Pamela Izevbekhai - Should She Be Deported?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I've never drawn such a comparison. I'm asking you what the Gardaí will do to protect two Nigerian girls in Sligo from being kidnapped by allegedly powerful accomplices of their father's family and having their vulvae mutilated. ........................
I thought the Gardaí protected everyone in this country?

You seem to have answered your own question.

OK again. One way is you apply for protective orders from the courts. If she gets this then the Gardaí are required to enforce it. That means any sign of trouble she rings the guards and they respond immediately. Is that "adequate" enough for you?
Can you pursue your own red herrings from now on please?




Irish Refugee Council: "[T]he majority of asylum-seekers who are recognised as refugees in Ireland are recognised only after they take their cases to appeal"

Thanks:

The fact that the majority of asylum-seekers who are recognised as refugees in Ireland are recognised only after they take their cases to appeal is equally wasteful. This adds a further year or more to the waiting period for many refugees. It should be noted that, since the setting-up of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal in 2001, the success rate on appeal has never been less than 18%. A shift in investment to ensure that asylum-seekers had legal advice at the stage of filling in their questionnaires and before their first interview would reduce the need for many refugees to depend on the appeal process.

So basically the majority of the applicants fill in their questionnaires incorrectly because theyve no legal aid. The RAT corrects this. So we waste a year or two on these refugees and associated expenditure by not advising them properly in the first place. Well, shows us the asylum seekers are not responsible for that portion of the bill anyway.

Yes, you are. But if you keep insisting that you are right and everyone who disagrees with you is wrong, you're going to encounter some resistance. That is also part of the democratic process.

Ive never said that everyone who disagrees with me is wrong. Im questioning that the RC, RAT and Courts insisting "State Protections" in Nigeria are adequate when the police force responsible for carrying out these protections are clearly corrupt and have tendencies towards murder and rape. The fact that there doesnt seem to be any convictions against FGM in one of Nigerias state's that has a Law against it, indicates that this Law is not being enforced and is therefore not really a protection at all.

(Ironically Its quite probable that Nigerian Laws against FGM are quoted more often in Irish asylum cases to stop asylum applicants than in Nigerian courts to convict people for FGM)

So now you are drawing a parallel between the High Court in Ireland and the Nigerian government?

No, I was contrasting free speech in Nigeria and Ireland.
Free speech in Nigeria can get you killed. Our equivalent censors' claws arent quite as sharp.

And what is your source for that claim?

Search the courts.ie for FGM cases. Look at them and you will see the sources they are using.

You forgot to comment on this:

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 against FGM appear to be inadequate as of 2006?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The protections are adequate, not perfect. Do you think they are inadequate?
If you don't then move on.

In other words, you think the Irish courts are disingenuous and corrupt.

That is your conclusion not mine.

This quote from the Appeals report on the Irish Refugee Council site may explain the problem:

Where country of origin information indicates that human rights and basic freedoms are provided for in the legislation or Constitution of the country or origin, the Tribunal does not query whether these rights are protected in practice.

What I think is irrelevant. What the proper authorities think is what matters in asylum cases.

Sorry, but you asked me to evaluate state protections in Ireland and I obliged.

donegalfella wrote: »

By the way, how do you know that state protections in Ireland are adequate

Ill ask you again: In your opinion in a practical sense do you think that state protections in the Nigerian state Osun are adequate?

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.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

Christ, T runner. You and I have been at this now for more than 6 weeks.

I would characterize my position as:


[*]The Irish courts have legitimate reasons for considering state protections in Nigeria to be adequate, and for believing that a combination of relocation and state protections are sufficient to safeguard the Izevbekhai girls from
persecution when they are returned to their home country;

Sorry, but now you are contradicting yourself. You previously stated that you did not know if the courts were right in saying that state protections were adequate.

And I would characterize your position as:


The Irish courts have no defensible reasons for considering state protections in Nigeria to be adequate, but they are cynically pretending that they are, in order to rationalize deporting the Izevbekhai family to a country where the children will almost certainly undergo FGM.

But I gave a reason before didnt I?

Where country of origin information indicates that human rights and basic freedoms are provided for in the legislation or Constitution of the country or origin, the Tribunal does not query whether these rights are protected in practice.

The RAT was criticized for this stance in the appeals report among other things.

