Pamela Izevbekhai - Should She Be Deported?

Macha

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

In an ideal world, yes she should contribute. But how exactly do you means-test something like that?

Also, you must remember that a wealthy family in Ireland and a wealthy family in Nigeria are two different things. Also, a lot of that wealth probably belongs to her parents-in-law, who may be withholding any financial support.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Macha

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

While I understand the sentiment, my question was surrounding the practicalities of enforcing such a requirement. Means-testing-by-media wouldn't really cut it..

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Fair enough, I don't know the whole story so I'll take your word.

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

But you implied she was a bogus asylum seeker with no proof. Is that not a false personal attack?
Again i draw your attention the the hypocrisy of asking others to apologise when you are not prepared to do so yourself.
(Thats the matter closed as far as Im concerned, keep whinging if you must)

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

AlekSmart

EF:

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.

Notwithstanding the outcome of the Donegalfella-Trunner debate,this point re cost is very apposite.

It appears that the State may seek full costs should Ms Izevbekhai be unsuccessfull in her actions.

Does the State have any form of active policy in this matter or could we be looking at another Cooper-Flynn situation where substantial costs are merely off loaded back onto the general taxpaying population ?

At a time when the Irish Government appears to be taking all sorts of Jesuitical stances to shield or protect the financial status of a very small number of highly suspect Individuals in the Banking sector it should therefore cause concern when it also fails to secure it`s own legal costs where appropriate.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ParkRunner

AlekSmart wrote: »

EF:

Notwithstanding the outcome of the Donegalfella-Trunner debate,this point re cost is very apposite.

It appears that the State may seek full costs should Ms Izevbekhai be unsuccessfull in her actions.

Does the State have any form of active policy in this matter or could we be looking at another Cooper-Flynn situation where substantial costs are merely off loaded back onto the general taxpaying population ?

At a time when the Irish Government appears to be taking all sorts of Jesuitical stances to shield or protect the financial status of a very small number of highly suspect Individuals in the Banking sector it should therefore cause concern when it also fails to secure it`s own legal costs where appropriate.

In her first judicial review there was no order for costs which means each side was liable to pay their own costs. Hedigan reserved his judgment regarding costs in the last judgment so an order has not yet been made for those proceedings. Whoever wins their case usually has their costs paid for by the other side but it depends what the court orders. Even if the State wins and costs are awarded against her..being realistic she won't pay the State's costs and the burden is left to the taxpayer.

AlekSmart

I`m not being critical of the debate,its refreshing and certainly not being repeated in the general media.

My points relate to more of a feeling that this country`s current precarious state no longer allows us the luxury of being some sort of Moral Policeman for Africa/Asia/Eastern Europe or where ever.

Within a very short timeframe an Irish Government may well have to cease supplying what were regarded as vital services to its citizens.

The same Government may well have to cease or substantially reduce levels of State Benefit to claimants...That alone is going to cause substantial angst and perhaps civil unrest.

Failing to protect the most basic elements of our entry laws and continuing that failure will leave us ill prepared for the future !

The source is the Media reportage and speculation as to the entire area of costs as outlined by EF...It`s not a specific perhaps I should have phrased it differently....The State may be empowered to seek full costs ???

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Donegalfella, can you keep your posts truthful please?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Harolds+

Question: How do you solve the Izevbekhai crisis?

Ans: You get all her legal team and the lesbian groups that support her over to Nigeria and fight her case through the Courts there and stop wasting tax payers money here .

She wasn't here when the economy was dire (like the thousands of social welfare crooks) straits in the 80's and early 90's so she should eff off out of here

Mena

Harolds+ wrote: »

She wasn't here when the economy was dire (like the thousands of social welfare crooks) straits in the 80's and early 90's so she should eff off out of here

Without actually researching this, I would assume the daughters she is now concerned about were not yet born when the Irish economy was in dire straights so at that point she had no need to request asylum.

In my view your argument holds little merit either way.

That being said, I don't envy the people who have to make these asylum decisions because frankly, there are a lot of economic migrants amongst them, and separating these from genuine cases must be a nightmare. As to the case in point, I've not yet formed an opinion, but being African, I can say that Nigeria is one of the last places I'd like to be sent back to.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

T runner

AlekSmart wrote: »

I`m not being critical of the debate,its refreshing and certainly not being repeated in the general media.

