Pamela Izevbekhai - Should She Be Deported?

oscarBravo

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It would be pretty stupid to make such a sweeping generalisation about all Nigerians, wouldn't it? I mean, sure: there are lots of fine, upstanding Nigerians who don't lie. But that doesn't mean that you can assume that any given Nigerian is upstanding and truthful, right?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

rkeane

Nodin wrote: »

That was actually posted in reference to Mr Adebari.

I think I need to rest my eyes.

oscarBravo

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That was actually my point. This thread is stuffed to the brim with the blanket assumption that any given Nigerian is a scammer.

Your ironic statement to which I replied would otherwise have passed without comment, because it's self-evidently false. My point is that any statement beginning with "Nigerians are..." is equally self-evidently false. And that has been my point for as long as I've been posting here.

T runner

rkeane wrote: »

Nigeria is twice the size of California......there are plenty of peaceful places for Pamela Izevbekhai to live in peace.....

No there isn't. FGM is widespread all over Nigeria. Over 60% of Nigerian women have been tortured in this way.
The ECHR does not have the power to grant refugee status but does, I believe, have the power to block a relocation attempt and possibly will do so.

after all she's obviously an economic migrant

No, she is a genuine asylum seeker.

Edit: Just to add, There was no federal law in Nigeria outlawing FGM.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

rkeane

T runner wrote: »

No there isn't. FGM is widespread all over Nigeria. Over 60% of Nigerian women have been tortured in this way.
The ECHR does not have the power to grant refugee status but does, I believe, have the power to block a relocation attempt and possibly will do so.


No, she is a genuine asylum seeker.

I would bet my entire property portfolio on the ECHR ruling against her. Remember the ECHR will listen to this case on a forward-looking basis, this isn't going to be in her favour. And the ECHR can only ask the state to look at the case again, a ruling in her favour would only result in this going to the Supreme Court....and her inevitable deportation.

lego

marcsignal wrote: »

But allow me also, to make a prediction. I believe, between now and Dec 6th, there will be a strong and determined shift of focus from Pamela Izevbekhai herself to her 2 children, by her legal team, and the media to an extent, sidelining her, and presenting her kids as the 'new face' of this case for the European court.

It has begun.:rolleyes:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2008/1201/1227910421355.html

http://www.independent.ie/entertainment/film-cinema/student-film-about-pamelas-court-battle-scoops-award-1558829.html

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/state-foots-bill-of-836483m-to-house-7000-asylumseekers-this-year-1558898.html

rkeane

lego wrote: »

It has begun.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2008/1201/1227910421355.html

http://www.independent.ie/entertainment/film-cinema/student-film-about-pamelas-court-battle-scoops-award-1558829.html

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/state-foots-bill-of-836483m-to-house-7000-asylumseekers-this-year-1558898.html

I recall a similar campaign was started up for the autistic boy Great Agbonlahor, that got them nowhere. There will only be one end to this process, and thats her rightfull deportation....maybe she can help her hubby with the computer business.

oscarBravo

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

If I toss a coin ten times and it comes up heads each time, does that mean it has a significant probability of coming up heads the next time I toss it?

Bank of Ireland shares had climbed above €18 by February of last year. Does that mean they had a significant probability of continuing to increase in value after that time?

As long as we continue to inform our attitude towards any given asylum seeker by stories about his or her compatriots, we're denying them the right to a fair assessment of their case. Going back to the Limerick example: sure, we could just lock up anybody by the name of Keane or Dundon without trial, on the basis of prior statistics and newspaper reports - but to do so would be to deny them due process.

If there is a blanket assumption, it is not that "any given Nigerian is a scammer." It is that "any given Nigerian asylum seeker to Ireland has a significant probability of being a scammer." I don't think the former statement is defensible, but I do think the latter is.

I don't. I think it's prejudicial and unfair.

lego

T runner wrote: »

On a different scale perhaps but someone would simply not succeed in trying to harm Rotimi Adebari.

He was allowed to stay in Ireland as guardian to his Irish child.
If he is being labelled a scammer because of this then the implication is that by induction every single person in that group is a scammer which is ludicrous.

Yeah, guardian to his "Irish child". The legal profession tied themselves in knots trying to get that to make sense.

They stalled for time using the asylum process knowing full well that their case would be rejected. This was to allow time to give birth to an "Irish Born Child".

The so-called "Irish child" is the centre of the scam. If all these people who could avail of IBC were just here by accident when their child was born, its another amazing coincidence that they all them opted to stay here on the basis of it instead of returning to their own countries.

The reality is that the IBC scam was a sly, well planned way for these illegal immigrants to get permission to remain in the state. It was no accident, they knew exactly what they were doing, they knew that they were exploiting a loophole in our constitution to get residency.

