Pamela Izevbekhai - Should She Be Deported?

rkeane

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That is why we need the Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill 2008. This would avoid a repeat of cases like that of Ms. Izevbekhai.

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I think your point was that this was "illegitimate".
It is actually of limited significance which is a different matter entirely.
I would take this to mean that claiming asylum solely on the basis of an event that has already happened would not be be sufficient in itself.

You also did not quote section 3 (2) (f) of the relevant Act,

I didnt quote most of the act, just the sections pertinent to this particular argument i.e. that show that Pamela Izevbekhai did not almost exclusively use the death of her daughter as her claim for asylum which has been incorrectly alleged.
She did infact also legitimately use the "forward looking test" also and the "age of the person or persons involved, the duration of residence within the State" etc.

Unless the ECHR overturns the High Court decision that Izevbekhai does not have grounds for appealing to the Supreme Court, the Izevbekhais will be on their way back to Nigeria on December 11.

Question for somebody: Does the ECHR have the power to block her "relocation" within Nigeria if they conclude there is no where safe there for her family to go.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Probably not. There is possibly room to speed up the applications. Do you have similar stats from other countries to see if they process quicker?

The insertion of that unrelated extremely negative section about Pamela Izevbekhai into that article is a deliberate attempt to give the impression that the blame lies with asylum seekers and not with the system. That is clear.

HollyB

T runner wrote: »

Probably not. There is possibly room to speed up the applications. Do you have similar stats from other countries to see if they process quicker?

Does anybody have a figure for how long, on average, an asylum seeker usually has to wait for a decision to be made on their initial application? I'm not talking about appeals. How long does it take, from the time of application, for an answer of "yes" or "no" to be given?

rkeane

T runner wrote: »

I think your point was that this was "illegitimate".
It is actually of limited significance which is a different matter entirely.
I would take this to mean that claiming asylum solely on the basis of an event that has already happened would not be be sufficient in itself.



I didnt quote most of the act, just the sections pertinent to this particular argument i.e. that show that Pamela Izevbekhai did not almost exclusively use the death of her daughter as her claim for asylum which has been incorrectly alleged.
She did infact also legitimately use the "forward looking test" also and the "age of the person or persons involved, the duration of residence within the State" etc.

Also she can't use that "residence within the state" nonsese, this doesn't work for asylum seekers.



Question for somebody: Does the ECHR have the power to block her "relocation" within Nigeria if they conclude there is no where safe there for her family to go.

The ECHR will not ultimately stop the Irish state from deporting the above back home. Their only question will be that of refoulment, where she has alleged that her girls will be in danger if returned. If in the miraculous event that they rule in her favour, the best she can hope for is a hearing in the Supreme Court. As I've mentioned before, I'd bet everything that I own on her ultimate deportation. I've yet to hear one senior immigration lawyer who believes she can win this case.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

HollyB

dodgyme wrote: »

The IBC stuff must be costing us hundreds of millions on HSE rent money.

I think that the state should have made self-sufficiency a condition for eligibility for the IBC scheme, putting the onus on those applying to find jobs and become self-sufficient within a set period - say, six months at most - after applying before their leave to remain was finalized, and making people ineligible for state benefits, with the exception of child benefit, for a period of five years afterwards.

Those who could not support themselves and their Irish Born Children would have their permission to remain in Ireland revoked.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

This from the Board of
Immigration Appeals (BIA) in the USA

"When an applicant petitions for asylum status, she must show that she has a “wellfounded
fear” of persecution. An asylum applicant can create a rebuttable presumption
of a “well-founded fear” of persecution if she can show
(1) a past incident that rises to the level of persecution
(2) that is on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a social group, or political opinion, and
(3) is committed by the government or by forces the
government is either unable or unwilling to control.18 This presumption may be rebutted if it can be shown that “there has been a fundamental change in circumstances such that the applicant no longer has a well-founded fear of persecution in the applicant’s country."

You can now see the criteria for showing a "well founded fear".
This includes "The past incident".
"membership in a social groups" was traditionally an easy way for certain European States to deny "well founded fear" as gender is not stated as a category for persecution.
This has not been used as extensively as before.

"..This presumption may be rebutted if it can be shown that “there has been a fundamental change in circumstances such that the applicant no longer has a well-founded fear of persecution in the applicant’s country."..."

i.e There are now "adequate state protections in Nigeria". This is why the refugee commisioners turned down Pamela Izevbekhai's petition and I fear this trump card is primarily responsible for the ludicrously low rate of success for Nigerian Asylum seekers.

In FGM asylum cases in the USA, courts have decided that women who have already had FGM performed are not eligible for asylum—because FGM is normally only ever performed once in a woman's lifetime.

From the same source:

As it currently stands, the majority of federal circuits that have addressed this issue
appear to view a past infliction of FGM as constituting past persecution which can create
a rebuttable presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution.

rkeane

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

A bit late I know, but that is what the Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill 2008 will sort out. When this comes into law, there will never be a an expensive case like that of the Izevbekhai's again. Those who fail will go home , the way it always should have been.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

rkeane

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

[/B]

It's exactly that...typical of Labour.

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Why did you not then represent the approaches of the federal circuit courts in your original statement?
You selectively chose to mention only those cases which suited your purpose. My response merely gave balance to yours.

In FGM asylum cases in the USA, courts have decided that women who have already had FGM performed are not eligible for asylum—because FGM is normally only ever performed once in a woman's lifetime.