(Members are not experts in refugee Law
Members not appointed by open competition
Inconsistant outcomes
Cases not published
Varying approaches: Inquisatorial vs confrontational
Lawyers representing claimants have no experience, idea what to expect in the RAT etc)

4.4 There was a complete failure to provide any evidence that the authorities in N. would be unwilling or unable to protect. The protection sought would have been in relation to the forcible removal of a child, against the wishes of both parents.

Seems straighforward. There was no evidence provided by the applicant. The state laws are there in theory and "the Tribunal does not query whether these rights are protected in practice". The Justice has no option but to accept that.

There does seem to be more of a burden on the Tribunal to provide evidence in the RAT even if the evidence favours the applicant:

The Tribunal in most of the cases examined, states in a standard paragraph taken from the UNHCR Handbook, that the burden of proof lies on the appellant, but the Tribunal also has a shared duty to evaluate relevant facts:

In accordance with general legal principles, the burden of proof lies on the person making the assertion. The applicant for refugee status has the burden of establishing the veracity of his allegations and the accuracy of the facts on which his claim was based. This burden is discharged, by his rendering a truthful account of facts relevant to the claim so that, based on the facts, a proper decision may be reached. In view of the particularities of a refugee’s situation, there is a shared duty with the tribunal to ascertain and evaluate all relevant facts.

However, not all Members of the Tribunal acknowledge in their decisions that there is such a shared duty with the Tribunal to ascertain and evaluate relevant facts.

The justice was unlikely to bring this up when every other asylum case in the Irish courts (including some of his own perhaps) had put the entire burden of proof on the applicant.

It does seem unfair that this person had no evidence whatsoever to argue against state protections when evidence was available.

Lets look at how the state protections position was taken by the RAT and accepted by the court.

The RAT stated that there were adequate state protections as evidenced by the particular country of origin report (UK home office, probably).
The RAT does not have to show this in practice.
"Where country of origin information indicates that human rights and basic freedoms are provided for in the legislation or Constitution of the country or origin, the Tribunal does not query whether these rights are protected in practice."
This evidence states that there are indeed state laws against FGM although there are some concerns with enforcement.

In the judiciary the justice concludes that the Tribunal member acted correctly and reviewing the evidence the member used does indeed give an overall tone of state protections being adequate.

My main issue is with the RAT not looking for practical evidence of adequate protections and also not carrying out a shared duty to ascertain and evaluate all relevant facts. These were also flagged by the appeals report.

There is admisable evidence, even in the country of Origin reports, that show that in Nigerian states prosecutions against FGM are simply not happening.
That the police force look like they are completely unapproacheable and contact with them is best avoided. These are strong indicators that protections may not reasonably be there should someone need them.

Basically, the RAT system may allow a state protection that is in fact not practiced to be used against an asylum seeker.

Not cynical, just a flaw in the RAT system(one of many).

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Question from T Runner:
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".

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

??????????????

donegalfella wrote: »

The reasons and sources are quoted in the above legal opinion—which you don't seem to have much to say about.

I gave over 30 lines on that case on my last post. You are forming a bad habit of misrepresenting me.

What is your evidence, then, that police in Nigeria will not protect children from forcible kidnap?

Jesus, here we go again............
All these sources are acceptable by the RC and RAT


From UK Home Office Country of Origin:

This is how the Nigerian Police force will react if someone calls claiming they/theyre kin are about to be kidnapped:

On the subject of protection a senior representative of the IGP said that there is a law
banning FGM, but the NPF (Police) does not become involved in FGM matters, as ‘it is a family thing’.

This is what they think of women and girls:

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.

Not exactly the type of people youd trust to protect young girls are they?

Same source and some more nasty stuff here. Any contact with these guys seem to be bad news. I certainly wouldnt bother them with a FGM protection request!

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.

The 2004 UK report was updated in 2005. The line "can seek protection from Government Institutions" provide protection was dropped.


From American COO report this damning evidence showing no prosecutions for FGM in an entire year in the state of Osun: (The one you like to ignore Donegalfella!)

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.

Is the High Court also part of the "RAT system"? If not, why are RAT rulings mostly upheld by High Court judicial reviews? Or are you saying that all Irish courts are corrupt?

Some mistakes can be made, you said so yourself.

