Pamela Izevbekhai - Should She Be Deported?

Koyasan

dsmythy wrote: »

Kevin Myers wrote a piece on this.

I avoid The Independent since I came across articles I had evidence for being made up or containing lies, so I have to say thank you for bringing this article to our attention.

This may be off topic and more suitable for a new thread: It brings to light a point more important to me than the fate of this family: That we may not have any laws against such practices taking place in OUR OWN country. Compare to France: It's now illegal for any girl who lives in France to be sexually mutilated whether it happens in France or not, whether the girl is a citizen or not.

Source: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18376776

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I would argue that they did present new evidence. From Courts.ie
"1.10 The essential grounds upon which the applicants rely are firstly:
That the manner in which the respondent scrutinised the applicants cases was in breach of his obligations under article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 40 of the Constitution and s. 4 of the Criminal Justice (UN Convention against Torture Act 2000) and in breach of the Minister’s duty to act fairly and comply with fair procedures and was in breach of his alleged duty to weigh fairly all relevant material.............
......Secondly it was argued that there is additional material and evidence available which this Court should examine and consider and take into account and assess."

"4.1 The applicants in this case place considerable emphasis on additional material which it is claimed was properly available for consideration. In particular a medical report from a doctor who treated the first named applicant’s deceased daughter. There was also a medical certificate identifying the deceased child’s cause of death. However consideration of the overall factual position in this case demonstrates that this information does not provide or support a significant change in material circumstances."

I also believe (dont have link) that the courts were asked to consider that evidence used to refute her case: improved FGM stats from Nigeria had since been declared inaccurate.

But the logical fallacy here is obvious: Just because one daughter died tragically fourteen years ago—apparently after a procedure to which Izevbekhai gave her consent—doesn't mean that the same thing is likely to happen to the other daughters. The courts can only grant asylum if they find that the applicant(s) satisfy a "forward-looking test"; in other words, the judge needs to find that there is a reasonable, well-founded risk that future persecution will happen.

Firstly, I dont think the fact that Izevbekhai gave consent for her first daughters circumcision is relevent.
She was a young girl and gave birth in a culture where female circumcision was obligatory. A mother not giving permission would be unheard of. She would probably not have considered that there was anything unusual or grave danger in it. Even if she was exceptional and did object, she would have little power to stop it.

I think that herself and her lawyers are trying to show that her daughter Elizabeth died as a result of torture, this was due to a cultural belief system prevalent in Nigeria and that this belief and dangerous situation in Nigeria hasnt changed.
Therefore the risk of persecution remains in a forward looking test.

"The submissions included a claim that the prohibition of refoulement would prevent the applicants from returning to their home country and in particular relied upon the first named applicant’s belief that the danger which caused her and her children to flee from Nigeria still existed"

I think therefore that an effort by them to establish beyond doubt the cause of Elizabeths death is relevant to establishing a forward loking case, although the courts didnt agree. The evidence wasnt considered (not relevant)

"3.9 This Court must recognise the limited nature of its role in reviewing a decision of the Minister to make a deportation order."

The Minister does not have to give reason for the deportation:

"3.8 A central issue between the parties in this case is the suggested obligation on the Minister at least in a general way to identify the principal reasons giving rise to his decision to make deportation orders in these cases."

I believe that Nigerian asylum seekers are routinely turned down by the Irish Refugee authorities:

Justice John Hedeghan:

"Additional information submitted to the Minister in support of the application for subsidiary protection did not amount to new or altered facts or circumstances, the judge said.
At best, the information could only be said to add to or strengthen "a well-known and frequently made case".

"The refugee authorities had repeatedly said that state protections in Nigeria were adequate."

The evidence on the ground in Nigeria doesn't point to adequate state protections, although Nigeria have done some 'box-ticking' by signing the Maputo protocol and other agreements.