Dublin1600

How can anybody believe a word this woman is saying, she has lied from day one, its about time Ireland set up detention centres and placed asylum seekers their until the outcome of their case.

"She claimed that she arrived in this country from Nigeria via the Netherlands and was waved through without a visa by the immigration authorities at Schipol Airport in Amsterdam.

But officials say there is no evidence she was in the Netherlands and say her version of her movements would be highly unlikely.

She came here at the end of January 2005 and immediately claimed asylum status. Her application was fully processed and she was informed in November 2005 that she was to be deported.

Her case has been fought through the courts since she was arrested in early January 2006 although the High Court ruled in favour of the State.

Officials disclosed that she applied for a UK visa in September 2003 and was issued with a multi-visit visa for six months.

She and her husband Tony subsequently applied for a further UK visa in mid-2004 and received a two-year permit in June of that year. Although that visa did not expire until the middle of 2006, she arrived here in January 2005 and claimed she had never used the UK visas.

Her husband was later arrested by detectives from the Garda National Immigration Bureau in Dundalk as he travelled in a taxi from Belfast to Dublin. He was returned to the UK where the authorities sent him back to Nigeria.

Ms Izevbekhai's fight against deportation has been fought mainly on the basis that her 18-month old daughter died after undergoing genital mutilation at the insistence of her husband's family."

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/state-foots-bill-of-836483m-to-house-7000-asylumseekers-this-year-1558898.html

oscarBravo

Dublin1600, attribute that quote please.

Dublin1600

oscarBravo wrote: »

Dublin1600, attribute that quote please.

Done

dodgyme

well it has cost us alot of money. The IBC stuff must be costing us hundreds of millions on HSE rent money. State foots bill of €83m to house 7,000 asylum-seekers this year alone. unreal!!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

T runner

rkeane wrote: »

I would bet my entire property portfolio on the ECHR ruling against her. Remember the ECHR will listen to this case on a forward-looking basis, this isn't going to be in her favour. And the ECHR can only ask the state to look at the case again, a ruling in her favour would only result in this going to the Supreme Court....and her inevitable deportation.

You may well be right. Hopefully the ECHR will consider the below.

The majority of asylum seekers in Ireland from Nigeria are routinely rejected Refugee Commisioner and Refugee Appeals tribunal under a forward-looking basis. The reason given is that "state protections in Nigeria were adequate".

These "state protections" are merely box ticking by the Nigerian government with little or no enforcement on the ground.

"State protections in Nigeria were adequate" apparently was also the reason given by the Refugee Appeals tribunal for rejecting Pamela Izevbekhai's asylum petition.

To succeed in a forward looking test in Ireland an asylum seeker would have to prove that the Nigerian Government is only paying lip service to its human rights Laws.

This may shed more light on the absurdly low success rate of Applicants from Nigeria.

This situation suits the Irish government and the Nigerian government fine.

In Pamela Izevbekhai's particular case one of the "protections" that may have been waved in her face was Nigeria signing the 2003 signing of the Maputo Protocol banning human rights abuses against women. Unfortunately, all the effort used in enforcing this protocol in Nigeria was used up in putting pen to paper.

A report used by the Refugee Commisioner on Nigeria's record on combating FGM has since been shown to be flawed and has been withdrawn by its source. The ECHR may take this into account.

Amnesty International has also expressed concerns.

“The state has not fully considered the risk that the children may be forcibly subjected to female genital mutilation - a human rights atrocity - and whether Nigeria can protect them....The flawed process in this case was confirmed by the High Court judgment in March granting leave for judicial review...On 20 March 2008, Ms Izevbekhai and her daughters were granted permission for a judicial review into the Minister's decision not to consider the family’s application for ‘subsidiary protection’.
Mr Justice Edwards ruled on the basis of the inadequacy of reasons given, irrationality and the perceived arbitrariness of the process through which the Minister’s decision was made"

The judicial review on the substantive issue of the subsidiary protection claim is yet to be scheduled.

rkeane

T runner wrote: »

You may well be right. Hopefully the ECHR will consider the below.

The majority of asylum seekers in Ireland from Nigeria are routinely rejected Refugee Commisioner and Refugee Appeals tribunal under a forward-looking basis. The reason given is that "state protections in Nigeria were adequate".

These "state protections" are merely box ticking by the Nigerian government with little or no enforcement on the ground.

"State protections in Nigeria were adequate" apparently was also the reason given by the Refugee Appeals tribunal for rejecting Pamela Izevbekhai's asylum petition.

