Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Pamela Izevbekhai - Should She Be Deported?

Options
12467…99

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    Zambia
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,333 ✭✭✭Zambia


    djpbarry wrote: »
    I'm not sure what you're getting at? I understand that she was granted a 2-year UK visa in 2004. It was her intention to relocate to the UK, but had second thoughts upon realising her husband had relatives there. More on this
    Ireland is not a million miles away from England, justifying asylum here as opposed to england is ridiculous.
    djpbarry wrote: »
    here.
    And as far as I am aware, this is exactly what she did, or so say
    Sorry the two year wait in England just does ring true to me
    djpbarry wrote: »
    Put yourself in her position and tell me which is likely to be safer: relocating within the country or leaving the country? Bear in mind that the authorities seem either unwilling or unable to protect your children.

    I have to admit I could possibly do the same thing but if I was seeking asylum in the true sense of the word it would not take me two years to say so.
    djpbarry wrote: »
    If every single citizen in the country was being abused in some way, then yes, they could. But that is obviously not the case.

    Well then what your saying is if someone has a problem with someone else in Nigeria Ireland has to accept them as their own goverment will do nothing. I dont accept that.
    djpbarry wrote: »
    I honestly don’t have a clue what you're talking about, but I'm guessing it's irrelevant, because we’re not talking about immigration here.

    Tighter immigration laws also means tighter checks on Asylums seekers.
    djpbarry wrote: »
    No it wouldn't. You do understand the difference between an immigrant and an asylum seeker, don't you?

    Sorry I will re-phrase lax asylum checks woould raise the figures. I understand the difference perfectly.

    PI is an immigrant

    PI is trying to pass off as an asylum seeker.

    I have already stated the routes for her to immigrate to Ireland , I also have nothing against her should she pass if she has this good job you mentioned she should.
    djpbarry wrote: »
    Again, I don't have a clue what you're talking about. What does the number of Nigerian immigrants in Ireland have to do with Pamela Izevbekhai's asylum application?

    Its been stated earlier Nigerians see irelnad a soft touch.
    djpbarry wrote: »
    Across the border to Cameroon?

    An economic migrant is not going to bother going from Nigeria to Cameroon...
    djpbarry wrote: »
    Indeed they are. If the applications were properly assessed first time around, then many of the appeals would be unnecessary. For example, over the 6-year period 2000 - 2005 (inclusive), 6,814 individuals were recognised as refugees in Ireland, but approximately 60% were recognised on appeal. That's a ridiculously high "error" rate.

    I will agree there all cases right or wrong should be handled first time around.
    djpbarry wrote: »
    There are large numbers applying who are being refused, yes. But, as I have just illustrated, there are large numbers being refused who have genuine cases.

    Neither of us can fully prove that.
    djpbarry wrote: »
    I think it is quite obvious to anyone why she feels she "needs" to be here. I'm not sure she could be classed as a failed economic migrant - she was successful in obtaining a UK visa, was she not? Not to mention the fact that she had a pretty decent job in Lagos, based on what I have read.

    Yes she was
    She and her husband subsequently applied for a further UK visa in mid 2004 and received a two year permit in June of that year.

    However is she had that she sould live down the road from me here. i can assure you there are very few of her countrymen here.
    Sorry if I am upsetting you here but her story doesnt ring true to me.

    If she obtained a two year Uk visa on merit i dont see why she cant apply for immigration to ireland along the proper channels.

    sovtek I have no problem with foriegners I have already stated she is more than welcome. However just not down the route she is choosing.
    As for that indentured servant bit , you have lost me. Calm yourself

