Dáil Éireann Debate, Thursday - 18 April 2013
200. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Justice and Equality if he will examine the case in respect of citizenship/eligibility for long-term residency/naturalisation in the case of a person (details supplied) in County Sligo; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18140/13]
Amharc ar fhreagraThe person concerned arrived in the State on 10 May, 2008 and applied for asylum. Arising from the refusal of her asylum application, and in accordance with the provisions of Section 3 of the Immigration Act 1999 (as amended), the person concerned was notified that it was proposed to make a Deportation Order in respect of her. She was also advised of her entitlement to submit an application for Subsidiary Protection in accordance with the provisions of the European Communities (Eligibility for Protection) Regulations 2006.
The person concerned submitted an application for Subsidiary Protection and also submitted representations pursuant to Section 3 of the Immigration Act 1999 (as amended). Following the consideration of her application for Subsidiary Protection, a decision was taken that the person concerned was not eligible for Subsidiary Protection. The case of the person concerned was then considered 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. Refoulement was not found to be an issue. In addition no issue arises under Section 4 of the Criminal Justice (UN Convention against Torture) Act, 2000. Consideration was also given under Article 3 and to private and family rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). A Deportation Order was signed on 15 March 2011.
On application for re-admittance to the Asylum process the person concerned had her case examined under Section 17(7) of the Refugee Act 1996. Following consideration of the information submitted, the application was refused.
I am satisfied that the asylum and immigration case of the person concerned was comprehensively examined under all of the relevant headings before a decision was taken to make a Deportation Order against her. I am equally satisfied that all representations submitted, including those of a medical nature, were fully considered in advance of a final decision being taken. As a result, I see no justification to re-visit the case of the person concerned.
However, if new information or circumstances have come to light, which have a direct bearing on her case and which has arisen since the original Deportation Order was made, there remains the option of applying to me for revocation of the Deportation Order pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (11) of the Immigration Act, 1999, as amended. However I wish to make clear that such an application would require substantial grounds to be successful.
The person concerned remains the subject of a Deportation Order. As a result, she is legally obliged to comply with any reporting requirements placed on her by the Garda National Immigration Bureau. As the Deputy will be aware, the effect of a Deportation Order is that the person named on the Order must leave the State and remain thereafter out of the State.
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.