For example, In the case I quoted previously 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.

The courts generally uphold RAT decisions:

With regard to decisions of specialist bodies, the High Court quoted the judgment in Denny, which states that, the Courts:

“…should be slow to interfere with the decisions of expert administrative tribunals..."

However, one leading lawyer questioned whether the Appeals Authority was in fact a body with specialist expertise and referring specifically to the Camara case, whether the Authority had the expertise to deal with complex issues. While acknowledging that the Authority were ‘distinguished lawyers and judges’, he disputes whether they ‘…have the specialist expertise in dealing with such complex issues as the details of African politics or the prison conditions in obscure countries or whether, indeed, it is likely that a claimant was tortured or is likely to be tortured such as would merit according to the decision-makers the heightened judicial deference which specialists enjoy.


Legal representatives (Barristers and Solicitors) who represented asylum seekers at the appeal stage were contacted, and by means of a questionnaire, were asked for their views on the appeals process.

Many issues arose (including inconsistency, lack of transparency and lack of expertise) but for the sake of brevity I will now only deal with two relevant to the case you mentioned and the case this thread refers to:

1. 1. The Tribunal in most of the cases examined, states in a standard paragraph taken from the UNHCR Handbook, that the burden of proof lies on the appellant, but the Tribunal also has a shared duty to evaluate relevant facts:
   

   In accordance with general legal principles, the burden of proof lies on the person making the assertion. The applicant for refugee status has the burden of establishing the veracity of his allegations and the accuracy of the facts on which his claim was based. This burden is discharged, by his rendering a truthful account of facts relevant to the claim so that, based on the facts, a proper decision may be reached. In view of the particularities of a refugee’s situation, there is a shared duty with the tribunal to ascertain and evaluate all relevant facts.

   However, not all Members of the Tribunal acknowledge in their decisions that there is such a shared duty with the Tribunal to ascertain and evaluate relevant facts.
   
   This is why applicants can end up with no relevant facts in the RAT when relevant facts exist.
   
2. 2. Where country of origin information indicates that human rights and basic freedoms are provided for in the legislation or Constitution of the country or origin, the Tribunal does not query whether these rights are protected in practice.

This is why state protections can be legally declared adequate when in practice they may be inadequate.


Over 70 people answered this questionnaire. Not one accused the RC, RAT or Irish courts of being "corrupt".
Neither did I. You are deliberatly and continually trying to misrepresent me and I would request respectfully that you try to continue this debate in a fair manner.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That is an easy way to avoid things I guess, especially when the first 2 pieces of quoted material were both from yourself and contradictory.
(Wheres your integrity?)
(You also demanded evidence and then you complain when it is given)

1) The courts do indeed acknowledge that FGM is often a "family matter."

THis was what I said:

On the subject of protection a senior representative of the IGP said that there is a law
banning FGM, but the NPF (Police) does not become involved in FGM matters, as ‘it is a family thing’.

Again you deliberately try ad distort this fact (from a source of evidence that the RAT can use.). This show the police will not protect a child from kidnap.

2) Logically, the only way that Pamela Izevbekhai's inlaws can now perform an FGM procedure on her daughters is to do so forcibly, against the parents' wishes. When I asked you whether the police in Nigeria would protect a child against abduction, you responded by telling me that some Nigerian policemen have been accused of rape. That is not a logical response.

Would you approach a police force who raped girls with impunity to protect your daughter? Yes? No?
Quite relevant to have a police force are "reasonably" approachable.

Any comment on the rest of this evidence that you requested and then ignored?



From UK Home Office Country of Origin:

This is how the Nigerian Police force will react if someone calls claiming they/theyre kin are about to be kidnapped:

Quote:
On the subject of protection a senior representative of the IGP said that there is a law
banning FGM, but the NPF (Police) does not become involved in FGM matters, as ‘it is a family thing’.

This is what they think of women and girls:

Quote:
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.

Not exactly the type of people youd trust to protect young girls are they?

Same source and some more nasty stuff here. Any contact with these guys seem to be bad news. I certainly wouldnt bother them with a FGM protection request!

Quote:
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.

The 2004 UK report was updated in 2005. The line "can seek protection from Government Institutions" provide protection was dropped.