    PSI my apologies on the confusion


  • Options
    #93
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Zambia232 wrote: »
    Ireland is not a million miles away from England, justifying asylum here as opposed to england is ridiculous.
    :confused:
    But nobody is attempting to “justify” any such thing? I’m sorry, but, based on your posts, I’m guessing that either (a) you know very little about this particular case, or (b) you know very little about international asylum law in general. Either that or you’re just being facetious and attempting to derail the thread.
    Zambia232 wrote: »
    Sorry the two year wait in England just does ring true to me
    Once again, I have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.
    Zambia232 wrote: »
    I have to admit I could possibly do the same thing but if I was seeking asylum in the true sense of the word it would not take me two years to say so.
    And again - I'm lost. She applied for asylum as soon as she arrived in Ireland, so your point is meaningless.
    Zambia232 wrote: »
    Well then what your saying is if someone has a problem with someone else in Nigeria Ireland has to accept them as their own goverment will do nothing.
    I never said any such thing.
    Zambia232 wrote: »
    Tighter immigration laws also means tighter checks on Asylums seekers.
    No it does not. You seem either unwilling or incapable of realising that asylum seekers and immigrants are two very different things.
    Zambia232 wrote: »
    PI is trying to pass off as an asylum seeker.
    She has applied for asylum in Ireland. Therefore, she is an asylum seeker. It's quite simple really.
    Zambia232 wrote: »
    Its been stated earlier Nigerians see irelnad a soft touch.
    It has indeed, but as yet, nobody has provided any evidence that suggests that this is true. In fact, most of the evidence that has been presented suggests otherwise.
    Zambia232 wrote: »
    An economic migrant is not going to bother going from Nigeria to Cameroon...
    :rolleyes: I'm going to try this one more time:

    Immigrant ≠ Asylum Seeker
    Zambia232 wrote: »
    Neither of us can fully prove that.
    Actually, I just did.
    Zambia232 wrote: »
    However is she had that she sould live down the road from me here. i can assure you there are very few of her countrymen here.
    Sorry if I am upsetting you here but her story doesnt ring true to me.
    You're not upsetting me at all; probably because you're making very little sense.


  • Options
    #94
    Zambia
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,333 ✭✭✭Zambia


    Ok we are coming to an impasse here so I better start wraping it up.

    The title of the thread is should be PI deported. I try and not be accused of derailing in this one.

    She is claiming asylum after a successful 2.5 years of being allowed stay in the UK. Granted she claims she never used these visas but never the less she got them. While in the UK the police could have amply protected her from her husbands relatives.

    I see her as being selective about her application to Ireland.

    In essence I dont believe her story, neither does the dept of Immigration.

    So she should be deported in my opinion.

    Thanks for some of the links you posted there where of interest.


  • Options
    #95
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Zambia232 wrote: »
    While in the UK the police could have amply protected her from her husbands relatives.
    You don't believe her story but you accept that she needs protection?
    Zambia232 wrote: »
    I see her as being selective about her application to Ireland.
    Selective in that she applied in Ireland, rather than any other country in the world? So if she applied in the UK, that'd be ok?
    Zambia232 wrote: »
    In essence I dont believe her story, neither does the dept of Immigration.
    But the High Court does, hence she has not been deported.


  • Options
    #96
    Zambia
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,333 ✭✭✭Zambia


    djpbarry wrote: »
    You don't believe her story but you accept that she needs protection?
    No my piont is UK police would have investigated her story if the English wing of her husbands FGM family was in England Chasing her as has been claimed. She appears to have made no such plea to them. The least she could have done was inform the UK police who the offenders where.
    djpbarry wrote: »
    Selective in that she applied in Ireland, rather than any other country in the world? So if she applied in the UK, that'd be ok?
    She applied for a visa to the UK and got one. So yes its ok ...
    djpbarry wrote: »
    But the High Court does, hence she has not been deported.
    The high court belives there is a case to argue. Not she should be allowed stay.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    HollyB
    Registered Users Posts: 361 ✭✭HollyB


    Zambia232 wrote: »
    The high court belives there is a case to argue. Not she should be allowed stay.

    As I understand it, there are other cases of people applying for asylum and citing threat of FGM as the reason. This is a test case, so in the long run, I would say that it's best for them to let the Izevbekhai case be argued out in full, establishing once and for all if fear of FGM is grounds for asylum or not, rather than repeating the same process again.


  • Options
    #98
    speedboatchase
    Registered Users Posts: 5,791 ✭✭✭speedboatchase


    What actually happened here in the end? Haven't heard a bean


  • Options
    #99
    Malice
    Registered Users Posts: 15,065 ✭✭✭✭Malice


    speedboatchase wrote: »
    What actually happened here in the end? Haven't heard a bean
    A quick Google search reveals nothing new since March or so of this year.


  • Options
    #100
    milkedman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1 ✭milkedman


    watch this video

    http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=8Yk_me_60NQ

    Basically myself and a fellow student Julian Ulrichs made a film on Pamela this Summer as our thesis film for the Huston School of Film in galway.
    We met Pamela in Sligo, and then traveled out to Nigeria to meet her family to see where she lived and to understand the background to the case.

