Pamela Izevbekhai - Should She Be Deported?

6ix

My 2 cents. I'm not from a legal background, I'm just calling it as I see it.

In short, this woman has had a more than fair chance.

She has had an application, a subsequent appeal and then a Judicial Review. Her application for asylum has been rejected. End of story. There are plenty of refugees here who have been granted asylum and are treated well, and our system is not particularly harsh, so I have no doubt that Pamela and her children are not deserving of this status - it has been thoroughly investigated at this stage.

She has put her case forward, she has been ruled against. She is now undermining all genuine asylum seekers who want a fair hearing. While I've no doubt she is a nice lady, this is irrelevant (as others have said). In fact, her continuing refusal to respect the judgements of the Irish government are becoming an affront to a country that has welcomed her.

the_syco

sceptre wrote: »

Oh good lord, and we even put a sticky thread in the forum so people could be edumicated about that little fallacy.

Forgot about the Dub yoke Keep forgetting that it means that there is a direct flight to Ireland from anywhere in the world.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

the_syco

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You forget 4) we don't put them in a camp whilst they await trial, like nearly every other country along the way seems to do.

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The source does not substantiate your ridiculous argument which is that most Nigerian asylum seekers are bogus, only that some may be. Bogus asylum seekers exist and some Nigerians are bogus, no doubt.

As Ive pointed out many times by me, Nigeria has "adequate state protections" against torture which seem to be good enough for the Irish system although aren't in actuality worth the paper they are written on.

This is the reason for the ridiculously low success rate of asylum seekers from that country and why some very obvious cases like the one we are discussing get bizarrely turned down by our refugee commissioners.

AlekSmart

As Ive pointed out many times by me, Nigeria has "adequate state protections" against torture which seem to be good enough for the Irish system although aren't in actuality worth the paper they are written on.

Objection Your Honour.....!...Surely conjecture ?...not to mention emotive language as it appears to denigrate the systems of an,as yet independent sovereign Democratic State.

It could equally be argued that elements of the Irish Constitution regarding Childrens Welfare and Protection have been PROVEN to be not "worth the paper they are written on".

T runner

AlekSmart wrote: »

Objection Your Honour.....!...Surely conjecture ?...not to mention emotive language as it appears to denigrate the systems of an,as yet independent sovereign Democratic State.

Very smart indeed, Alex. But if you had bothered to read through the thread you would see that this has been substantiated many times already.

It could equally be argued that elements of the Irish Constitution regarding Childrens Welfare and Protection have been PROVEN to be not "worth the paper they are written on"

Could it? Any evidence for that?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

This is critical of the Nigerian system and not Nigerian citizens. If this is true it demonstrates only that the Nigerian Governments claims of "Adequate State Protections" are probably rubbish and that the Irish Refugee Commisioners should not use claims from Nigeria that their protections against persecution in general, and FGM in particular are adequate.

The Irish Asylum system seem to be believing claims from apparently one of the most corrupt systems around and using it to turn away Nigerian Asylum Seekers.

I think it is simply naive of you to make the assumption that the vast majority of Nigerian asylum applicants trooping through the Irish courts are fine, upstanding, honest people who are here because they genuinely need shelter from persecution in their home country.

I'm not making any assumptions. It is you who are trying to show that the vast majority of the Nigerians who land on our shores are the opposite and you arent succeeding.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

"The Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index ranks countries in terms of the degree to which corruption is perceived to exist among public officials and politicians. It is a composite index, a poll of polls, drawing on corruption-related data from expert and business surveys carried out by a variety of independent and reputable institutions. The CPI reflects views from around the world, including those of experts who are living in the countries evaluated. Transparency International commissions the CPI from Johann Graf Lambsdorff, Chair Economic Theory, University of Passau and Senior Research Advisor to TI."

It measures corruption among public officials and politicians not individual citizens. You cannot therefore use this index to draw conclusions about individual Nigerian citizens who are probably the victims of this corruption. This index should indeed make one sceptical about Nigeria having "Adequate State Protections" against FGM.

