Pamela Izevbekhai - Should She Be Deported?

HollyB

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.

So what can the court do for her, if they can't reverse the RAC and RAT decisions and grant her asylum? If the court can't reverse the decisions made by the RAC and RAT, are they entitled to forbid the deportation of the Izevbekhai family?

ParkRunner

The court can't grant her asylum or permission to remain, it is beyond their remit. The court can only grant an injunction preventing the State from deporting her. Or the court can grant her the relief she applied for..I dont know exactly what she did apply for but the usual relief sought would be to quash the decision made for reasons of the decision being flawed or the case not being properly considered under the relevant legislation. So far the decisions challenged have been upheld as valid and legal which is the crux of the issue. If the court felt there was a threat that she (or her children) would suffer persecution if returned to Nigeria then they would have ruled in her favour, but that is not the case.

HollyB

EF wrote: »

The court can't grant her asylum or permission to remain, it is beyond their remit. The court can only grant an injunction preventing the State from deporting her. Or the court can grant her the relief she applied for..I dont know exactly what she did apply for but the usual relief sought would be to quash the decision made for reasons of the decision being flawed or the case not being properly considered under the relevant legislation. So far the decisions challenged have been upheld as valid and legal which is the crux of the issue. If the court felt there was a threat that she would suffer persecution if returned to Nigeria then they would have ruled in her favour, but that is not the case.

Can they do this on a permanent basis or only temporarily?

What kind of power does the court have in terms of subsidiary protection? Can they order it to be granted to her or can they instruct the Minister for Justice to reexamine her case?

ParkRunner

No an injunction would be temporary, usually until the case has been decided. It is the same with Subsidiary Protection, the court can't grant her that either, they can only rule that the decision was made in accordance with the law and uphold it or order the application for SP to be reconsidered.

HollyB

EF wrote: »

No an injunction would be temporary, usually until the case has been decided. It is the same with Subsidiary Protection, the court can't grant her that either, they can only rule that the decision was made in accordance with the law and uphold it or order the application for SP to be reconsidered.

So, at the end of the day, the court won't reverse either the decisions made regarding asylum or subsidiary protection or the deportation orders? All they can do is order the application for subsidiary protection to be reconsidered if it wasn't made in accordance with the law, and issue an injunction to prevent the deportation while that decision is being made?

ParkRunner

Yep, thats basically it. She was refused an injunction already regarding her challenge to the SP decision. The State have only agreed not to deport her until her ECHR case has been heard..which has yet to be deemed admissable. I dont know of any injunction in place

HollyB

EF wrote: »

Yep, thats basically it. She was refused an injunction already regarding her challenge to the SP decision. The State have only agreed not to deport her until her ECHR case has been heard..which has yet to be deemed admissable. I dont know of any injunction in place

And it was said already that the ECHR would be deciding on whether or not she would be allowed access to the Supreme Court, right - wouldn't the Supreme Court also be unable to reverse the decisions or to completely prevent a deportation?

I don't know if there's an injunction in place at the moment; the ECHR asked that the family not be deported (rather than ordered) and I think it's been decided that they won't proceed with a deportation for the moment but I don't know if there's an actual injunction preventing the family's deportation.

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

No its not

You fail to highlight that it looks at 24 qualitative and quantitative indicators,

Yes I did

which include levels of distrust in other citizens;number of displaced people as a percentage of the population; political instability; level of disrespect for human rights; potential for terrorist acts; number of homicides per 100,000 people; level of violent crime; likelihood of violent demonstrations; and number of jailed population per 100,000 people.

And you acuse me of being selective. Unbelievable!
Here's how Nigeria compares to Ireland. You can see all the criteria and how few actually relate to the ordinary citizen.

Ireland Vs Nigeria: Peace Index

It's obvious to anyone who reads the papers and listens to the news that Nigeria is a corrupt and crime-ridden country—and nobody but the most contrarian of individuals could come to the opposite conclusion.

Lets get this straight: The point youre actually trying to make is that the average Nigerian applying for asylum in Ireland is a criminal type because the average Nigerian in Nigeria is a criminal type. This is actually not obvious to anyone who reads the papers or watches the news. (you have yet to subsyantiate this drivel in any way)


Your evidence for this has only shown up a cruel system of corruption in Nigeria benefiting a very select few. It has also shown up a lot of internal and external conflict there (according to your peace index).