My points relate to more of a feeling that this country`s current precarious state no longer allows us the luxury of being some sort of Moral Policeman for Africa/Asia/Eastern Europe or where ever.

Within a very short timeframe an Irish Government may well have to cease supplying what were regarded as vital services to its citizens.

The same Government may well have to cease or substantially reduce levels of State Benefit to claimants...That alone is going to cause substantial angst and perhaps civil unrest.

Failing to protect the most basic elements of our entry laws and continuing that failure will leave us ill prepared for the future !

The source is the Media reportage and speculation as to the entire area of costs as outlined by EF...It`s not a specific perhaps I should have phrased it differently....The State may be empowered to seek full costs ???

This is the situation here regarding legal representation for asylum.

"Asylum seekers may be represented by the RLS (Refugee Legal Service) or by a private solicitor. The RLS was established in 1999 by the Legal Aid Board and provides representation and advice for a small fee: €6 for advice and a minimum of €35 for representation at appeal.

Asylum seekers may also engage the services of a private solicitor to represent them during their application for refugee status, including at appeal. However, asylum seekers are prohibited from working during the asylum process, the majority are not in a financial position to pay for the services of a private solicitor.
"

If she is being represented by a private solicitor, his costs at least will have been covered by her. If she is not covered by one, costs are incurred by RLS for nominal fees above.

If you do for the RLS route you may well get a lawyer who has never being in a RAT before. As the proceedings are not published they are very often unprepared.

I dont know which route Ms Izevbekhai took. I guess it would depend on if she had time to, or was in a position to convince someone from the private sector she could afford the costs.

I guess the question of who picks up the tab may depend on which avenue Ms Izevbekai used.
I dont actually know the answer to that.

Mena

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I agree. The economic boom brought us here in our thousands, some legally, others not.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I can't argue that either. I am all for immigration (slight bias ) but there are those that are simply taking the piss so to speak, and it gives the rest of us a bad name/image.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

South Africa and yes, I've lived in Ireland (which I now consider my home) for the past eight years.

ParkRunner

T runner wrote: »

If you do for the RLS route you may well get a lawyer who has never being in a RAT before. As the proceedings are not published they are very often unprepared.QUOTE]

This is not entirely accurate anymore. An excerpt from a project I did:

In Atanasov v Refugee Appeals Tribunal a point of law came before the Supreme Court, as to whether an appellant before the Refugee Appeals Tribunal is legally and/or constitutionally entitled to access previous decisions of the Tribunal in which similar and, therefore, relevant issues of law arose. The Applicants claimed that failure to afford them access to previous
decisions of legal significance was a breach of their rights to fair proceduresand/or natural justice and, furthermore, infringed the requirement of equality of arms under Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Geoghegan J. determined that where an applicant in advance of a hearing by the Refugee Appeals Tribunal (RAT) has requested
access to relevant precedents and has been refused, this breaches the applicant’s rights to fair procedures and natural and constitutional justice. He acknowledged the argument made that the requirement of equality of arms under article 6(1) of the ECHR would require that such information should be available to both sets of legal advisors. However, in deciding on constitutional grounds, he held that it was unnecessary to consider the matter under the
ECHR. This decision has been welcomed by the Law Society of Ireland.

i.e. Atanasov requests as they have been labelled are regularly made (and granted) by solicitors to access previous decisions of the RAT which are of direct relevance to their cases. The system is becoming more transparent.

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

My posts are entirely truthful. I've asked you several times to consider the Irish courts' reliance on the Ward precedent;

Come on, Is that really the truth? The first I remember hearing of that was this morning (unless you asked me months ago). I have made several referenced to the Court view of state protection v de facto state protection and you didnt mention?

I welcome this revelation on how Irelands Asylum system may even consider a states sovereignty to be evidence of adequate state protection against persecution. The burden of "clear and convincing" proof to prove that a state is in effect not sovereign is a BIG ask for any asylum seeker I think its fair to say.

These are initial thoughts, I would like to address this in more detail. I must insist your statement as fact that I "cant refute" this argument because I have not answered your post within a few hours is simply not truthful.
Im trying to hold down a job here.

I've also asked you multiple times to cite an asylum denial with which you actually agree. Your responses resemble some sort of disingenuous flapping about, in which you either claim that I am misrepresenting you, or try to put the burden of proof back on me. . . .

First of all, do you understand looking through a case thoroughly does take up time?