How do you know that Nigeria's own claims were the only things consulted by the Refugee Appeals Commissioner and Refugee Appeals Tribunal? Wouldn't they be likely to consult other sources, too?

Yes, but according to the courts site the accuracy of evidence used by the commisioners was disputed by the Izenbeyai camp who claimed that the data had since being withdrawn as inaccurate.

Conversely, one could say that the Refugee Appeals Commissioner, the Refugee Appeals Tribunal, and other bodies within our judicial system are legitimately skeptical about the astonishingly high number of asylum petitions being received from a democratic country that is not at war.

They are not skeptical about it, otherwise they wouldnt believe the "Adequate State Protection" BS from one of the most corrupt countries in the world, apparently.

"received from a democratic country". Sounds like a decent place. I see you forgive quickly the corruption claims you made very recently against Nigeria!

"an unsurprisingly high number of asylum petitions received from one of the most corrupt countries in the world."

Now that has a truer ring to it I think!

AlekSmart

But if you had bothered to read through the thread you would see that this has been substantiated many times already.

Sorry T runner but reading (wading) through the thread does`nt show me any such substantiation of the premise that the Democratic State of Nigeria is as you say.

Opinion,some good,bad and more indifferent...much of it held with a venom but at the end of the day pretty much what any one poster WANTS to believe


The only evidence I have for the "not worth the paper it`s written on" quote about Irish Childcare arrangements come from the eminent clerical gents quoted here....

The national system of child protection was close to collapse last night after the country's most senior churchman openly questioned the ability of the Government, the HSE and his fellow Catholic bishops to implement a single policy that safeguards children from clerical sexual abuse.

In his first public comment on the consequences arising from a church report into the failure of the Bishop of Cloyne John Magee to apply proper standards, Archbishop of Dublin Diarmuid Martin said he was "extremely concerned" at the fact that, within a purported "one-Church-policy", a wide diversity existed in the interpretation and application of agreed procedures.

The archbishop revealed he had already warned the Irish Bishops' Conference and the Church's National Board for Safeguarding Children that if serious doubts persisted concerning the coherence and consistency of approach, he would implement his own system of accountable child protection.

But hey,yet again its only opinion and you can differ at will....just as many do about the Asylum issue....

T runner

AlekSmart wrote: »

Sorry T runner but reading (wading) through the thread does`nt show me any such substantiation of the premise that the Democratic State of Nigeria is as you say.

OK, Heres one piece of substantiation from this thread, but just this once: do your own searching next time
(BTW If you dont know if something has been substantiated or not, please ask and dont assume either way)

Heres a quote from the asylum Law site about protections in Nigera.
http://www.asylumlaw.org/docs/nigeri...gm_Nigeria.pdf

"Legal Status:
There is no federal laws banning FGM/FGC in Nigeria. Opponents of this practice rely on Section 34(1)(a)
of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria that states, "no person shall be subjected to
torture or inhuman or degrading treatment," as the basis for banning the practice nationwide.
A member of the House of Representatives has drafted a bill, not yet in committee, banning this practice.
Edo State banned this practice in October 1999. Persons convicted under the law are subject to a 1000
Naira (US$10) fine and imprisonment of six months. While opponents of the practice applaud laws like this
one as a step in the right direction, they have criticized the small fine and lack of enforcement thus far.
Ogun, Cross River, Osun, Rivers and Bayelsa states have also banned the practice since 1999.
Most anti-FGM/FGC groups are focusing their energies at the state and local government levels.
IAC/Nigeria is pursuing a state by state strategy to criminalize the practice in all 36 states. It first meets
with the local government area Chairman about the harmful health effects of the practice. The Chairman is
relied on to make contact with Council members, traditional rulers and other opinion leaders to discuss the
problems associated with this practice and to work on alternative rites to satisfy cultural concerns. Only
after consensus has been reached at this level, are all employed in the statewide campaign to ban the
practice. IAC/Nigeria expects the campaign to take at least five years to reach all 36 states.

