Pamela Izevbekhai - Should She Be Deported?

HollyB · 16-01-2009 1:06am

And her daughters' passports too? Or did they have separate passports?

I'd say that, if you're talking about asylum seekers who have travelled on commercial airlines or ferries, etc, and who would have had to present passports in order to travel, then those who ditch or destroy their passports before they can present them on arrival should be deemed ineligible for asylum. Taking scans of passports before all flights, etc, is a good idea.

T runner · 16-01-2009 1:22am

I wont be answering any more posts from you that contain misrepresentations or deliberate lies about my position

Permabear · 16-01-2009 1:25am

This post has been deleted.

Permabear · 16-01-2009 1:34am

This post has been deleted.

T runner · 16-01-2009 1:54am

It does seems evident that many asylum seekers from Africa are under the impression that they will improve their chances of refugee status by not having documentation.

This opinion from the guardian shows how this can leave asylum seekers vulnerable

To imply Ms Izevbekhai is a client of human Traffikers is a low even for you Donegalfella.
When you cant win with reason I guess you can always return to how you acted at the outset of this thread: with false personal attacks on Ms Izevbekhai.

Permabear · 16-01-2009 2:00am

This post has been deleted.

AlekSmart · 18-01-2009 12:09am

The entire issue of the "People Trafficker" brings with it another rather unpleasant aside.

It ensures that the deliberations and decisions of our Legal System will have at least one OTHER observer interested in it`s outcome.

The trafficking of Humans for monetary gain is now one of the largest criminal industries in the world.
It has embraced many other criminal disciplines such as Drugs and Arms smuggling as well as attracting the attention of those seeking to pursue terrorist or anarchist aims.

We have already been told in detail of how Nigeria,although geographically huge,is in fact parochial in nature with in essence "Nowhere to hide"

I can well imagine Pamela Izvebekhai`s Trafficker waiting paitently for the eventual decision.
I have little doubt but that if that decision is favourable to her,then her Trafficker will take great pleasure in networking the SUCCESS of his operation throughout the Parish and on into the next village,town,city or state.

Thats how business prospers is it not ?...word of mouth....satisfied customers.....and a proven ability to overcome the obstacles placed in its way.

Perhaps if her pleas are successful,Ms Izevbekhai may consider naming the Trafficker/s who acted for her,or then again perhaps she won`t have to as no doubt the person/s concerned will be only too happy to point to their success in the Lagos Times or whatever Nigeria`s "paper of record" is ?

Harolds+ · 18-01-2009 12:27am

My argument is simple:

Why wasn't she in Ireland when the country was on its knees in the 1980's ?

Its welfare, welfare, welfare ...

Permabear · 18-01-2009 2:00pm

This post has been deleted.

AlekSmart · 18-01-2009 2:44pm

A well crafted piece indeed and confirms pretty much everything that many other posters here have reported as being the case.

Yet,for me it alters nothing.

No doubt,the relevant Legal Personage takes the Irish Times and will read this account of the harshness and unyielding nature of Nigerian life.

However,not for the first time do I sense some stage managing and scene setting being practiced as those who seek to broaden the scope of the case move to motivate public opinion and influence the decisions which are imminent.

Plus the article is structured so much better than those containing opposing views.....as it should be I suppose ??

Permabear · 18-01-2009 2:58pm

This post has been deleted.

HollyB · 18-01-2009 3:52pm

That's to be expected in a case that's as much in the public eye as this one. It looks like an insurance policy of sorts to me; in the event that the case fails in the legal courts, they'll try to drum up public sympathy in the hopes that the court of public opinion will decide in their favour and put pressure on the Minister to give the family special treatment.

Permabear · 18-01-2009 4:50pm

This post has been deleted.

hayyman · 18-01-2009 4:57pm

Every case should be dealt with in a fair and proper way otherwise whats the point, but someone shouldn't just be let stay because they don't like there own country

T runner · 18-01-2009 6:31pm

Actually havvyman, the reason they dont like their country is because their country cant protect their daughters from having their clitorii cut off with a razorblade.

Permabear · 18-01-2009 7:05pm

This post has been deleted.

ParkRunner · 18-01-2009 7:18pm

We will begin to find out on Tuesday anyway if Pamela has established a case that circumstances in her country of origin have changed since her DO was signed to such an extent that her subsidiary protection application actually merits a full consideration. For this she will have to establish a stateable case, which is lower than what was required in her challenge of her Deportation Order. It should be interesting!

T runner · 18-01-2009 7:23pm

It think its an excellent piece. Gives a good insight into attitudes to FGM in Nigeria/Africa and that Ms izevbejhai is basically viewed as a prostitute (for not having FGM) and at most child bearer by her in-laws and communities who practice FGM.
Another interesting aspect was the insight into the realities of asylum life in Ireland. Because of the amount of asylum seekers in Ireland it is probably an article that needed to be written from that point of view.
I think the comments about skimming over the realities of the case are unfair.
The author stated the verdicts. She allowed miss Izevbekhai to comment near the end about the Irish sysyem "relying on bad information" which was alluded to inadequate state protections but did not elaborate there.

I think it was a fair article overall. There is little comparison to the lowest common denominator article of Mr Kevin Myers which appeared earlier in this thread and was championed by the "send her home" side.
Interestingly (or embarassingly) Mr Myers views on immigration are now also championed by non other than the British National Party. (I wont give a link to that gentlemans article either on the indo or on the BNP site.)
Seems to me that there is a lot more integrity and balance on the side of the people arguing to support genuine asylum seekers getting justice.

T runner · 18-01-2009 7:37pm

And you have admitted the courts are not infallible. When the courts get it wrong they tend to "repeatedly get it wrong".
The case where the High Court upheld a decision where the RAT member spent the majority of the case arguing over a Law against FGM in Delta state which didnt actually exist. The Irish courts repeatedly reaching the same verdict is not therefore a guarantee that theat verdict is correct.

Unfortunely RAT does not qualify the true meaning of the words "adequate state protection" and accepts Nigerias state laws as protection when infact they provide no protection.
The High Court (and Oireachtas) accepts the RAT as an expert body (even though each hearing only has one member who is no expertise in Refugee Law!)
and accepts this definition of state protections.
This is the crux of this case.
We all know how the RAT/High Court decided the question is: Did their interpretation of State Protections cost the izevbekhais their refugee status?

If anyone feels that the courts got the state protections right and that state protections are in reality sufficient on the ground then they should show evidence for it. There has been no evidence to date to show this.

ParkRunner · 18-01-2009 7:55pm

If this is the case then she will win her upcoming challenge to have her Subsidiary Protection application considered or failing that she will have her case admitted to the ECHR and have a full hearing in a European Court.

I consider neither to be likely. If she wins her challenge on Tuesday (which would be her best chance), this is going to go on for a lot longer with further legal challenges inevitable, which is her right. But I am bewildered how she can afford so many legal challenges.

AlekSmart · 19-01-2009 2:59am

I and many others can only share in your bewilderment.

I would imagine that somebody will be along in a moment to tell us about the magnificent genorosity of the Irish people etc.

All of which I readliy concur with and being of an era that actually remembers a Black Baby collection box in my local shop I heartily support such charitable enterprises.

THAT is an interesting point.

Does this mean that if one can manage to prolong the entire process that the State eventually moves it`s own goalposts as in this "stateable" case ?

Would this equate to the difference between "Beyond Reasonable Doubt" and "On the Balance of Probability" ?

At this stage its probably a more productive use of one`s curiosity to begin to take a greater interest in the behind the scenes players here,some of whom may well have developed their PR talents in other theatres of operation.

Permabear · 19-01-2009 9:53am

This post has been deleted.

ParkRunner · 19-01-2009 10:28am

No it isn't anything to do with prolonging the case, it is the legislation under which the challenge falls which determines what threshold the applicant has to reach in order to be granted leave to seek judicial review. Up to now Pamela has been required to show substantial grounds under section 5 of the illegal immigrants trafficking act, 1999. The current proceedings will come under Order 84 of the Rules of the Superior Courts 1986, which has a lower threshold to be granted leave so this gives her a better chance.

On an income of €19 per week it is impossible to afford so many days in the high court with substantial legal fees. Any thoughts from her supporters? In theory when she loses a case she should also pay the State's legal fees also.

Permabear · 19-01-2009 10:39am

This post has been deleted.

T runner · 19-01-2009 11:04am

On the contrary, I owe you no such apology. You put her into a category and stated that people in this category made it difficult for "genuine asylum seekers".
This is a direct implication that she is not a genuine asylum seeker and therefore bogus.
This is not the first time you have made this unsubstantiated claim against her indeed you did it with impunity when you were allowed to earlier in this thread. Your best argument was, if I recall, the ridiculous she "acted" like she was bogus.

This is actually a bit rich from someone who's posts have continually deliberately misrepresented my position, and using strawman arguments. Infact you falsely stated several times that I could not find a case where I agreed with a denial verdict which was a bald faced lie. (I havent looked after you made that request).

Macha · 19-01-2009 11:12am

I fail to see the relevance.

Permabear · 19-01-2009 11:20am

This post has been deleted.

T runner · 19-01-2009 11:27am

Yes, that was back in Lagos. The €19 pw refers to her income as an asylum seeker in Ireland.
She described her lifestyle here quite clearly in the IT article.

First of all. Ms Izevbekhai is an asylum seeker fleeing persecution due to FGM of her two daughters. She is not an economic migrant (as many implied earlier on this thread)

Secondly, all asylum seekers have the same rights under the Geneva convention. If you have a problem with the Geneva convention say so. But do not mislead people with a Kevin Myers style association. The country is in bad staits so a mention is made of her circumstances when she lived in Nigeria so that people will falsely conclude that she is abusing the system and wasting our money.
The families lifestyle when they blived in Lagos has nothing to do with their rights to seek asylum against persecution from FGM or anything else.

Thirdly, if you had a grasp of the Irish asylum system you would know that there is no legal aid for applicants for the Refugee Commisioner.
You would also know that this is the reason that most successful appeals are as a direct result of not having legal aid at this stage.
The Irish public would do well to note that having legal aid at all points in the
process would in fact save the Irish taxpayer millions of Euro.

Permabear · 19-01-2009 11:27am

This post has been deleted.

Permabear · 19-01-2009 11:33am

This post has been deleted.

Pamela Izevbekhai - Should She Be Deported?

Comments