From American COO report this damning evidence showing no prosecutions for FGM in an entire year in the state of Osun: (The one you like to ignore Donegalfella!)

Quote:
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.

3) You claim repeatedly that various states in Nigeria do not prosecute people who carry out FGM procedures. Do they prosecute people for the forcible kidnap of young children? Because that is the pressing question here.

On the subject of protection a senior representative of the IGP said that there is a law
banning FGM, but the NPF (Police) does not become involved in FGM matters, as ‘it is a family thing’.

How do the police protect children from forced FGM in light of the above?

4)

While you can cherry-pick criticisms of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal all day,

the fact remains that every relevant court and tribunal in Ireland has considered Pamela Izevbekhai's application over the past four years.

And she was legally entitled to each ane every hearing she got.

All of these courts have denied the relief sought in a manner that is perfectly consistent with the outcomes of similar cases in this country and elsewhere.

Where did you get that from?

I have highlighted 2 problems (from last post) with how the RAT deal with hearings that are relevant to this case which you have ignored. These issues show how legal "adequate state protection" may be acknowledged by the RAT where practical state protection does not exist. You can see all the criticisms in the appeals review which was linked for you earlier.


Are you able to carry out honest debate or is misrepresentation always an option for you when things are going badly?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

AlekSmart

Are you able to carry out honest debate or is misrepresentation always an option for you when things are going badly?

A little bit harsh surely ?
Perhaps a tad previous also as as far as we know the deliberation process is still ongoing ?

If our legal process is accepted as being of good repute then surely it stands as being balanced and fair ?

Whether Ms Izevbekhani`s case has gone well or badly can surely only be deduced after the final deliberation is completed ......unless is there an avenue of information available to those who are on the fringes,in which case some eyebrows could be allowed to widen.

HollyB

On the subject of protection a senior representative of the IGP said that there is a law banning FGM, but the NPF (Police) does not become involved in FGM matters, as ‘it is a family thing’.

I think that donegalfella raises a valid question re. kidnapping. That's the real threat. If the Izevbekhais are opposed to the idea of FGM being performed on their daughters, then the girls would have to be forcibly abducted for the procedure to be performed on them. Prevent the abduction and the FGM is also prevented.

How about if we assume, for argument's sake, that if the Nigerian police received a report that Mr and Mrs X were planning on having their daughter circumcised, they would not take any steps to prevent this or to prosecute Mr and Mrs X afterwards because they considered it to be a family thing and were unwilling to intervene if Mr and Mrs X chose FGM for their daughter.

However, does assuming that they would not interfere with Mr and Mrs X's plans for their daughter mean that, in a case like the Izevbekhais, where both parents are opposed to the idea of FGM and fear that an attempt might be made to abduct the two girls so that they can be mutilated against their wishes and against the wishes of their parents, the police would also do nothing, even if the Izevbekhai parents appealed to them for their help in preventing the abduction of their daughters?

T runner

HollyB wrote: »

However, does assuming that they would not interfere with Mr and Mrs X's plans for their daughter mean that, in a case like the Izevbekhais, where both parents are opposed to the idea of FGM and fear that an attempt might be made to abduct the two girls so that they can be mutilated against their wishes and against the wishes of their parents, the police would also do nothing, even if the Izevbekhai parents appealed to them for their help in preventing the abduction of their daughters?

(I am going to cut down on reference due to a complaint on clarity by Donegalfella. If you wish me to reference anything afterwards please state, thanks)

I will try to answer this HollyB. Lets look at what we are doing: we are examining whether there are "adequate" protections against the specific threat of kidnapping with the objection of forced FGM, in Nigeria.
1. What choices does the person have when contacting the authorities?
2. What would the response of the state/police be?
3. Does the response constitute adequate state protection?

3. To answer the third question first. The Cyprian case in the UK defines adequate state protection as "a practical standard which takes proper account of the duty which the State owes to all its own nationals”. This means thats something like a gang overpowering a childs guardians and leaving before the police had time to arrive would not necessarily constitute inadequate protections, which is reasonable I think.

1. The legislation against FGM in Nigeria does not provide for safety, protection and barring orders. As the option of ringing the police and quoting one of these orders is not there,the only option available, as you suggest, would be to ring the police and claim there is an attempted kidnapping taking place on the particular female with the objective of a forced FGM.
For example, in domestic violence cases in Ireland, a person could get a protection order against someone and ring the Guards in expectance of an immediate response should that person turn up.