Protection:
We are unaware of any support groups to protect an unwilling woman or girl against this practice."


In Summary, some states in Nigeria have a law giving a fine or prison after the event.

You can see under the protection heading that there is no possibility of pre-emptive protection under Nigerian Law.

I.e in order to prosecute you have to produce a tortured child or a child killed by torture .
(I also cannot find any instance where someone has been prosecuted for FHM in NIgeria.)

I believe this gives substantiation to my claim that state protections against FHM in Nigeria are not adequate.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

"The CPI focuses on corruption in the public sector and defines corruption as the abuse of public office for private gain. The surveys used in compiling the CPI ask questions relating to the misuse of public power for private benefit. These include for example: bribery of public officials, kickbacks in public procurement, embezzlement of public funds or questions that probe the strength and effectiveness of anti-corruption efforts, thereby encompassing both the administrative and political aspects of corruption."

Lets be clear. This index focuses on corruption amongst officials in the public sector of the countries examined. Thats it.
If you wish to prove that the people suffering under the corruption are therefore corrupt themselves then go ahead and prove it to us: I wish you luck.

But do not use this index as proof (nowhere in this index does it dare hint such a thing!). Its up to you to prove any allegations you make I'm afraid even the ridiculous ones.

How so?

Because, if someone from a corrupt system tells you something you are less likely to believe it than if someone from a society that is not corrupt says it.

Does Nigeria's rating on this index make you more or less likely to believe a Nigerian Official when he tells you protections against FGM there are adequate?
Do you believe that they are adequate?
[/QUOTE]

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You can say you think what you like but you cant substantiate that. Why didnt the study draw these conclusions from their research?

Yes. That is my precise point. And that is why our courts did not believe 1,495 out of the 1,513 Nigerian asylum seekers who appeared before them in the 18 months up to April 2008.

The asylum seekers who appeared before our courts were ordinary citizens and not corrupt officials. These ordinary citizens were not believed by Irish refugee Commisioners. Rather the corrupt officials who told them that state protections in Nigeria are adequate were believed.

Less likely, of course. But did the Irish courts rely on the testimony of Nigerian officials? Or did they rely on independent studies that were conducted by people other than Nigerian officials?

I think both.

I believe that in some parts of Nigeria, the incidence of FGM is around 1 percent. I don't believe Izevbekhai's daughters would be in any great danger if they lived in one of those areas

.
That wasnt the question.

Do you believe that state protections against FGM in Nigeria are adequate or dont you?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Youre really clutching at straws now. The evidence I have seen (from the index you provided) tells me only that many public officials in Nigeria are corrupt. It certainly doesn't tell me that the people who they have shafted are corrupt.
Just like I thought you cant substantiate it. You are reduced to giving red herrings and conjecture about Nigerian citizens not being as corrupt as Finnish citizens.

And you think they should have been believed, yes?

I think some of them should yes.

Can you be more specific? Who told what to whom?

Read it carefully, work it out.

You "think" both? You've just asserted that the Irish courts based their judgement on false information fed to them by corrupt Nigerian officials.

I think both. What do you think?

(From T Runner):Do you believe that state protections against FGM in Nigeria are adequate or dont you?

donegalfella wrote: »

The Irish courts said that "relocation and state protection" should be adequate.

LET EVERYONE NOTE THAT DONEGALFELLA IS DELIBERATELY AVOIDING THIS VITAL QUESTION (below). IF STATE PROTECTIONS IN NIGERIA AGAINST FGM ARE INADEQUATE THEN IT IS NOT POSSIBLE FOR "relocation and state protection" IN NIGERIA TO BE ADEQUATE.

THIS MEANS PAMELA IZENBEYAI AND HER CHILDREN SHOULD BE GRANTED ASYLUM BECAUSE THERE IS A SUFFICIENT RISK OF PERSECUTION FOR HER DAUGHTERS IN NIGERIA IN AN FORWARD LOOKING TEST.


IF YOU DO NOT ANSWER DIRECTLY I THINK IT IS SAFE TO ASSUME THE ANSWER IS NO.