It has indeed added much weight to the Izenbeyai case (how it looks on this thread) by showing it highly unlikely that "State Prosecutions in Nigeria are adequate" against FGM. The "state protections" in Nigeria seem to be key in the refugee commisioners showing no potential fear of persecution for her children.

Without knowing the data and the sources on which the commissioners and the tribunal based their decisions, I can't answer the question.

Heres another question: Were the courts/commisioners etc. correct to decide the Izenbeyais had no case under the forward looking test?
(You dont have the data and the sources on which the commissioners and the tribunal based their decisions here either so the answer must be "I can't answer the question. "No?)

So you basically cant say if the courts are right or wrong.
You have already acknowledged that courts can make mistakes. So why do you think the courts are right?

As I've said many times, if the courts decide to let her stay, I will accept their decision. Will you accept their decision if they uphold her deportation order?

What do you mean by accept?

Izevbekhai has been in our country now for four years, dragging her endless appeals through our courts. She hasn't been able to substantiate her claim, at any stage of the process, of a well-founded risk of persecution to her daughters. Our courts have consistently found that she doesn't have a legitimate case for asylum. After four years of this extremely expensive and time-consuming charade, I believe it is time for her to be sent home.

But youve admitted that courts make mistakes. How do you know they havent made a mistake here i.e "state protections in Nigeria" are inadequate fro FGM?
Ive asked if you thought state protections are adequate and you said you didnt know.
Your position seems to be: The courts can make mistakes, I dont know if they made a mistake here, Im going to back them blindly anyway.

After four years of this extremely expensive and time-consuming charade

How do know its a charade? Youve stated you dont know if state protections are adequate in NIgeria against FGM do you? You stated you dont know if the courts/commisioners are making a mistake or not.
Yet you think its a charade.

Your petty insults towards this woman and her family are tiresome.
You have tried to imply she was a bogus a sylum seeker on many occasions. The best you could do to substantiate this was your ridiculous argument
that a legitimate asylum seeker would have packed up and gone home after the commisioners went against her. (Please dont bother with the, how did she get into the country stuff).
Can we show some integrity here keep it clean here please?

ParkRunner

If her case was deemed admissable to be heard before the ECHR then I imagine the Court would rule on whether or not there would be a breach of rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (more than likely focusing on Article 3) should she and her children be deported. If they rule that there would be a breach well then the State would not be able to deport her..but the vast majority of cases never make it beyond the admissability stage.

Her challenge against subsidiary protection is challenging the refusal of the Minister to consider the application for SP, as her deportation order was signed before the subsidiary protection regulations came into force, there was no obligation (just a discretion) on the Minister to consider any such application.

T runner

Interesting article here.

It shows that the allegations made against her before she arrived in Ireland were scurrilous and may have been sourced from a far right group.

Looks like an immigration official should be made to answer a few questions.

Unfortunately mud tends to sticks and people on this thread have used this disgusting rubbish to attack her and to cast doubt on her motives.

This shows the importance of of using reputable sources I guess.
Dont believe everything you read on national papers unless they give you a reputable source.

AlekSmart

This shows the importance of of using reputable sources I guess.
Dont believe everything you read on national papers unless they give you a reputable source.

I would indeed support T runner in this aspect of things,as evidenced by the good Senator`s contribution of December 14Th....

"I have a statement from a senior Nigerian politician who says that if this woman goes back, there is a very strong likelihood that her influential family will have her kidnapped at the airport and she will not be seen again," Senator Norris said.

Gosh but it`s like a merry-go-round at times....... :rolleyes:

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ParkRunner

HollyB wrote: »

And it was said already that the ECHR would be deciding on whether or not she would be allowed access to the Supreme Court, right QUOTE]

I think there might be confusion here between the European Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Justice. A national court can refer a point of law to the ECJ to clarify a point of EU law and the case would then be referred back to the national court for judgment. Pamela has just made an individual application to the ECHR, which is different.