My response was initially to state exactly why I disagreed with the two cases whose verdict I disagreed with. I asked you to how my reasoning for disagreeing with these verdicts in any way implied that I would disagree with all verdicts. (I told you I would probably agree with the vast majority of verdicts if that helped you.)

You could not tell me this, insisting I waste time ploughing through cases on your whim.

When I conceded somewhat and asked you to list a number of cases (you had obviously listed them before you said there were hundreds) which would have only wasted 5 minutes of your time you refused.

Asking you to list a number of random asylum cases is clearly not putting the burden of back on you.

When you state that I cant refute your allegation it is a lie.
You know that I havent even tried.

If you can either explain how my disagreeing with 2 asylum verdicts implies that I disagree with all asylum verdicts or take 2 minutes of your time, search for "asylum" into the search engine of courts.ie and paste the results.

If you are not able to spend 5 minutes (2 minutes) of your time doing that then don't expect me to spend 30 mins plus of my time running your errands.
DO NOT claim that I cant refute this again (without that list or the time to reply).

T runner

EF wrote: »

T runner wrote: »

If you do for the RLS route you may well get a lawyer who has never being in a RAT before. As the proceedings are not published they are very often unprepared.QUOTE]

This is not entirely accurate anymore. An excerpt from a project I did:

In Atanasov v Refugee Appeals Tribunal a point of law came before the Supreme Court, as to whether an appellant before the Refugee Appeals Tribunal is legally and/or constitutionally entitled to access previous decisions of the Tribunal in which similar and, therefore, relevant issues of law arose. The Applicants claimed that failure to afford them access to previous
decisions of legal significance was a breach of their rights to fair proceduresand/or natural justice and, furthermore, infringed the requirement of equality of arms under Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Geoghegan J. determined that where an applicant in advance of a hearing by the Refugee Appeals Tribunal (RAT) has requested
access to relevant precedents and has been refused, this breaches the applicant’s rights to fair procedures and natural and constitutional justice. He acknowledged the argument made that the requirement of equality of arms under article 6(1) of the ECHR would require that such information should be available to both sets of legal advisors. However, in deciding on constitutional grounds, he held that it was unnecessary to consider the matter under the
ECHR. This decision has been welcomed by the Law Society of Ireland.

i.e. Atanasov requests as they have been labelled are regularly made (and granted) by solicitors to access previous decisions of the RAT which are of direct relevance to their cases. The system is becoming more transparent.

This is a welcome developement. However, the cases are still not published, the lawyers must still ask for cases the RAT may feel relevant.
An examination of the appeals systems in the following countries (UK, Fra, NZ, Aus, Can, Den) showed all appeal case published, some even online.

A questionnaire answered by 70 barristers and solicitore about the RAT system identifyed the below on this issue:

Many practitioners are in favour of all decisions being published. Publication would enable a body of Irish jurisprudence to build up and assist legal representatives preparing to represent applicants for refugee status at appeal. In addition it would demonstrate clearly whether or not the perception among many legal representatives that there is a lack of consistency in decision-making among Members of the Tribunal is valid.

Remember there is only one tribunal member in the Irish RAT at odds with other countries.

Harolds+

Let me tell you a true story. I know a public health nurse who received a request by a Nigerian man to visit him and his family. When she arrived she was greeted by insults by the man and his wife who said "where is our tv. this is racism. we have no tv or new curtains. we want nappies. where are the nappies?" AND so ON and SO on

Let me tell you this...

If you are a refugee and you are fleeing conflict, you wont give a damn about a tv or new ****ing curtains or if you were sleeping in sleeping bags once you and your family are free from political or religious danger

and these people wont integrate or move to the country but want EVERYTHING handed to them and at their doorstep!

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Im assuming your not accusing Izevbekhai of being an "economic migrant" and therefore one of the "liars and fraudsters"?
This would be very much at odds with your description of her wealth in Nigeria
and would mean that you have actually refuted your own "argument all along".

T runner

Mena wrote: »

As to the case in point, I've not yet formed an opinion, but being African, I can say that Nigeria is one of the last places I'd like to be sent back to.

Hi Mena,

Do you mind me asking why you say Nigeria is one of the last places you'd like to be sent back to?

Mena

T runner wrote: »

Hi Mena,

Do you mind me asking why you say Nigeria is one of the last places you'd like to be sent back to?

Corruption. Everything can be bought, especially the police. Most times, you're required to "buy" the police, demanding bribes is an everyday occurrence.