In this case I believe Pamela Izevbekhai. I dont believe the Nigerian authorities and I dont believe the Irish refugee authorities dig much further than the "adequate state protections" promoted by Nigeria, when refusing asylum cases.
By the looks of it the courts role thereafter is limited in overturning this initial
rejections by the refugee authorities.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

dodgyme

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That kinda emotional infused article is the reason it has taken this sh*thole country so long to smell the roses and cost us multi-millions in rent and allowances etc. The rte report on the civic reception in sligo for Pam et al was also a tear jerker. Not trying to get involved in the specifics of this case (I havent read that much about it), I spent alot of time in nigeria between 2000 and 2003 when the streams of people were outside the offices in town from nigeria looking for asylum and I can tell you (from my experience) we were being completely taken for a ride and the amount of stupid g*b****e dogooders are the reason we are still in this mess. I have posted on this stuff before (and try not too anymore) as have others who have spent time in nigeria and no matter how you try to translate the negative ethnographical experience from being there, the plonkers just block there ears.

djpbarry

dodgyme wrote: »

That kinda emotional infused article is the reason it has taken this sh*thole country so long to smell the roses and cost us multi-millions in rent and allowances etc.

I would say the high costs associated with asylum applications in this country has more to do with mismanagement.

dodgyme wrote: »

...I spent alot of time in nigeria between 2000 and 2003 when the streams of people were outside the offices in town from nigeria looking for asylum and I can tell you (from my experience) we were being completely taken for a ride...

Amnesty International (among others) would seem to disagree. Forgive my scepticism, but I'm going to take their word over yours.

dodgyme

djpbarry wrote: »

Amnesty International (among others) would seem to disagree. Forgive my scepticism, but I'm going to take their word over yours.

"amnesty int (amongs others)" i.e. interest groups etc. Anyone can find a group to agree with them if they want-> whatever! I have been there many times and I am guessing you havent. As I said earlier just block your ears if it contradicts your heart.

On the mismanagement side I do agree, but correcting this process is difficult in a country where no one with face the issue head on.

djpbarry

dodgyme wrote: »

"amnesty int (amongs others)" i.e. interest groups etc. Anyone can find a group to agree with them if they want...

Can you?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

dodgyme

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I agree - have you not read my posts?

when I say "just block your ears if it contradicts your heart." I essentially could have said people need to see the wood from the trees but refuse to do so because they want to satisfy there own "vanity of thinking" and from this a desperation to see themselves as protecting the underdog rather then being taken in. My problem is that others loose out and taxpayers have to foot the bill for this indulgence.

dodgyme

djpbarry wrote: »

Can you?

If I do will it make a difference? .............Listing off various anti-immigration groups just to disagree with you does nothing to forward my agrument, there are bandwagons on both sides and I will be party to neither.

I have been there and my opinions come from a mixture of what I saw happening in nigeria and the q's I saw forming outside offices in dublin to seek asylum. The scam was being organised in the former venue and executed in the latter venue.

milmo

Like dodgey, I too have lived in West Africa, and have to agree with his sentiments.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=53825820#post53825820

seancoistine

I read in the Sunday Times the following

• PI had a multiple entry visitor visa to the UK
• her husband was detained while illegally entering the Republic from NI
• there is no evidence to support her story tht she was smuggled through Amsterdam
• there is no evidence to support her story of a daughter dying.

It appears that PI has become a minor industry for the legal profession who will keep chiuring it through the courts as long as the rest of us idiots keep paying. What are the chances of any of the 'Good Samaritans' putting their money where their mouths are?

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I would disagree with the bold sentence. They have addressed this by trying to prove that the dangerous situation which caused the loss of the first daughter still exists. The court has not accepted that it exists but this is not a logical error on behalf of the refugee seekers. They are not barking up the wrong tree. If they prove this they (probably) prove the forward looking case.


Quote: (T Runner)
I also believe (dont have link) that the courts were asked to consider that evidence used to refute her case: improved FGM stats from Nigeria had since been declared inaccurate.

In other words, every young girl in Nigeria has the same risk of being subjected to FGM as Izevbekhai's daughters—no more, no less.

This is actually what the courts are trying to show.

The courts are using these stats as a means to show Nigeria's state protections werent just ink on paper. If the state protections in Nigeria are infact adequate now: then she has no case. This does not imply the reciprocal that if state protections are not adequate that every female has a case for asylum. It just means that she cant be refused asylum for this reason.
If, however, state protections are shown to be adequate (the object of this disputed evidence) then the courts could argue that no Nigerian woman has a case (and therefore Pamela Izenbaia doesnt), which is what I believe has happenned.

You don't? I think it's highly relevant. Do you have examples of FGM being performed in Nigeria against the wishes of the parents? Or would you agree that it's a practice that is normally only carried out as a familial tradition?

I wouldnt agree.