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Now this is why you are confusing me:

The issue of "state protections in Nigeria" against FGM is obviously vital in this case.
You have acknowledged that the courts have used the existence of "protections" in Nigeria against the case for asylum. If the courts cant show that "adequate state protections exist" to protect the children from FGM then the Izenbeyais have a strong case. Justice Hedigan implied the importance of "state protections" in the case during a judicial hearing.

To state with certainty that the courts are right in this case implies that you must feel the courts are right to believe that "state protections are adequate in Nigeria" against FGM.
Yet, when Ive asked you if you feel that the protections are adequate youve said you dont know.
When Ive asked you if you think the courts were right to believe their adequacy you've said you don't know because you cant see what evidence they were using.
Now Ill ask you again: How can you with certainty state that the courts have got it right in this case if you cant say with certainty whether they have got it right over a vital piece of evidence?
There are no two ways about it. If you believe the courts case you must also believe that there are adequate state protections against FGM in NIgeria! Yet you are clearly unsure of this at best .

(Maybe the courts are making the same mistake repeatedly over the 3.5 years? Trusting the sources at the Nigerian end for the "adequate protections".

The Oireachtas appointed the Refugee Commissioner and the Refugee Appeals Tribunal to make decisions on such matters. It did not appoint Amnesty International, or any women's group or NGO, or any of the other authorities whom you have been citing, to make such decisions. Do you think the courts should be sitting down to sift through the competing and often conflicting claims of thousands of alleged experts on the subject of FGM in Africa? Or should it believe the authorities whom the Irish government has appointed to evaluate such claims?

It depends on the credibility of the sources of evidence that the authorities whom the Irish government has appointed are using. Above all it SHOULD NOT be listening to officials of the Nigerian Government!
(I can reference corruption and peace indexes if you dont believe me)
Are they are using protocols and laws against FGM with Nigerian signatures as their evidence???!!! If thats the case they are better off using sources on the ground who know the real state of these Nigerian government "protections" against FGM as long as they are credible.

Can anyone show any evidence that there is protection against FGM on the ground in Nigeria other than signed protocols and statements from Nigerien officials? Everything points to the Nigerian government backing up its Laws against FGM exactly the way youd expect from a corrupt government of a poor country.

If Nigerian offialdom is the source of this evidence then it is bogus.
I dont see any other sources that could state this with a straight face.

(Well actually I have one. Shell Oil!)

No, it isn't. My position is that the courts have spent three and a half years carefully weighing all aspects of the case presented to them by Ms Izevbekhai and her lawyers. All the courts have reached the same decision on the matter, and the decision was upheld in a judicial review. At this point, everyone—including Ms. Izevbekhai—should be prepared to accept that her case has received as full and complete a hearing as Irish law allows. She and her supporters should be prepared to abide by the final (if much reiterated) decision of our judiciary, which is that Ms Izevbekhai and her daughters have no grounds for remaining in Ireland.

If they have spent 20 years weighing up the case and are still basing their belief that "state protections in Nigeria are adequate" against FGM on the word of Nigerian officials and empty protocols then they will still be wrong!

T runner

AlekSmart wrote: »

I would indeed support T runner in this aspect of things,as evidenced by the good Senator`s contribution of December 14Th...

.

Was wondering who would bother saying that. I did say "Dont believe everything you read on national papers unless they give you a reputable source. "

If youre not sure which article to believe then maybe dont believe either.
David Norris seems to be a man of integrity: as he was referenced as stating he saw something I would probably believe that.

Gosh but it`s like a merry-go-round at times....... :rolleyes:

Advice: Read things thoroughly otherwise you might be dizzy.

ParkRunner

A relevant case to this thread I believe, a Nigerian mother fearing that her daughter would be subjected to FGM if returned to Nigeria from the middle of last year, refused refugee status and refused leave to seek judicial review. It also quotes some of the sources relied upon. Has the Commissioner and an independent judge got it wrong again?

http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/bce24a8184816f1580256ef30048ca50/c3fd554e326111e4802574cc004b373c?OpenDocument

"It is clear from the Commissioner’s report that he had no difficulty in accepting the applicant’s evidence that there was a serious risk of mutilation and tribal marking if she returned to the community in Nigeria with her daughter from where she came. His finding, however, was that the fear was not well founded because the country of origin information suggested that the applicant’s mother could relocate to another part of Nigeria if she wished her child to be free from such danger. The Commissioner refused to accept as credible the assertion by the applicant that her husband’s family “is all over Nigeria” as being a valid explanation as to why she could not relocate. Considering the size and population of Nigeria, such relocation would avoid the risk of traditional tribal marking."