Scary place, and not very safe, and that's saying a lot for someone who lived and worked in Johannesburg for many years.

But that's just my own personal view of having worked there before, and staying in contact with people who still live and work there.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

oscarBravo

Harolds+ wrote: »

Let me tell you a true story. I know a public health nurse who received a request by a Nigerian man to visit him and his family. When she arrived she was greeted by insults by the man and his wife who said "where is our tv. this is racism. we have no tv or new curtains. we want nappies. where are the nappies?" AND so ON and SO on

On the flip side, I know a public health nurse who was given a 42" plasma screen and a new BMW by a Nigerian man and his family.

You just never know, do you?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Did you not read through the case? He did show that state protections in the UK were inadequate!

On the facts of this case, proof on this point was unnecessary, as representatives of the state authorities conceded their inability to protect Ward

The problem was he was also an Irish citizen and did not approach the Irish State for protection.

Appellant conceded dual nationality ‑‑ Irish and British..........
Where, as in the case of appellant, the second state has not actually been approached by the claimant, that state should be presumed capable of protecting its nationals. An underlying premise of this presumption is that citizenship carries with it certain basic consequences, such as the right to gain entry to the country at any time. Denial of admittance to the home territory can amount to a refusal of protection. Here, evidence, albeit not expert opinion, was led to establish that British legislation enabled the British Government to prohibit a national from being in, or entering, Great Britain, if the national had been connected with terrorism with regard to Northern Ireland.

I think it is important that this case was about a first world country of origin.
If the country of origin was Nigeria the court would have been forced to define what it means by "clear and convincing" proof and "breakdown of systems" as there is a lot of country of origin proof as to the inability/unwillingness of Nigerian state and police to protect their citizens.
E.G
- No state prosections against FGM in entire state of Osun.
Does this constitute a breakdown of the Court protections against FGM in Osun State? I think it does

Crucial questions would thus seem to be:

1) Did Pamela Izevbekhai ask the Nigerian police and/or the Nigerian courts to protect her daughters against forcible kidnapping? On the basis of her testimony and other statements, the answer would seem to be that she did not.

From the same case (Ward):
[

B]Like Hathaway, I prefer to formulate this aspect of the test for fear of persecution as follows: only in situations in which state protection “might reasonably have been forthcoming”, will the claimant's failure to approach the state for protection defeat his claim. Put another way, the claimant will not meet the definition of “Convention refugee” where it is objectively unreasonable for the claimant not to have sought the protection of his home authorities; otherwise, the claimant need not literally approach the state.[/B]

The pertinent question is therefore was it unreasonable of the Izevbekhais not
to seek protection from the state/police?

I think it was not unreasonable:

- Nigerian Police have only been recorded to respond to 1% of kidnappings/attempted kidnappings that have occured.
. (Not their own records they dont keep any.)
-In country of origin evidence it stated that when a female is the victim
they are only interested if its a case of "child rape, or husband killing wife". Kidnapping of a female does not cut it.
-Consistant evidence that the Nigerian Police are unable to protect their citizens from violent crime. (From COI reports). Is this not a breakdown of systems?

I think it very reasonable for the Izevbakhais not to have sought the assistance of Nigerian Police.

2) Can it be claimed that Nigeria's state apparatus is in complete breakdown? No. There is little doubt that Nigeria is a hugely corrupt nation, at least by Western standards, but I don't think it approaches the "complete breakdown" criteria required by the courts.

The state apparatus is presumably the apparatus used to protect its citizens.

i.e State protections enforced by courts and police.

I have shown that they provide No protection. Presumable complete breakdown cant mean anything less than "no protection" in these circumstances.

3) Can Pamela Izevbekhai prove by citing specific cases that the Nigerian state is unable to protect young girls from abduction, and/or from having female genital mutilation performed on them by their abductees? Again, I don't think she can. The only thing she has brought up in court is generalised statistics about FGM.

One of your quotes:

For example, a claimant might advance testimony of similarly situated individuals let down by the state protection arrangement or the claimant's testimony of past personal incidents in which state protection did not materialize

There have been may criticisms in the RAT about Nigerian police (A justice referred to it in a high case).
If all the Cases were openly published she would have many examples to prove her point.

This is a case where the UNHCR handbook reference (see below) to a joint burden of proof makes sense. There is usable evidence there but it may remain out of reach of the applicant. The state should make the applicant aware if such evidence exists.