2. I believe that there is evidence that the police would not respond on different levels.

a. Firstly because of general ineffectiveness and corruption.
b. Complete lack of confidence by the citizenry in the force as a result of its impotency.
c. Cultural attitude in Nigeria means that police are less interested in violence against women.
d. Police attitudes and state protections towards FGM are not adequate.
e. Stats bear out that 1% of kidnappings make it to police records. This is not consistant with a liklihood of the police responding to a reasonable number of callouts.

(Note: Where country of origin information indicates that human rights and basic freedoms are provided for in the legislation or Constitution of the country or origin, the Tribunal does not query whether these rights are protected in practice.

The RAT believes it is not obliged to address these questions to prove adequate state protections.)

I have evidence for these premises below all from the Country of Origin Reports (can be used by RAT):



The Nigerian police are corrupt:
Any prosecutions which are brought as a result of police action will invariably be in favour of the wealthier party to the complaint.......Corruption was rampant, most often taking the form of bribes at highway checkpoints........Nigerian journalists yet again lived through an appalling year in 2006. They have had to face police brutality, arrests in certain cases for the least article that annoyed local authorities and corruption in the military, among politicians and businessmen........The attitude that torture is an accepted tool of interrogation appears to pervade all levels of the police force.”

The police are ineffectual in all aspects of policing:
“According to Nigerian police reform experts, the police force has insufficient well-trained manpower to adequately address policing needs.....The police have often been unable to meet the safety and security needs of local communities.....The police are poorly paid, poorly resourced, and are ill-equipped to deal with violent crime......
This raises serious doubts as to the ability or willingness of the police to respond to the proposed request.

The Nigerian Citizenry has no confidence in the ability of the police to protect them:
The CLEEN foundation reports show extremely low rates of crime being reported to the police and little confidence and fear of the police at all levels.

There is little public confidence in the police. Indeed, they are criticized by virtually all sectors of civil society.......The loss of public confidence in the effectiveness of the police has resulted in the emergence of private security outfits and local vigilante groups........government actors including the police, military, and elected officials continued to commit serious and persistent abuses against Nigerian citizens.

The pervading cultural attitude to women and crime against women Nigeria makes it less likely for police to respond to alleged crimes against females.
women and men who go to the police to report cases of violence in the family, including rape and physical assault, are often met with a patronizing and discouraging attitude, ‘unless it is a case of the rape of a child or the husband kills his wife’.... Rape of women and girls by both the police and security forces, and within their homes and community, is acknowledged to be endemic in Nigeria.....The Nigerian authorities at both federal and state levels have failed to address adequately gender-based violence.

Police attitudes and general state protections towards FGM are not adequate:

No prosecutions for FGM in an entire year against FGM under state laws in Osun.

that there is a law banning FGM, but the NPF (Police) does not become involved in FGM matters, as ‘it is a family thing’.........social tolerance of gender-based violence in the family is replicated among Nigeria’s law enforcement officials.....…there is little state provision to support women facing domestic violence, female genital mutilation or trafficking. Where it exists it is inadequate....

The police force are not competent enough to publish official stats:
CLEEN has extrapolated statistics which show 128 cases of kidnapping recognised by the Nigerian Police.
In one of their surveys they found that .22% of people had been kidnapped.
This means that 1% of kidnaps make the police records.

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Delibaratly and continuously misrepresenting posts because you cant answer them it lacks integrity

If you'd read the material I quoted from the pertinent judgement, you would have seen that the Irish courts have relied partly on precedents set in Canadian asylum cases.

Every single case uses precedents from other cases to validate certain points. You were trying to imply that these cases were exactly similar to the case we are discussing.... which would be a distortion.

You repeatedly respond with a deluge of materials about problems with the Refugee Appeals Tribunal's workings.

Deluge af material!!!! I only quoted 2 points on the RAT. Wheres this deluge? Are you even reading my posts?

I have repeatedly stated to you that the Refugee Appeals Tribunal is not the sole authority that has ruled on the Izevbekhai asylum application.

Complety untrue ofcourse, but sure it allows you to get away with not addressing the below doesnt it?

STOP misrepresenting my posts!