DO YOU THINK STATE PROTECTIONS AGAINST FGM ARE ADEQUATE IN NIGERIA OR NOT?????

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

If the government and judiciary are corrupt, then the rule of law is not applied—or at least not consistently and fairly. This leads to widespread criminality and corruption within the citizenry itself.

Rubbish!

Again heres what this index actually measures (Anthing more is your own unsubstantiated conjecture):


"The Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index ranks countries in terms of the degree to which corruption is perceived to exist among public officials and politicians. It is a composite index, a poll of polls, drawing on corruption-related data from expert and business surveys carried out by a variety of independent and reputable institutions. The CPI reflects views from around the world, including those of experts who are living in the countries evaluated. Transparency International commissions the CPI from Johann Graf Lambsdorff, Chair Economic Theory, University of Passau and Senior Research Advisor to TI."

You've now reached the exact opposite conclusion to every court in Ireland that has considered this case.

So whats new? Ive done that all along in this case. If they are basing their findings in any part on the premise that Nigeria has "adequate state protections" (which they seem to be) then they ARE WRONG!!!!

You are now falling into a basic logical fallacy. Our courts have concluded that the combination of state protection and relocation is adequate in Nigeria to protect girls from FGM. I don't see that you've provided here any evidence whatsoever that that combination would not prove effective.

(Can you reference this? I believe you but would like to see the source.)

I have shown with evidence that state protections in Nigeria are inadequate.
The courts have said that "relocation and state protection" should be adequate. (The word "combination" is your own I take it?)

Logically AND means both conditions (state protections and relocation) are necessary. Otherwise the courts would have said "state protection OR relocation" meaning either; or else "state protection AND/OR relocation" meaning a combination. Is that logic not sound?


This U.S. Department of State document (.doc file) states that:

"The Yuroba, the Ibo and the Hausa practice FGM. It does not appear likely that FGM would be forced on anyone outside their ethnic group or area. Infibulation is almost never done in Iboland, and excision itself is becoming rare. In general, it is our impression that FGM is no longer a common practice among the educated and middle class Nigerians. Under Nigerian tradition, the father has control over the children. If the father opposes FGM, therefore, the children would almost certainly be safe. However, a mother who opposed FGM might not be in a position to prevent her husband’s family from mutilating her female children if the husband wanted it to happen."

From the same source:

We have now seen a few claims from Nigerian women who feared FGM either for themselves or for their female children. Section 5 of the 1995 Human Rights on Nigeria states: `The Government publicly opposes female genital mutilation (FGM), which is widely condemned by international health experts as damaging to both physical and psychological health. Nigeria cosponsored a resolution at the Fort Worth Health Assembly calling for the elimination of harmful health practices, including FGM. However, the Government has taken no action to abolish the procedure, and nearly all ethnic groups subject young females to it.

Does this not suggest to you that state protections are inadequate?

It is my understanding that Pamela Izevbekhai does not come from an ethnic group that practices FGM.

No, but her children do, they are the ones who are in danger: A daughter is already dead from the torture (which shows they are part of an ethnic group which practices FGM).

You've consistently ignored the fact that there are parts of Nigeria where the incidence of FGM is as low as 1 percent.

What is the incidence of FGM in the FGM practising ethnic group that claims the izenbeyai children, is it 1% or perhaps a lot higher?

I personally don't know. But that's not the point

.

Are "adequate state protections" against FGM in NIgeria irrelevant to you in this case then?

"However, the Government has taken no action to abolish the procedure (FGM), and nearly all ethnic groups subject young females to it. "

And this again from your own source. Do you now agree that state protections are inadequate? Or will you fudge again?

Under Nigerian tradition, the father has control over the children.

Starting to look more to you like male controlled violence now eh?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I claim only that public officials and politicians in Nigeria rate highly on the index of corruption which is substantiated by
the Corruption Perceptions Index. You have accepted this.
This is another indication to me that "state protections" against FGM in Nigeria are unlikely to be adequate.