"Although the Commissioner in his report gives one example where the Nigerian police force arrested 30 witch doctors, he does so by way of example, and as an illustration in support of the general statement based on country of origin information, to the effect that the police in Nigeria do take appropriate action against people they suspect are involved in ritual killings and human sacrifice"

"The Commissioner relied on country of origin information which demonstrated that the police in Nigeria do take appropriate action against people involved in ritual killings and human sacrifice."

ParkRunner

Another example and there are dozens more where asylum was refused and also leave to seek judicial review was refused where the applicant feared that their child would be subjected to FGM if returned to Nigeria:

http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/bce24a8184816f1580256ef30048ca50/1cf606d2ba29381e802574f7004f1f73?OpenDocument

"The Commissioner relied on country of origin information which demonstrated that the police in Nigeria do take appropriate action against people involved in ritual killings and human sacrifice."

"The Tribunal Member found that although there is a clear need for widespread reform of the police in Nigeria, there is nothing in the country of origin information to suggest that the police would not investigate the disappearance or death of a child in the manner described by the applicant"

"I have read the UK Home Office report in its entirety and I can find no fault with the Tribunal Member’s assessment of the information contained therein. Paragraphs 6.08 and 6.09, dealing with persecution from non-state actors and internal relocation, clearly states that “[a]s Nigerians can freely move within Nigeria, it is possible for Nigerians to relocate to another part of Nigeria to avoid persecution from non-state actors.” The report does acknowledge that those Nigerians who do relocate may encounter problems but it is clear, in my view, that the findings contained in the RAT decision are not dependant upon selective quotations or isolated statements; rather, they are consistent with the overall tone of the country of origin information."

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

T runner

EF wrote: »

Another example and there are dozens more where asylum was refused and also leave to seek judicial review was refused where the applicant feared that their child would be subjected to FGM if returned to Nigeria:

http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/bce24a8184816f1580256ef30048ca50/1cf606d2ba29381e802574f7004f1f73?OpenDocument

"The Commissioner relied on country of origin information which demonstrated that the police in Nigeria do take appropriate action against people involved in ritual killings and human sacrifice."

"The Tribunal Member found that although there is a clear need for widespread reform of the police in Nigeria, there is nothing in the country of origin information to suggest that the police would not investigate the disappearance or death of a child in the manner described by the applicant"

"I have read the UK Home Office report in its entirety and I can find no fault with the Tribunal Member’s assessment of the information contained therein. Paragraphs 6.08 and 6.09, dealing with persecution from non-state actors and internal relocation, clearly states that “[a]s Nigerians can freely move within Nigeria, it is possible for Nigerians to relocate to another part of Nigeria to avoid persecution from non-state actors.” The report does acknowledge that those Nigerians who do relocate may encounter problems but it is clear, in my view, that the findings contained in the RAT decision are not dependant upon selective quotations or isolated statements; rather, they are consistent with the overall tone of the country of origin information."

Useful post, EF. These cases are obviously the ones Hedeghan mentions when he stated that "state protections are adequate" as a reason why many of these cases were being turned down.

Some of the country of origin information seems to be from Nigerian official sources.

This is why this applicant was turned down in the RAT.

"An RAT oral hearing was held on 6th April, 2004 and the Tribunal Member decided to reject the appeal by decision dated 30th May, 2006. While accepting the applicant’s account of her difficulties with her in-laws, the Tribunal Member found that the applicant’s voluntary return from Kano to Lagos was not consistent with a genuine subjective fear of persecution, and that country of origin information indicates that State protection might reasonably have been forthcoming in Nigeria."