    There is a tacit suggestion with the way this case is treated that perhaps Pamela is fabricating the whole story. However the film we made, shows that Pamela left behind a good middle class lifestyle to come to Ireland. In Nigeria she would live in a good home with 4/5 house servants, garden, car and a good job. In Ireland she has been living in one room in an asylum, sharing the same bed with her two daughters. It's obvious she wouldn't do this without good cause.

    Even though we are not experts in the legality of the case, we believe our story will help validate Pamela's story, which is been questioned by the Irish legal system.


  • Options
    #101
    walrusgumble
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,062 ✭✭✭walrusgumble


    djpbarry wrote: »
    You don't believe her story but you accept that she needs protection?
    Selective in that she applied in Ireland, rather than any other country in the world? So if she applied in the UK, that'd be ok?
    But the High Court does, hence she has not been deported.

    please show or highlight were the High Court "believe her". he has not passed judgement yet. yes they succeeded in the first phase of the high court matter (leave to judicial review)

    there is damn all guarantee this case will succceed. there is only certain ways the court can interfere with the minister's decision - unfair procedures, irrationality, unreasonableness etc. the only thing a successful case would bring is the revocation of the deportation order and a fresh consideration of the subsidiary application. still no guarantee judge hedigan (who sat in the european human rights courts) will favour the applicant

    all the issues that went against her in asylum case may be considered in her application for subsidiary protection , matter which is in contention before the court.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    rkeane
    Closed Accounts Posts: 318 ✭✭rkeane


    She has now lost her final appeal, the Court has made the right decision. Now hopefully the GNIB will remove them as soon as possible.


  • Options
    #103
    snubbleste
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 31,117 ✭✭✭✭snubbleste


    It is understood the European Court of Human Rights has intervened in the case of a Sligo-based Nigerian woman who lost her high court bid to prevent her deportation.
    The court has asked the Irish government not to deport Pamela Izevbekhai pending the hearing of her case at the ECHR.

    Today's High court decision is the latest in a long running legal battle to prevent her deportation along with her daughters which has been running since 2005.
    www.rte.ie/news/2008/1118/izevbekhaip.html

    Who is funding her case, the taxpayer?


  • Options
    #104
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    rkeane wrote: »
    She has now lost her final appeal, the Court has made the right decision.
    So if the court found in Ms. Izevbekhai's favour, that would be the "wrong" decision? Why's that I wonder... :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #105
    Highsider
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,384 ✭✭✭Highsider


    rkeane wrote: »
    She has now lost her final appeal, the Court has made the right decision. Now hopefully the GNIB will remove them as soon as possible.

    The court has made A decision. Is it the correct decision? who knows, but yes she should be deported now.


  • Options
    #106
    Holsten
    Registered Users Posts: 4,971 ✭✭✭Holsten


    Yes she should.

    She lost the case, off she goes.

    Not Irelands problem.


  • Options
    #107
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Holsten wrote: »
    Not Irelands problem.
    But had the judge ruled in her favour, then she would be "Ireland's problem"? How does that work?


  • Options
    #108
    rkeane
    Closed Accounts Posts: 318 ✭✭rkeane


    She has been found out at every stage of the process, she lied throughout and not one court or state agency believed her. Now she is going to the ECHR to see if they will fall for her story......highly unlikely.

    Hopefully on December 9th she will be packing her bags for Christmas in Lagos.


  • Options
    #109
    Hagar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,793 ✭✭✭✭Hagar


    Deport her and her family back to where they came from, they will be quite safe in Britain won't they? Let's be honest folks you can't get from Nigeria to Ireland directly as a refugee either by air or sea. How many "safe haven" countries has she passed through on her way to Ireland? My guess is three, Britain, France and possibly Spain or Italy. None of them care unduly as long as she is just passing though and not going to be a burden to them. Refugee status expires as soon as you reach a "safe haven" and leave it, after that you're just a migrant, either legal or illegal.


  • Options
    #110
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    rkeane wrote: »
    She has been found out at every stage of the process, she lied throughout...
    Has she?
    Hagar wrote: »
    Let's be honest folks you can't get from Nigeria to Ireland directly as a refugee either by air or sea.
    Why does that matter?


  • Options
    #111
    rkeane
    Closed Accounts Posts: 318 ✭✭rkeane


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Has she?
    Why does that matter?

    I don't feed trolls. The fact is she lost every stage of the process, nobody believed her.....and quite rightly.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    ninty9er
    Registered Users Posts: 9,366 ✭✭✭ninty9er


    Hagar wrote: »
    Deport her and her family back to where they came from, they will be quite safe in Britain won't they? Let's be honest folks you can't get from Nigeria to Ireland directly as a refugee either by air or sea.