Is this statement not equally true?

"In FGM asylum cases in the USA, courts have decided that women who have already had FGM performed are eligible for asylum—FGM being a continuing harm that renders a petitioner eligible for asylum, without more."

As in other posts, I notice you are selective in the parts of posts you choose to answer.

Can you comment on the below definition of a "well founded fear" which seems to contradict with some of the explanations in earlier posts, particularly the essential role of "past incident that rises to the level of persecution".

Quote:
Originally Posted by donegalfella View Post

It is not sufficient at all. Asylum can only be granted on the basis of a forward-looking test to determine whether a well-founded risk of future persecution exists.

This from the Board of
Immigration Appeals (BIA) in the USA

"When an applicant petitions for asylum status, she must show that she has a “wellfounded
fear” of persecution. An asylum applicant can create a rebuttable presumption
of a “well-founded fear” of persecution if she can show
(1) a past incident that rises to the level of persecution
(2) that is on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a social group, or political opinion, and
(3) is committed by the government or by forces the
government is either unable or unwilling to control.18 This presumption may be rebutted if it can be shown that “there has been a fundamental change in circumstances such that the applicant no longer has a well-founded fear of persecution in the applicant’s country."

You can now see the criteria for showing a "well founded fear".
This includes "The past incident".
"membership in a social groups" was traditionally an easy way for certain European States to deny "well founded fear" as gender is not stated as a category for persecution.
This has not been used as extensively as before.

"..This presumption may be rebutted if it can be shown that “there has been a fundamental change in circumstances such that the applicant no longer has a well-founded fear of persecution in the applicant’s country."..."

i.e There are now "adequate state protections in Nigeria". This is why the refugee commisioners turned down Pamela Izevbekhai's petition and I fear this trump card is primarily responsible for the ludicrously low rate of success for Nigerian Asylum seekers.

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I.e. the problem is with the system and not the asylum seeker.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

No problem with that.

(ii) obdurate asylum seekers such as Ms Izevbekhai, who wage a war of attrition on the system in the hope that their sheer persistence will eventually result in asylum.

The author didn't directly blame asylum seekers or Ms Izevbekhai. He wouldnt have got away with that as Ms Izevbekhai, like all asylum seekers, is entitled to fight for her asylum within the particular system.

He inserted the story about the immigration officials and Ms Izevbekhai in the hope that the reader would make the incorrect association and draw the wrong conclusions. It lacked integrity. If he has the courage of his convictions he should come out and say what he believes.


Ms Izevbekhai, whom you call obdurate, has shown the persistence of the genuine asylum seeker. You have previously tried and failed repeatedly to show she was bogus based on how she has fought her case.
If you disagree with me then for once, please, tell us how a genuine asylum seeker should behave in pursuing their case in this system? Otherwise let it rest.

As for the alleged "negativity" of the section about Izevbekhai, the author has written nothing that is not true.

He hasn't written much at all. How did he get to be security editor of a national newspaper? (no need to reply)

"The courts have never disputed how Ms Izevbekhai entered the country."
Another true statement.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Nodin

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Its hardly a disqualifier in this country.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Thats what I thought about the 4 Million plus they spent on Bush's 48 hour "visit".

Did you write a letter about that?

rkeane

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Great letter, unfortunately it won't make a blind bit of difference to that Labour mayor. I only wish this would get more coverage, Mary Harney got in trouble over the ugly hair cut, how is it this mayor can waste tax payers money on this charlatan? The only money we should be spending on her should be for her flight home.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

HollyB

T runner wrote: »

"The courts have never disputed how Ms Izevbekhai entered the country."
Another true statement.

Is how Ms Izevbekhai entered the country relevant, from a legal standpoint? Whether her version is true or whether the suggestion that she entered via Britain is the true version of events, does it make a difference in terms of her application, aside from the issue of honesty?

The Netherlands and Britain are both EU countries and they are both safe countries. An application for asylum should therefore have been made in whichever safe country she first set foot in. It might have been the Netherlands. It might have been Britain. We know it wasn't Ireland.

oscarBravo

HollyB wrote: »

An application for asylum should therefore have been made in whichever safe country she first set foot in.

I've asked before in this thread: why?

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Am I to understand that hypothetically were you an asylum situation and genuine, you would accept the first decision of the local asylum process even if it meant the imminent torture/death of you and/or your children?
What kind of father would that make you? "Sorry kids but, no means no, youre all going to be killed and tortured as a result of this decision but at least Ill have kept my principles".

Give me a break. You would fight with everything you had, if you were genuine.

GuanYin

HollyB infracted and warned.

Read
HERE AND HERE

This is my last warning.

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Speak for yourself! Claiming to speak for many people only speaks of ego and makes your "argument" weaker not stronger.

Ms Cawley will also notice that your claims that Ms Izevbekhai is "an opportunistic economic migrant" and a "Charlatan" are made completely without substantiation (as it has been evry time you have made these depracations on this thread), and will ensure your letter's speedy consignment to the Crackpot bin.

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It is not relevant that you feel that considerable doubt exists about how Ms. Izevbekhai arrived in Ireland.

It is relevant that the Refugee Appeals Commissioner believes this, per the criteria laid down in the Refugee Act 1996. Do you have any evidence to substantiate this?

jmcc

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It would be a miracle if the Irish Times actually printed your letter.

Regards...jmcc