You claim and have stated that corruption among Nigerian officials implies "widespread criminality" among Nigerian citizens. You claim that the Laws there are not enforced properly and therefore the majority of Nigerians act in a criminal way. This is a big jump. I am asking you to provide evidence as to its truth.
Have you another index for the criminality of citizens of countries? What Laws are Nigerian Citizens breaking that makes them criminal? What proportion of the Nigerian population are breking these Laws in order for you to conclude that "criminality is widespread" among the Nigerian population?

If you are making a claim you need to back it up for it to be taken seriously.
Its not fair to continually make ludicrous claims and then ask others to disprove them. You need to substantiate your own ideas.

From the Irish Times of last November:

He said the Oireachtas has designated the Refugee Appeals Commissioner and Refugee Appeals Tribunal to decide issues concerning the practice, and those bodies had repeatedly said state protections in Nigeria were adequate.

I think we can conclude from this that the defence of "state protections in Nigeria were adequate" were used in the Izenbeyai case by the Refugee Appeals Commissioner and Refugee Appeals Tribunal.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The point here is how difficult it is to change a decision once made by the Refugee Commisioners. It seems to me that once a decision is made on an asylum case it has no chance of being overturned subsequently in the court system.

Hedigan was presented with evidence (to show inadequacy in state protections in FGM in Nigeria, presumably) which counted for nothing because "the Oireachtas has designated the Refugee Appeals Commissioner and Refugee Appeals Tribunal to decide issues concerning the practice, and those bodies had repeatedly said state protections in Nigeria were adequate." . What happens if the the Refugee commisioners etc. are in error?
i.e What happens if "state protections in Nigeria" are not adequate?

Exactly. So while state protections might not suffice entirely in and of themselves, they are deemed to be sufficient when combined with relocation.

Two points here.
1. Hedigan said the refugee commissioners had said "state protections in Nigeria were adequate". I didnt see anything about relocation.


2. You are in a corner and deliberately misinterpreting the logic.
Well try again. This is what you said.

donegalfella wrote: »

The courts have said that "relocation and state protection" should be adequate.
You are now falling into a basic logical fallacy. ..... Just because one by itself might be inadequate doesn't imply that the two together are inadequate.

Once more with feeling:
Logically AND means both conditions (state protections and relocation) are necessary to be adequate. This means "state protections" are adequate AND "relocation" is adequate. Both need to be adequate. This is what the courts seem to have said.

If only one was deemed necessary the courts would have said "state protection OR relocation". Either needs to be adequate.
(Donegalfella) "Just because one by itself might be inadequate doesn't imply that the two together are inadequate"
This seems to be what you are suggesting, but is not what the courts have said (according to yourself). They used the word AND not OR.

Finally "state protection AND/OR relocation" meaning a combination. Both not always necessary. Again you implied this elsewhere but again this is not what the courts said. (All this assuming they said this at all! Still no reference!)

This suggests no such thing.

"However, the Government has taken no action to abolish the procedure" (about FGM in Nigeria)

This doesn't suggest to you that State protections are inadequate against FGM in Nigeria?

What is relevant to me is the rulings of the Irish courts, who have considered the evidence relating to state protections, and who have repeatedly decided that Ms Izevbekhai's claim does not merit granting her and her daughters refugee status.

We know how the courts decided. The question is: Did they decide correctly?

It seems evident that the Refugee Commisioners believed "state protections in Nigeria were adequate" against FGM.

We all know this.

If "state protections" there are not adequate then the refugee commisioners may have decided wrongly in this case.

A question:

Do you believe it is possibly for an incorrect decision to be made by the refugee commisioners?

I mantain that the refugee comissioners are incorrect in their assertion that "state protections in Nigeria are adequate" against FGM.
Do you believe that they are correct in this assertion?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ParkRunner

T Runner, just to clarify, the court cannot substitute its own decision for the decision of the RAC or the RAT, it can grant an order of certiorari to quash the decision and order that the body re-examine an application again in accordance with the law. The court cannot grant Ms.Izevbekhai asylum, it would be a breach of the seperation of powers.
She would be out of time to challenge the RAC and RAT decisions at this stage in any case.