    This is one rational point, the second is that she fears FGM will be perpetrated on her daughters, leading to infection and harm. She has not, to my knowledge, said she is agains the principle, but the harm, so, therefore, would it not make sense for this woman to have her daughters circumcised medically and professionally, by surgeons, in Ireland and then return to Nigeria, where FGM is no longer a threat as the ritual has been medically carried out in a sanitary manner.

    Sorry to put a cost on this, but how much has her day in the High Court cost the state and I don't see the righteous, "people are on trolleys" brigade out complaining about that!


  • Options
    #113
    ninty9er
    Registered Users Posts: 9,366 ✭✭✭ninty9er


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Has she?
    Why does that matter?

    Refugees are entitled to seek refuge in the first state they reach, not any one of their choosing.


  • Options
    #114
    rkeane
    Closed Accounts Posts: 318 ✭✭rkeane


    ninty9er wrote: »
    Refugees are entitled to seek refuge in the first state they reach, not any one of their choosing.

    Yep, that comes under the Dublin Convention. I do hope she enjoys christmas back in Lagos.


  • Options
    #115
    Orion
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,807 ✭✭✭✭Orion


    rkeane wrote: »
    I don't feed trolls. The fact is she lost every stage of the process, nobody believed her.....and quite rightly.

    so you don't eat then? It's quite apparent what your angle is - you don't give a **** whether or not she passed through other safe havens on her way here - you just don't want her type here. At least be honest - at least that way I could respect your opinion while disagreeing with it.


  • Options
    #116
    Darragh29
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,097 ✭✭✭Darragh29


    ninty9er wrote: »
    This is one rational point, the second is that she fears FGM will be perpetrated on her daughters, leading to infection and harm. She has not, to my knowledge, said she is agains the principle, but the harm, so, therefore, would it not make sense for this woman to have her daughters circumcised medically and professionally, by surgeons, in Ireland and then return to Nigeria, where FGM is no longer a threat as the ritual has been medically carried out in a sanitary manner.

    Sorry to put a cost on this, but how much has her day in the High Court cost the state and I don't see the righteous, "people are on trolleys" brigade out complaining about that!

    Try asking your GP for a letter for that procedure and see how far you get with it!


  • Options
    #117
    rkeane
    Closed Accounts Posts: 318 ✭✭rkeane


    Macros42 wrote: »
    so you don't eat then? It's quite apparent what your angle is - you don't give a **** whether or not she passed through other safe havens on her way here - you just don't want her type here. At least be honest - at least that way I could respect your opinion while disagreeing with it.

    I'm being honest, I don't give a dam about the woman or her girls....NOT BECAUSE THEY ARE BLACK....NOT BECAUSE THEY ARE NIGERIAN....but because I am sick to death of bogus asylum seeking. This woman lied throughout, nobody believed her (except the nutters in RAR & the Irish Refugee Council).

    She made the decision to bypass other EU nations to come to Ireland...because she assumed that she would get leave 2 remain. Fortunately that isn't going to happen in this case.


  • Options
    #118
    Orion
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,807 ✭✭✭✭Orion


    rkeane wrote: »
    I'm being honest,

    (except the nutters in RAR & the Irish Refugee Council).

    she assumed that she would get leave 2 remain. Fortunately that isn't going to happen in this case.

    Ok that's honest...

    The RAR and IRC are nutters.

    And fortunately her girls will get the clitoris' cut out because we in Ireland don't consider that abuse.

    Fair enough.


  • Options
    #119
    marcsignal
    Registered Users Posts: 4,072 ✭✭✭marcsignal


    yeah, i think it's time to go, although the case hasn't been heard by a european court yet, which happens dec 6th, i think,
    so i'd say we'll hear a lot more about this case yet


  • Options
    #120
    rkeane
    Closed Accounts Posts: 318 ✭✭rkeane


    Macros42 wrote: »
    Ok that's honest...

    The RAR and IRC are nutters.

    And fortunately her girls will get the clitoris' cut out because we in Ireland don't consider that abuse.

    Fair enough.


    And you believe the word of a person who lied throughout her bogus application for asylum. That says a lot.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    Orion
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,807 ✭✭✭✭Orion


    rkeane wrote: »
    And you believe the word of a person who lied throughout her bogus application for asylum. That says a lot.
    I didn't say that. Don't put words in my mouth.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement