Pamela Izevbekhai - Should She Be Deported?

T runner

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?

No Joe, since the seminal Fornah case (against FGM) in the UK in late 2005 there has only been 3 applications for asylum stating FGM as the reason.
Only 1 of these has been granted. Im not hypothesising here, thats a fact.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

FreedomJoe

blackiebest wrote: »

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.

I will try, but 70 pages is a lot of reading!:eek:

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Just to clarify there has been 3 cases in the UK since 2006 from All countries only 1 has been accepted.

The courts have concluded no such thing. In asylum cases there is very little the court can do. They cant dig into the contents of specific cases rather they can decide in a general way if the Appeals Tribunal or Minister acted in a lawful way to reach the conclusions i.e to sign the deportation order in this case.

It looks likely that the RAT may have found that legal state protections in general in Nigeria are adequate (as they have done in other FGM cases.)
The RAT sole tribunal member does not have to prove state protections are actually adequate in practice. There is strong evidence to suggest that state protections on the ground are inadequate (e.g in the country reports for Nigeria in 2006 no prosecutions were made against FGM for the entire state of Osun).

There is also compelling evidence to suggest that the police are both unwilling and unable to protect a girl from kidnap for forced FGM In Nigeria.

See post 1005

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

flipovic

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

what negative aspect will her staying have on ireland?

i don't see it. she seems to want to live here. we will have enough people leaving in the next yr to where i don't know but it will happen so let her stay.

and i know ireland deports other people. i agree with SF stance on the issue.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

In asylum cases the high court are extremely reluctant to quash decisions made by the RAT.

A case in point: A Nigerian woman challenged the RATs decision based on the single tribunal members perceived unfair questioning in the RAT oral hearing. The RAT is supposed to be an inquisatorial hearing. The single tribunal member in charge of that particular RAT spent most of the oral hearing mistakingly confronting the applicant about a state Law against FGM in Delta state (a Law which didnt exist). Even in these circumstances the courts did not grant an order of certiorari to quash the decision and order that the body re-examine the application again. (Give her another hearing). They chose rather to uphold the decision.

Hers a quote from Ms Izevbekhai's High court case. It speaks about the general chances of reversing a deportation order in the High Court.

“For all the above reasons it seems to me that the grounds upon which a decision by the Minister to make a deportation order in the case of a failed asylum seeker, can be challenged are necessarily limited.”

flipovic

i have to log off now but i do like it as i have said on another thread, i am very very pro europe forming closer links with each other.

ill say what i have to say later.

bye

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

AlekSmart

flipovic declared:

i agree with SF stance on the issue.

Ah.....an interesting angle here perhaps ?

I`m assuming that this is Sinn Fèin rather than Saint Francis we are referring to here ?

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I didn't suggest anything of the kind! (Im getting sick of this)

“For all the above reasons it seems to me that the grounds upon which a decision by the Minister to make a deportation order in the case of a failed asylum seeker, can be challenged are necessarily limited.”

This speaks of the general general chances of reversing a deportation order in the High Court. (Has very limited grounds)

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Did you see the "the grounds upon which a decision by the Minister to make a deportation order in the case of a failed asylum seeker, can be challenged are necessarily limited." Bit?

The decision can be challenged but in extremely limited circumstances such is the power of the Minister in the process. The reasons for a Minister to make a deportation order are exactly the same as the reasons for the RAT to refuse an appeal for asylum. So as long as the Minster uses the exact same evidence as the RAT and comes to the same conclusion there is nothing the appellant can do. The Minister does not have to be transparent in his decision. (The implication being that the Minister may not give as much consideration to the case than if it was transparent).

I think this highlights the importance of the initial decision of the RAT in the Irish system. The fact that the RAT contains only one member (usually with no expertise in refugee Law) for each hearing indicates that the decision of one individual has a very major bearing on if someone faces deportation or not.

The results of a questionnaire to the Barristers and Solicitors who deal with the RAT indicates serious issues with it (70 of them filled the questionaire).

The Irish asylum system is in need of serious reform.

Some of these necessary reforms are recognised in the upcoming Bill but not all.

Until reform happens we will have cases where "state protections" in countries like Nigeria against FGM will be deemed to exist because somebody signed a Law that in relaity has probably never been used in practice.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Are you unaware that deportation orders have been signed for the deportation of Pamela Izevbekhai and her two children?

This was what Ms Izevbekhai and her lawyers sought in the High Court:

"What is sought to be quashed by way of certiorari herein is the deportation orders made by the Minister and in particular the decision to deport the applicants made on the 23rd November, 2005."

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Doesn't sound like it.

The Minister ordered her deportation in late 2005 after her asylum application and her appeal had been rejected.

Ive just told you that

However, Ms Izevbekhai defied the deportation order, went on the run for a month, and then spent two weeks in Mountjoy before launching the series of appeals that have preoccupied the courts over the past three years.

Do you then also believe the asylum process in Ireland needs serious reform?

That's correct. And the High Court had the authority to quash the deportation orders if it felt that there were valid grounds to do so. But it did not.[

And were back here again:

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

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yes, the system at the moment is not fair or thorough.
Whether someone gets deported or not is effectively in the hands of one tribubal member, with no expertise in Refugee Law.

As I've said previously, I fail to see the problem with this. The High Court does have the authority to overrule a deportation order, if it feels that one has been inappropriately issued.

So you dont have an issue with the lack of transparacy of the Minister's decision?

In the case of Ms Izevbekhai, the Minister acted appropriately, and the courts have upheld his decision

.

Was wondering how you would know that? You see the Minister does not have to divulge his reasons for making his decision

The only people now opposing the deportation order are Ms Izevbekhai, her lawyers, Fine Gael, Roddy Doyle, and miscellaneous other supporters—none of whom have any legal authority in the matter. So what is the problem?

The problem is that there are serious issues in our asylum system. This results in flawed evidence (e.g state protections against FGM in Nigeria are adequate) being accepted by our courts and results in people like the Izevbekhai's being deported to countries that cant protect them against persecution.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ParkRunner

Sorry to jump in again but I can't understand how a lengthy detailed and carefully considered submission which is openly argued and debated in court equates to a lack of transparency in the ministers decision.

T runner

EF wrote: »

Sorry to jump in again but I can't understand how a lengthy detailed and carefully considered submission which is openly argued and debated in court equates to a lack of transparency in the ministers decision.

The minister does not have to give reasons for his decision to deport to the applicant other than the general reason that it is in accordance with the relevant Act and doesn't break any other Laws.
Which submission are you referring to?

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

If evidence in a particular case showing the existance of laws against FGM in Nigeria is taken as proof that these laws are carried out in practice (and thus state protections are adequate) well then yes there is a strong chance that the decision in such a case would be unfair.

If evidence in a case shows that an ill prepared stroppy tribunal member spent the majority of the RAT hearing arguing with the applicant about a non-existant Law against FGM in the applicants State and the Court still doesnt quash and re-order the RAT, then Yes this is also unfair.


Can you tell me how my objecting to these two instances above implies that I object to all verdicts denying asylum seeker's applications?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

See my last post

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

T runner

There was a question at the end of that post which you seem to have missed. Re-read again.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

therewillbe

Yes, out they go , about bloody time as well.