Well, you obviously do see it that way—but the legal system does place the burden of proof on the applicant, and the law is very clear about this. As I have said to you previously, the Irish courts simply can't run an asylum system effectively if the burden of proof is on the state.

But can they run it if the burden lies with the State and the Applicant?

As I pointed out previously the UNHCR Handbook states that:

…while the burden of proof in principle rests on the applicant, the duty to ascertain and evaluate all the relevant facts is shared between the applicant and the examiner. Indeed, in some cases, it may be for the examiner to use all the means at his disposal to produce the necessary evidence in support of the application… if the applicant’s account appears credible, he should, unless there are good reasons to the contrary, be given the benefit of the doubt.

This would place the burden of proof on the State and the applicant.
This seems fair. The object is for justice to be done and if the state is aware of evidence that may help an appelants side the UN clearly feels there is a burden on the state to provide that evidence.

Well, your response was to lay out the conditions under which you would accept the denial of asylum. The problem is that your conditions are very different from those used by the courts—so different, in fact, that they would see almost every asylum seeker being accepted as a refugee.

My conditions were that

(a) The applicant got a fair hearing in the RAT. The case I quoted showed the Tribunal member confronting the applicant for most of the oral hearing insisting a state law in Delta state didnt exist when in fact it did. The applicant should have got another RAT hearing. (This is a unique case and would not be repeated by an examination of all asylum cases is wager).

(b) That the applicants case was denied reason of legal state protections being adequate (when they were in reality inadequate).
This might mean me disagree with the ruling of one or two cases.

Case (a) is unique and obviously would not have me "see almost every asylum seeker being accepted as a refugee."

That leaves case (b)

Please show me how case (b) would. Do you believe that in all asylum cases:
1. That the applicants are denied reason of legal state protections being adequate
2. If miraculously they were (we know theyre not right?) then you are claiming that I would disagree with them on each and every occasion? Why?

Now you stated that I could not find a case where I agreed with the denial verdict. You misrepresented me and you misrepresented me deliberately.

My point was that you proved perfectly adept at "ploughing through cases" when you thought that doing so would discredit the Refugee Appeals Tribunal.

Again a misrepresentation and a strawman argument. I recounted the findings of a questionnaire filled out by 70 barristers and lawyers who dealt with the RAT. Many issues were highlighted with the RAT I have only quoted a few from it for this case. If youd like Ill put them all up?

It isn't my job to provide you with a "list," either. You're not the only one with a job!

Exactly! Shall we drop this stupidity now?

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

To play devil's advocate, how do you know she's not?

Because, I have absolutely no reason to believe that she is.
Why do you think she is an economic migrant?

It's not my description of her wealth in Nigeria—it's her own description, as quoted in the Irish Times:

But you have used that to argue that she should pay her cases. (which she may be doing for all you know)

The problem with these extensive media profiles of Izevbekhai—the latest of which appeared in the Irish Times over the weekend—is that they take everything she says at face value, without offering any corroborating evidence whatsoever.

You had no problem believing her when it suited your "she should pay for her case" argument.
You have still not answered the blatant contradiction in announcing the economic migrant viewpoint was "your argument" all along whilst still using information that she was rich back in Nigeria to try and discredit her.
You cant have it both ways. Keeping an honest argument is a good method of avoiding contradicting yourself!

And yet we know that there is significant doubt about crucial aspects of Izevbekhai's testimony. How did she and her daughters really get to Ireland?

Drop it! As you know the source for that bull****e was a dodgy immigration official who may be in a lot of trouble now.

[
Do we have any independent verification for any of Izevbekhai's claims?

Presumably reporters of the integrity and calibre as the one who wrote that article would not do so if she doubted waht she was being told.

Maybe you should find out if there is verification for or against your innuendos before you put them up here?

Harolds+

Hang on a second. Do you honnestly think she is here to save her daughter from having that procedure?

Why is she in Ireland when we were the ones handind out PPS numbers like they were chinese takeaway menus? Why not Botswana or France or anywhere else this scam is not tolerated.

Why dont you ask the thousands of Nigerians who are here and who continue to NOT WORK and other Easter Europeans who have scammed our social welfare system

Crime pays and the tax payer is paying for her brief and that is SICK!

oscarBravo

Harolds+, if you have something of value to contribute, please feel free to do so. If all you are interested in "contributing" is xenophobic bile, take it elsewhere.