To succeed in a forward looking test in Ireland an asylum seeker would have to prove that the Nigerian Government is only paying lip service to its human rights Laws. She has failed to prove this through multiple court appeals, the state are of the view that she must be sent back home. I'd love a boards.ie poll on this .... should Pamela Izevbekhai and her daughters be sent home? I'd place a bet that it would an overwhelming majority in favour of her deportation. I recall the citizenship referendum of 2004 where the pc brigade thought people would vote No ......they were annihilated at the polls.

This may shed more light on the absurdly low success rate of Applicants from Nigeria.

This situation suits the Irish government and the Nigerian government fine.

In Pamela Izevbekhai's particular case one of the "protections" that may have been waved in her face was Nigeria signing the 2003 signing of the Maputo Protocol banning human rights abuses against women. Unfortunately, all the effort used in enforcing this protocol in Nigeria was used up in putting pen to paper.

A report used by the Refugee Commisioner on Nigeria's record on combating FGM has since been shown to be flawed and has been withdrawn by its source. The ECHR may take this into account.

Amnesty International has also expressed concerns.

“The state has not fully considered the risk that the children may be forcibly subjected to female genital mutilation - a human rights atrocity - and whether Nigeria can protect them....The flawed process in this case was confirmed by the High Court judgment in March granting leave for judicial review...On 20 March 2008, Ms Izevbekhai and her daughters were granted permission for a judicial review into the Minister's decision not to consider the family’s application for ‘subsidiary protection’.
Mr Justice Edwards ruled on the basis of the inadequacy of reasons given, irrationality and the perceived arbitrariness of the process through which the Minister’s decision was made"

The judicial review on the substantive issue of the subsidiary protection claim is yet to be scheduled.

It is clear to most Irish people that Ms Izevbekhai and her daughters are not in need of subsidiary protection, they are in fear of nothing other than their rightful deportation.

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I might know the answer here.

99% of Nigerian asylum seekers fail on the forward-looking test primarily because the Irish Refugee Commissioners claim that Nigeria now "has adequate state protections". "Protections" which are only worth the paper they are written in Nigeria but keep them off UN danger lists etc.

The Irish Refugee Commissioners don't have the same trump card to play in the case of Iraqi asylum seekers for obvious reasons.

As the spokesman from the Nigerian embassy said: "This low success rate is to be expected precisely because our country is not on any UN danger list. It is not a conflict zone; there are no disturbances within the country. We are running a democratic country".

Seems to be good enough for the Irish refugee commisioners.

T runner

rkeane wrote: »

It is clear to most Irish people that Ms Izevbekhai and her daughters are not in need of subsidiary protection, they are in fear of nothing other than their rightful deportation.

Doesnt seem to be clear to Mr Justice Edwards though.....

oscarBravo

rkeane wrote: »

It is clear to most Irish people that Ms Izevbekhai and her daughters are not in need of subsidiary protection, they are in fear of nothing other than their rightful deportation.

Actually, most Irish people think she should be President.

rkeane

T runner wrote: »

Doesnt seem to be clear to Mr Justice Edwards though.....

After she looses the ECHR case, the state will refuse to extend the stay on their deportation order. After that you know what will happen.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

rkeane

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Doesn't look too god for Ms. Izevbekhai, she may have thought that her campaigning would have forced a backing down from the state ... she guessed wrong.

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Actually, The court described the death of her daughter to be of "limited significance" not illegitimate.

The Refugee Commissioners turned her petition down based on the forward looking test. The reason given was "adequate state protections in Nigeria".

A read through the court reports shows that her lawyer also tried to have the evidence (why she failed the forward test) re-examined in the belief the Nigerian State does not actually offer any real protection.

From the court memos:

The Minister in this case was also obliged to take into account the following under 3(6) of the Immigration Act of 1999

"the age of the person or persons involved, the duration of residence within the State and the family and domestic circumstances of such person or persons but also humanitarian considerations so far as they appear or are known to the Minister."

Her Lawyers have also rightly fought on these grounds.

Sizzler

rkeane wrote: »

It is clear to most Irish people that Ms Izevbekhai and her daughters are not in need of subsidiary protection, they are in fear of nothing other than their rightful deportation.

Staggering numbers, but then again....

Any links to the cost to the state of this particular case? Have heard €350K to date

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

T runner

rkeane wrote: »

Doesn't look too god for Ms. Izevbekhai, she may have thought that her campaigning would have forced a backing down from the state ... she guessed wrong.

"The state" doesnt seem to dispute her version of those events, according to the memos of the court cases.

I notice the reporter neglects to say when and under what circumstances the officials last verbalised their disputation and who the officials were.

I would be suspicious that in that reporters eyes the officials are technically "continuing to dispute her account" even if they havent said so recently.

And that this technicality may be being used to lump that very negative account of Pamela Izevbekhai into an article where it shouldnt be, in order to try and add weight to the implication that the state is wasting precious money on accommodating asylum seekers.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.