T runner wrote:

For example, In the case I quoted previously 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.

OK? A case where the COURTS obviously ballsed up as well as the RAT.
Why, have you continually ignored this point about a case seen by the same courts as Pamelas?

And here I explained why the courts generally uphold which you again have refused to address.

T runner wrote:

The courts generally uphold RAT decisions:

Quote:
With regard to decisions of specialist bodies, the High Court quoted the judgment in Denny, which states that, the Courts:

“…should be slow to interfere with the decisions of expert administrative tribunals..."

[/QUOTE]
Now, please read the below very carefully before you start cutting and pasting more material about the inadequacies of the RAT.

1. No court or tribunal is deemed to be flawless. That is why appeals procedures exist.

   
   I have explained 2 serious flaws relevant to the case in question and our REfugee Appeal Tribunal. Where the RAT policy differs to that of the UNHCR. This point was brought up by Barristers and Solicitors who have dealt with the RAT. You have refused to deal with these points insisting: Sure wouldnt the high court sort that out?

2. The High Court can redress any potential shortcomings in a Refugee Appeals Tribunal judgement.

   I have shown why the high court upholds these type of decisions.
   In a previous post and have demonstrated how "state protections" might be deemed adequate the whole way to the high court. Again you ignore this misrepresenting me by claiming falsely that I have only addressed the issue with The RAT.
   
   

3. In December, when Ms Izevbekhai appealed her deportation order to the High Court, that court upheld the findings of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal, and concurred that Izevbekhai should be relocated to Nigeria.
4. A full High Court judicial review is forthcoming, but since Ms Izevbekhai's case is no different in substance from other FGM cases that have been taken to judicial review, there is no basis for arguing that the courts have erred in law in denying her the relief sought.

I have quoted a case where an applicant had the RAT balls up her Oral hearing by discussing a law which didnt exist for the majority of her hearing. The courts did not grant an order of certiorari to quash the decision and order that the body re-examine the application again.

Any comment on this FGM case?

At this point in time, every relevant court in Ireland concurs that Pamela Izevbekhai does not merit refugee status in our country. You cannot keep trying to debunk this consensus by complaining that the Refugee Appeals Tribunal is flawed.

And thats been your argument all along. The courts says it so nobody can question that.

The fact is that the Irish asylum process is at variance with the UNHCR handbook. Again you didnt address this. The Irish courts are right thats it! was your standard response.

When I have also presented you with irrefutable evidence from Country of Origin sources (permissable evidence in Irish Courts)that the law outlawing FGM in a certain state in Nigeria was not being enforced, you also ignored this.

And why do you ignore that particular point? The truth of the matter is you done really believe State protections against FGM in Nigeria are adequate any more than I do.

Yellowknife

There are too many Nigerians in our jails, claiming benefits etc. we can't afford them now.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Unfortunately to make that possible requires you to change the position of the tree and often to pretend that there is no tree at all. No, You are deliberately misrepresenting me.

No case is exactly the same as another. But the aforementioned case of a woman who claimed asylum in Ireland, on the basis that Nigerian state protections were inadequate to safeguard her daughter from FGM, does have enough in common with the Izevbekhai case to be cited as precedent.

You implied the current case had many very similar cases in ireland and abroad.
Your intention was to mislead people into thinking that many courts domestic and foreign had found against the asylum seekers in very similar circumstances to the current case. You infact found only ONE similar(ish) case.
Misleading as well as misrepresenting now.

You are arguing on the basis of a logical fallacy. Just because the courts, in your opinion, made an error in one case doesn't mean they make errors in every case.

Exactly right! The courts dont get it right or wrong in every case. So Please stop using the perceived infallibility of the Irish courts to avoid answering the hard questions when the legal decisions they make are at odds with the practical situations on the ground.

The High Court has cited both its logic and its references for deeming the state protections to be adequate. Maybe you could address any alleged flaws in those arguments—clearly stated in the excerpt I quoted from a High Court judicial review—rather than citing competing authorities that you believe should trump those invoked by the Irish courts.

I already have. I thought you said you were reading my posts?
"The High Court has cited both its logic and its references for deeming the state protections to be adequate." OK lets hear the logic and references.

The courts allegedly made an error in an unrelated case—therefore it proves what, exactly, about Ms Izevbekhai's hearing?