From The Home Office report:

The following section from para 6.09 was not considered:

"“If a person relocates within Nigeria, he or she will usually seek to find shelter with a relative or a member of his or her community of origin. This means, however, that the same network which accord protection can become a source of persecution if some body has run afoul of his or her community. Informal communication networks function very well in Nigeria, and it is not too difficult to find a person one is looking for. This is true also for so-called big cities whose neighbourhoods are structured along village and community lines….” [31] (p169)

“The viability of an internal relocation alternative therefore depends on whether anybody would be interested to follow someone to e.g. Lagos. It is very hard to make a general statement for such cases. People might be able to relocate if they have run into trouble with a rival ethnic community or a vigilante group or if they flee violent conflict.” [31] (p169-170)

“….People who have difficulties with their own community – a woman refusing to enter a marriage or to undergo FGM – might not easily be harboured by their relatives or members of their community in another part of the country. Leaving their family signifies social and economic exclusion for the large majority of Nigerians and in particular for women. There are women NGOs who might take her in for a while, but they will not be able to support here forever. The only option for women in such cases would be prostitution.”
"

It think the In Laws etc. clearly would have the capability to follow the Izenbeyai family which would would nullify the benefits of relocation. (see bold above)

Also the following damning indictment of the police who are meant to protect the children in this case is not used.

“Despite repeated promises of reform by senior government and police officials, extra-judicial killings, torture, ill treatment, arbitrary arrests and extortion remain the hallmarks of the Nigerian police. Throughout the years, a large number of extra-judicial killings occurred not only in the context of crime fighting operations against alleged armed robbers, but also during routine duties such as traffic control. Cases of torture and ill-treatment by the police during arrest and detention are common. Police often take advantage of situations of generalized violence and disorder to carry out further killings. For example, in May 2004, riots between Muslims and Christians in Kano left more than two hundred people dead, dozens of whom had been shot dead by the police. In very few cases were the individuals responsible for these acts or their superiors brought to justice.” [22e]

“….There were numerous cases of arrests, detention, ill-treatment, intimidation and harassment of critics and opponents of the government.

AlekSmart

"I have a statement from a senior Nigerian politician who says that if this woman goes back, there is a very strong likelihood that her influential family will have her kidnapped at the airport and she will not be seen again," Senator Norris said.

The good Senator Norris is indeed one of the shining lights of modern Irish Politics,however he is as suceptible as the rest of us to being sucked into the wake of this particular issue.

One wonders if that "Senior Nigerian Politician" is from the Flynn/Haughey/Aherne school of politics in terms of credibility ?

ParkRunner

Which sources are Nigerian?

Also it is recognised in the various country of origin reports that while internal relocation could cause difficulty a person seeking to internally relocate can seek assistance from the church, NGO's or family members. Internal relocation is difficult but possible. How would the in-laws find her in a country twice the size of the State of California?

Both the RAT and the Court acknowledged that the police in Nigeria are in need of widespread reform, but evidence was produced that the police do investigate the disappearance or death of a child in the circumstances outlines.

T runner

EF wrote: »

Which sources are Nigerian?

Heres 5. Most of the statistical sources seem to be Nigerian.

Momoh [Channels Television, Abuja] (TV Channel Lagos)
Nigeria Demographic and Health Survey (A Nigerian Government survey)
Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy
BAOBAB For Women's Human Rights (Nigeria)
Nigerian Minister of Internal Affairs, Dr Iorchia Ayu "there is no longer any state persecution in Nigeria....

Also it is recognised in the various country of origin reports that while internal relocation could cause difficulty a person seeking to internally relocate can seek assistance from the church, NGO's or family members.

This is interesting: The 2004 report was updated in 2005. There were some complaints that not all data from sources were used with subtle differences to change the emphasis slightly. Look at this difference between 2004 and 2005:

2004

"However, most women throughout Nigeria have the option to relocate to another location if they do not wish to undergo FGM. Government institutions and NGOs afford protection to these women."

2005

On the subject of protection a senior representative of the IGP said that there is a law
banning FGM, but the NPF does not become involved in FGM matters, as ‘it is a family thing’.However, there are groups that are against the practice of FGM and should a girl desire to
avoid FGM in spite of pressure from her family to do otherwise she has the opportunity to
complain to the NPF or the NHRC and in addition she may seek protection by women lawyers
or NGOs.