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

According to the Financial Times: "Nigeria has one of the highest crime rates in the world. Murder often accompanies even minor burglaries. Rich Nigerians live in high-security compounds. Police in some states are empowered to 'shoot on sight' violent criminals." So yes, there is "widespread criminality" in Nigeria.

This source only is counting murders which are carried out by organised criminal gangs. It is certainly not proof that criminality is widespread among the vast majority of Nigerian Citizens.

Have a look at the Global Peace Index rankings for 2008. Nigeria ranks 129th out of 140 countries. Ireland ranks 6th.

Had a look.

Heres what its about:

"The index is composed of 24 qualitative and quantitative indicators from highly respected sources, which combine internal and external factors ranging from a nation's level of military expenditure to its relations with neighbouring countries and the level of respect for human rights."

Not really about the common citizen is it?
Although, Its amazing that Nigeria isn't on any UN list with these statistics!

Relocation is also mentioned in the official ruling.

OK. Was it mentioned like this:

Originally Posted by donegalfella
The courts have said that "relocation and state protection" should be adequate.

If so do you still think they are adequate bearing in mind this?

From T Runner:

Logically AND means both conditions (state protections and relocation) are necessary to be adequate. This means "state protections" are adequate AND "relocation" is adequate. Both need to be adequate. This is what the courts seem to have said.

If only one was deemed necessary the courts would have said "state protection OR relocation". Either needs to be adequate.
(Donegalfella) "Just because one by itself might be inadequate doesn't imply that the two together are inadequate"
This seems to be what you are suggesting, but is not what the courts have said (according to yourself). They used the word AND not OR.

Finally "state protection AND/OR relocation" meaning a combination. Both not always necessary. Again you implied this elsewhere but again this is not what the courts said. (All this assuming they said this at all! Still no reference!)

I believe that yes, they did. I don't believe that Pamela Izevbekhai has valid grounds for being granted asylum in this country.

Thats not what I asked. I asked you if you believe that the refugee commisioners were correct in their assertion that "state protections in Nigeria are adequate".

If your answer is "I dont know" then how can you know if the refugee commisioners were correct in their decision in this case? (You have already acknowledged that they used the "adequate protections" against her plea).

So you insist, based on your selective quoting of selective biased sources.

You have selected two of those sources yourself. Your not biased in favour of letting them stay are you?

(I notice you have been unable to provide anything biased or otherwise to substantiate
that "state protections are adequate" in Nigeria against FGM. Feel free.)

T runner

EF wrote: »

T Runner, just to clarify, the court cannot substitute its own decision for the decision of the RAC or the RAT, it can grant an order of certiorari to quash the decision and order that the body re-examine an application again in accordance with the law. The court cannot grant Ms.Izevbekhai asylum, it would be a breach of the seperation of powers.
She would be out of time to challenge the RAC and RAT decisions at this stage in any case.

Thanks for the clarification.

AlekSmart

Interesting piece in Today`s Indo by Tom Brady......

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/deportation-challenges-cost-the-state-836412m-in-2008-1591072.html

In the light of EF`s concise and focused interjection,it raises some interesting questions as to the Cost of all this Legal Headscratching...and more importantly who will be funding it.

The legislation will also mean that the judicial review will not suspend the deportation order unless the judge believes there are exceptional grounds as to why the failed asylum seeker should be present in person in the court.

A further tightening up of the regulations prevents an application being brought on the basis of new information that should have been made available by the applicant to the authorities at an early stage of the proceedings.And lawyers who are deemed to have initiated a judicial review on grounds determined by the court to be frivolous or vexatious could end up having to pay the costs of the hearing.

Now this is where some progress might just start to be made in this morass.....

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

oscarBravo

the_syco wrote: »

Forgot about the Dub yoke Keep forgetting that it means that there is a direct flight to Ireland from anywhere in the world.

Banned for a week.