It proves the courts can get it wrong. When you get asked the hard questions about state protections on the ground in Nigeria, your fudging reply is always that "the Irish courts have decided they are adequate".
This case shows the Irish asylum system (up to the High Court sometimes) can sometimes get it wrong.

My argument has been that Ms Izevbekhai has received almost four years' worth of due process in the Irish courts. Her case has been heard time and again, with the same result each time. She cannot be said to have been denied the benefit of a fair hearing, and she should now abide by the courts' rulings.

Why are you using the emotive "four years worth of due process" argument?
Have I got something wrong or was Ms Izevbekhai legally entitled to every hearing she got?
Are you suggesting she inform the ECHR and tell them she no longer interested in their verdict on the lawfulness of her deportation?
She is abiding by the rulings by waiting for the ECHR isnt she?

Can you tell me what international treaty or agreement obliges the Irish courts to abide by the UNHCR handbook?

"The Handbook is meant for the guidance of government officials concerned with the determination of refugee status in the various Contracting States.
Use has naturally also been made of the knowledge available concerning the practice of States."

The handbook is from the executive of the UN Commission and is often quoted in Irish courts in Asylum cases.

If the Irish asylum process is deviating from it we should examine what the result of this is.

The results of the 2 deviations I mentioned are potentially less asylum cases granted and contributing to Irelands refusal rate being in the ninetieth percentile one of the highest rates in the world.

Did you read the courts' logic for the precedent that has been applied in the Izevbekhai case? Did you understand the logic that in cases where parents do not endorse FGM as a practice, it doesn't matter whether the state does or does not enforce these laws? What matters in such cases is whether the state protects children from forcible kidnap.

So you arent reading my posts afterall.
In a recent reply to a post by HollyB, I comprehensively addressed the Nigerians state's ability to protect a child from someone trying to kidnap her with the intention of carrying out FGM.

Did you understand the logic that in cases where parents do not endorse FGM as a practice, it doesn't matter whether the state does or does not enforce these laws?

Im surprised to hear you say that.
They sought to prove this in that case. No?
It should matter, in all cases.
For example, enforced adequate laws would mean that the childs parents could have a protection order they could quote which could make it easier if they needed to contact the police in a hurry.

The Nigerian police arent competent enough to compile there own stats but they only have 1% of kidnappings on their records..........
Does that mean they dont take records or they dont respond to calls?
One home countries report indicates they only reply to female calls in the cases of child rape or a husband murdering his wife.


I take it this means you now accept that the Nigerian State .does not enforce its FGM Laws?

AlekSmart

I realize I might be slightly Off Topic here and perhaps butting-in,but does anybody have an idea as to when we can expect the OFFICIAL Last Word on Ms Izevbekhai`s challenge ??

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

blackiebest

AlekSmart wrote: »

I realize I might be slightly Off Topic here and perhaps butting-in,but does anybody have an idea as to when we can expect the OFFICIAL Last Word on Ms Izevbekhai`s challenge ??

I understand that Pamela was informed in writing by the Dept O F Aff somtime before Christmas that no action to deport her would be taken before the 12th Jan, (tomorrow). I understand that from tomorrow she is again liable to be deported (or not) at any time. In short she has not a clue when or if any action will be taken. I will get a more accurate update tomorrow and post.

Sorry Donegal, just read your post now, I think you have it in right.

AlekSmart

Thanks for the timeline people.

Would anybody care to theorize as to whether the new influx of 5 Judges into the process is likely to expedite Ms Izevbekhai`s case or is this only likely to impact on new cases ?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

blackiebest

All, the next hearing is on the 20th Jan. Here hoping the ministers decision will be over turned and a hearing for subsidiary protection will be granted.

flipovic

my love for ireland dies a little if pamela is deported.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

FreedomJoe

flipovic wrote: »

my love for ireland dies a little if pamela is deported.

So if we allow her to stay, dosent Ireland open up the floodgate to any nation in the word that has parents fleeing FGM?

blackiebest

FreedomJoe wrote: »

So if we allow her to stay, dosent Ireland open up the floodgate to any nation in the word that has parents fleeing FGM?

Please Joe, read back over the thread as this question has been posed continusly and proven over and over again that this will not happen.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.