Notice the extra line about the police not interfering and the fact that "government institutions" as affording protection is no longer there.

Reading the 2004 paragraph you might have confidence in state protections. Reading the 2005 one you would not.

Internal relocation is difficult but possible. How would the in-laws find her in a country twice the size of the State of California?

"The following section from para 6.09 was not considered:

"“If a person relocates within Nigeria, he or she will usually seek to find shelter with a relative or a member of his or her community of origin. This means, however, that the same network which accord protection can become a source of persecution if some body has run afoul of his or her community. Informal communication networks function very well in Nigeria, and it is not too difficult to find a person one is looking for. This is true also for so-called big cities whose neighbourhoods are structured along village and community lines….” [31] (p169)
"

Both the RAT and the Court acknowledged that the police in Nigeria are in need of widespread reform, but evidence was produced that the police do investigate the disappearance or death of a child in the circumstances outlines.

Heres the quote: "there is nothing in the country of origin information to suggest that the police would not investigate "

There is nothing in that report that suggests they do either.

The problems with the police in Nigeria are not small:

"Any prosecutions which are brought as a result of police action will invariably be in favour of the wealthier party to the complaint.”

Looking at the evidence in the (2005) report I personally wouldnt conclude state protections in Nigeria were adequate. From the 2005 report the police are extremely unlikely to intervene and there is no government institutions to go to.

It should be noted that this report is a compilation of sources. Some of it is condradictory, so there is an oppurtunity for Lawyers to be selective as was complained of in one of these cases.

The Home Office disclaims at the outset:

"They are not intended to be a detailed or comprehensive survey, nor do they contain Home Office opinion or policy."

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

No. As part of the states rejection of her case the premise of "adequate state protections" will have been used (as it must).


You are acting as if the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard applies in asylum law, when it does not. In this instance the courts are basing their ruling on the fact that a body appointed by the Oireachtas has investigated the situation in Nigeria and has ruled that state protections are adequate.

Suppose you were brought up in court on a speeding charge for driving at 120 km/h on a 100 km/h dual carriageway. Would you address the speeding charge by demanding to know which governmental authority set a limit of 100 km/h for safe travel on a dual carriageway? Will you produce a host of independent reports to prove that 120 km/h on a dual carriageway is actually a perfectly safe speed, and thus you weren't really breaking the law? Because that's effectively what you're trying to do here.

I think youve got that wrong. Say you were driving at 90km an hour in a 100km zone and were charged by a court of driving 120km. Would you not defend by saying the equipment used to determine your speed was in error and would you not be frustrated by the answer, no we trust our source and nothing you can do or say will in relaity break that trust.

I personally don't know this—and neither do you. All you are doing is citing reports by Amnesty International, etc., that were also produced in the High Court by lawyers for Ms. Izevbekhai. That evidence was dismissed by the court. You don't seem to understand that the courts are abiding by the investigations and the decisions of the Refugee Commissioner and the Refugee Appeals Tribunal, not by the reports of Amnesty International or any other body.

Oh, I do know the level of protections in Nigeria and I know what the Refugee Commisioner uses to show these protections exist. (look at recent posts by EF and some by me.) In some cases the fact that a law exists in a state has been enough to deny asylum. Ive said it many times: Not worth the paper its written on but its enough for the courts it seems.

And you have already admitted that you don't know what sources of evidence it used. So how do you know that it made the wrong decision?

I do actually, heres some of the Nigerian ones

And where did you get references to those corruption and peace indexes? You got them from me!

Yes, do you not get irony? (I dont like using smilies)

You're now leaping to the conclusion that the Refugee Commissioner and the Refugee Appeals Tribunal are merely taking the Nigerian government at its word. On what basis do you make this assertion?

Ive given you some sources above that show that for the main report used by the courts, the Nigerian government is in fact a source.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Does the following from the 2005 country of origins report on Nigeria, prove state protections beyond a reasonable doubt?

"On the subject of protection a senior representative of the IGP said that there is a law
banning FGM, but the NPF does not become involved in FGM matters, as ‘it is a family thing’.However, there are groups that are against the practice of FGM and should a girl desire to
avoid FGM in spite of pressure from her family to do otherwise she has the opportunity to
complain to the NPF or the NHRC and in addition she may seek protection by women lawyers
or NGOs."