From:

"Among the Urhobo Tribe of Delta State (Nigeria T Runner), the women are not notified of the date of [their] circumcision. They are kidnapped and forcefully circumcised during pregnancy. The authorities have done nothing and only pay lip service to the prevention of FGM. Even though some states have passed a law making FGM a crime, there has been no prosecution and FGM is still practised daily in Nigeria. (24 Aug. 2006)"

This case from Cameroon shows how a pastor was beaten to death for speaking out against FGM after 2 of his "flock" had been kidnapped, had the procedure performed on them and subsequently died of blood loss.

The risk of dying in childbirth in Nigeria is very high, by Western standards. So is the risk of dying in a road traffic accident. By your logic, would any pregnant woman, or any driver of an automobile be able to satisfy a forward-looking test and claim asylum in Ireland?

No. Only people who face persecution when they return home as defined by the relevant Irish Acts.



Quote: From T Runner
In this case I believe Pamela Izevbekhai. I dont believe the Nigerian authorities and I dont believe the Irish refugee authorities dig much further than the "adequate state protections" promoted by Nigeria, when refusing asylum cases.

As others have pointed out, Nigeria has a population of 160 million people. The average Nigerian woman has five or six children. How many infant girls and their mothers would flock to Ireland if we started granting asylum based on the extremely broad criteria you outline here?

Weve covered this before. The Floodgates will not open. The UKs experience after the siminal Fornah case in 2005 was 3 applications and only one acceptance of asylum relating to FGM.

Also "adequate state protections" would stop an asylum case. Your reciprocal assumption that "inadequate state protections" implies all Nigerian women have a case for asylum is not correct.

djpbarry

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

So what happens in the mean time? Anyone who wishes to leave is told “sorry, you’ll just have to wait until your country sorts itself out”?

dodgyme wrote: »

If I do will it make a difference...

Yes, I think so. Otherwise, you’re asking me to accept your word over that of a well-respected NGO and there’s only going to be one winner there.

dodgyme

djpbarry wrote: »

Yes, I think so.

doubt it since you have ignored everything else in my post. If you had read it correctly you wouldnt have asked this question. Get spoon fed whatever you want. I have made my points before and now again. I dont really care if you believe me or not however I do care when there is a massive financial cost to the exchequer.

djpbarry

dodgyme wrote: »

doubt it since you have ignored everything else in my post.

No I didn't. Your argument basically amounts to "I saw this, I saw that", which means nothing to me. It's no different to me saying "I was in Somalia and I saw..."; nobody would take such an argument seriously, nor would I expect them to. Anecdotes do not good debating tools make.

dodgyme

djpbarry wrote: »

No I didn't. Your argument basically amounts to "I saw this, I saw that", which means nothing to me. It's no different to me saying "I was in Somalia and I saw..."; nobody would take such an argument seriously, nor would I expect them to. Anecdotes do not good debating tools make.

The fact is I did see this and I did see that. Whats your opinion and more importantly experience? perhaps you can answer that to start with. I have formed my opinion on years of experience, whats yours?

ismisecathy

And Pamela did see her children's attempted kidnap and did see her husband beat up by the kidnappers. What gives your experience any more weight than hers?

dodgyme

ismisecathy wrote: »

And Pamela did see her children's attempted kidnap and did see her husband beat up by the kidnappers. What gives your experience any more weight than hers?

I am not the one involved in an elongated deportation process. Apples and oranges mate.! whats your opinion or do you have one? If you dont perhaps you can let the other poster anwser the question.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

djpbarry

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Sure, but my point is that if everyone had the "not my problem" attitude, then no asylum applications would be accepted anywhere.

djpbarry

dodgyme wrote: »

The fact is I did see this and I did see that. Whats your opinion and more importantly experience? perhaps you can answer that to start with. I have formed my opinion on years of experience, whats yours?

I form opinions on available evidence, not what a random poster puts forward on an internet forum. Can you provide any evidence to back up your claims?

dodgyme

djpbarry wrote: »

I form opinions

Instead of trying to throw the discussion round in circles, what is your opinion mate? you still havent provided it? What do you think? I dont need evidence or a sworn affidaviff or I wont ask how you formed the opinion etc etc? What is your opinion?

djpbarry

dodgyme wrote: »

Instead of trying to throw the discussion round in circles, what is your opinion mate?

My opinion on what?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

djpbarry

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well, is that not why most people emigrate?

rkeane

yeah but isn't that why we get visa's for the countries we emigrate to .....oh I forgot, Pamela had a multi-entry visa for the UK.