection. The person concerned was notified of this decision by letter dated 25 January 2010. The Deputy might wish to note that this negative decision has no impact on the existing status of the person concerned i.e. he still has permission to remain in the State, subject to stated conditions, until 24 March 2012.