Heres another passage from the same report:
"“Informal communication networks function very well in Nigeria, and it is not too difficult to find a person one is looking for. This is true also for so-called big cities whose neighbourhoods are structured along village and community lines….” [31] (p169)
"

From this it would seem that relocation is not an obstacle for someone who is determined to harm the children.

By the way, how do you know that state protections in Ireland are adequate for these girls' needs? If the Izevbekhai family is as powerful and influential as she claims, and if they have connections in the UK, as she claims, couldn't they come to Ireland and kidnap or mutilate the girls? What are the Gardaí in Sligo doing about this? We have an unarmed and not particularly efficient police force, especially in the more rural parts of this country. I'd take the NYPD over the Sligo Gardaí, personally.

And I'd take the Sligo Gardaí over the Donegal Gardaí, personally.

I'm sure the courts have heard that one a million times: "Oh, I wasn't speeding, Your Honour; the Garda's radar gun must have been on the blink." Do you honestly expect every speeding ticket to turn into an elaborate case over the integrity of the equipment used to measure the velocity of the defendant's vehicle? I don't, and I don't think this is reasonable. The courts have approved the output of Garda radar guns as evidence that can be relied upon legally in speeding cases—just as they have approved the investigations of the Refugee Commissioner as evidence that can be relied upon legally in asylum cases........

Yes but what happens if a particular gun is actually dodgy and you were actually doing 90?

Heres a case where, at the RAT oral hearing, a premise that there was adequate state protections against FGM in Delta state was concentrated on for much of the oral interview (the applicant denied this). It even appeared twice in the RAT written report.
When it was pointed out to the court that the evidence that was being used in the RAT did not list the Delta State as a state with protections and therefore the applicant did not get a fair hearing, this again was not good enough for the courts. The court deemed that even though the majority of the interview was used up arguing something that the commisioner was in err about and something that the commissioner used to make his recommendation that the applicant in fact got a fair hearing.

To keep with your analogy: Even when the individual Radar gone has been proven to be dodgy the output is still believed.

It's good enough for the High Court, but it's not good enough for T runner?

If I dont agree with the RAT etc I have the courage of my convictions to say so.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

So if the RC or RAT state that protections are adequate that is proof for the courts?
Maybe Heres the case I referred to earlier. At the RAT oral hearing, a premise that there was adequate state protections against FGM in Delta state was concentrated on for much of the oral interview (the applicant denied this). It even appeared twice in the RAT written report.
When it was pointed out to the court that the evidence that was being used in the RAT did not list the Delta State as a state with protections and therefore the applicant did not get a fair hearing, this again was not good enough for the courts. The court deemed that even though the majority of the interview was used up arguing something that the commisioner was in err about and something that the commissioner used to make his recommendation that the applicant in fact got a fair hearing.

That's irrelevant, and it's dodging the question I asked. How can you be sure that state protections are adequate in Ireland to protect the Izevbekhai family?

You started it in fairness!

I'd take the NYPD over the Sligo Gardaí, personally.

Sorry I didnt think you were being serious.

OK, Im sure if the Gardai were approached about a fear of torture to infants they would strive to protect the children. They wouldn't refuse reasoning that ‘it is a family thing’ as would happen in Nigeria according to the Home Office Report.

Let's get this straight: Your thesis is that the Irish courts cynically invoke "adequate state protections" to send applicants back to suffer persecution, torture, or even death in their home countries. You believe that the Irish judiciary has not really investigated the nature of state protections at all, in many cases, and are simply taking corrupt third-world politicians at their word. You believe that asylum applicants do not get a fair trial, even when they have been cycling through our legal system for four years (in the case of the Izevbekhai family). In other words, you think that the Irish courts are actually complicit with the persecution taking place in these countries. Is that what you are charging?

No, the mistake is probably being made at RC and RAT level.

The courts are unwilling or unable to quash their decisions. Maybe because this is, as you imply, because the RC and RATs decisions are taken as proof.
In the case of Nigeria, I believe that state protections against FGM in Nigeria are inadequate. I would point out that the Home Office Report could not find any information showing how the Nigerian Police successfully prevent FGM.
The rationale used by RC and RAT is that there is a Law against FGM in a particular state therefore it is reasonable to say that protection is adequate there. I dont agree with this rationale because it means that if state protections are not being enforced on the ground and are in reality "inadequate" that the RC and RAT may be making incorrect conclusions.

I dont want to apportion blame because I dont know where the formula that adequate state laws = adequate state protections comes from.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

If you have a point to make, then make it.
But make without adding veiled slights to her or her family please.

I think Sligo's population is about 30,000 now. By rural do you mean 'Not from Dublin'?

Just to give an idea of some "protections" offered by Nigerian police to their citizens:

There were credible reports during the year that security forces carried out rape and other forms of sexual violence on women and girls with impunity. Police officials acknowledged that rape was a problem.

Do you still claim the Gardaí are comparable to Nigerian Police Force?

Clearly you are not aware of the many domestic and family abuse cases around the country in which the Gardaí are reluctant to intervene.

You dont know what your taking about Im afraid. They cant intervene in domestic violence cases in Ireland because the complaint must come from the victim. With the culprit usually living in the house any complaints bravely made are often subsequently withdrawn. If a victim follows through with a complaint then the guards will and do protect.
With refugee status there would definately be nothing to stop Pamela from asking and receiving the guards protection against her kinsmen abducting and harming her daughters. Would there?

Then why aren't those "mistakes" corrected at the High Court level? What is the purpose of a judicial review, do you think?

As Ive pointed out they are not corrected because the flawed formula that adequate state laws=adequate state protections is always accepted as correct.
Justice Hedigan implied as much in his judicial review.

Yes, they are. A significant percentage of asylum applicants gain refugee status on appeal.

Do you have an exact figure and reference for this or did you just make it up?

Do you really think your beliefs should trump the legal decisions of High Court justices?

Lets be clear, In this democracy if I disagree with something Im entitled to say it.

Is that OK with you? Would you prefer the Nigerian version where you get beaten up or killed by the police if you disagree with the Nigerian Government etc. Oh thats only when the police there arent too busy protecting their citizenry from FGM, ofcourse!!!!!

Lets move on.

The decisions of Court Justices in FGM cases have never gone against the RAT. (Look through the relevent court cases if you dont believe me, I couldnt find one).


In the case I quoted previously where the RAT spent most of the oral hearing mistakingly arguing with the applicant about a state Law (which didnt exist) against FGM in Delta state, the courts did not grant an order of certiorari to quash the decision and order that the body re-examine the application again.

That would be the Home Office in the United Kingdom. But do we live in the United Kingdom? No. So why are you citing that country's Home Office as an authority that should have bearing on the asylum decisions of Irish courts?

Im not citing it as an authority: don't misrepresent me.

That would be the Home Office in the United Kingdom. But do we live in the United Kingdom?No

Can you explain so why the RC and RAT use this report from the UK Home Office as the primary source of information for its decisions on granting asylum or otherwise to Nigerian asylum seekers. And as their principle source to show "state protections" are adequate in Nigeria?

Is it not reasonable to therefore examine this report to understand how they reached the conclsion "state protections" were adequate in a country with a corrupt system and police force such as Nigeria?

In examining this the only evidence I found to support this was that there existed Laws in individual states against FGM. There was no statement of amount of prosecutions etc which may indicate if these "protections" were being enforced.

The following type of evidence from an American version of the 2006 Countries Report on Human Rights would be more useful in determining the true degree of state protection.

During the year there were no known prosecutions resulting from a 2005 Osun State law intended to punish persons who encourage FGM. The law criminalizes the removal of any part of a sexual organ from a woman or a girl, except for medical reasons approved by a doctor. According to the provisions of the law, an offender is any female who offers herself for FGM; any person who coerces, entices, or induces any female to undergo FGM; and any person who other than for medical reasons performs an operation removing part of a woman or girl's sexual organs. The law provides for a fine of $385 (50,000 naira), one year's imprisonment, or both for a first offense, and doubled penalties for a second conviction.

Did you agree that State protections In Osun state appear to be inadequate as of 2006?