Pamela Izevbekhai - Should She Be Deported?

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

Well, how can you argue that his reasoning is spot on, and still argue that Izevbekhai merits asylum here?

If you read on you would have seen that I think the RAT was in error in its assessment of Nigerian Protections.
Again, Feeney J reasoned:

The last underlined sentence is what you have been arguing against for much of this thread. But now you say that the reasoning is correct? So you accept that protection "might reasonably have been forthcoming" and that Izevbekhai should have been required to approach the Nigerian authorities before she sought asylum in Ireland? And that because she made no effort to seek state protections in Nigeria, she does not merit refugee status in Ireland?

More specifically, it is their task to determine whether the claimant has substantiated his or her claim for asylum. Remember the precedent quoted in the Ward case: "The burden of proof, including a showing of well‑founded fear of persecution in all countries of which the claimant is a national, lies with appellant." If the appellant cannot establish a well-founded and objective fear of persecution, the court is bound to find against him or her. So the court is not setting out to "beat" the applicant's claim—it is more a question of judging whether or not the applicant's case has legal merit.

Again if you read on you would see that Nigerian sources have been quoted in the Country of Origin reports which would have made it difficult for Feeney J to contradict the RATs assessment. Equally if the RAT had found that State pretections were adequate (and the case still made it to high court) then Feeney J could not have contradicted this either based on Country of Origin evidence.

So effectively you're complaining that the RAT does not help prepare the claimant's case? But why should it? In every other sort of case, the claimant employs lawyers to prepare his or her side of the case. This is simply how most legal procedures work.

No not that simple. This is an asylum case, The Tribunal member is a judge not a counsel for the prosecution he must weigh up all available evidence to reach a just verdict. The UNHCR handbook dictates so.

From CitizensInformation.ie: "Free legal aid is available to asylum seekers in Ireland through the Refugee Legal Service to assist at all stages of the asylum process. This includes at the time of the initial application, first interview, appeals and advice on deportation." So any asylum seeker who gets as far as the RAT will have had the benefit of free legal aid, and will have had a trained solicitor and/or barrister prepare their case. Such a legal representative will have access to exactly the same sources of information available to the RAT. And aren't these country of origin and Amnesty International reports widely available—if you can dig them up and quote from them, why can't a trained solicitor?

Firstly, Fees payable under the Refugee Legal Aid Scheme are insufficient by comparison with criminal legal aid in the Circuit and Central Criminal Courts and compared with civil legal aid in family cases. This can lead to appellants being represented by less experienced Counsel.

It is difficult to see why certain evidence does not surface, but the situation of having a Nigerian Appellant appearing in Court with no Country of origin evidence to back her claims is simply unjust and a misinterpretation of the UNHCR handbook by the RAT.

Well, I don't have the statistics on this, but you are essentially arguing that the only authority that ever overrules the RAT is the Minister for Justice. Are you saying that the High Court never finds against the RAT? And if so, do you have proof of this?

Again I have never seen it. The most effective policy for an asylum seeker having been denied at the RAT stage is to concentrate on the minister.

That sounds like a fairly comprehensive archive to me. It implies that all previous tribunal decisions are available—one way or another—to a claimant's legal counsel. The RAT uses court stenographers.....

That is doubtful, at least until 2003 the Member took his own notes (amazingly). What is needed is a comprehensive report from these decisions, published so that inconsistencies are found out and corrected.These might include:

--Why Tribunal members seem to differ in the views of what the appeal is; some treat it as a de novo hearing, others say they don’t need to hear what is already in the papers.

--To 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.

--Why, in general, the issue of applicant’s credibility is overemphasized at the Hearing

--Why there are different approaches to the hearing inquisatorial vs adversatorial when the UNHCR states it must be inquisatorial.

We also need some transparency as to how members are selected by the Minister. Without exception every member should be an expert in asylum Law.

I see two immediate problems with throwing this archive wide open to the public—

1) The RAT seems rightly concerned with the confidentiality of the applicants, and this could potentially be compromised by such a move;

That is easily overcome in fairness.

2) Opening the archive to all comers would allow human traffickers and bogus asylum seekers to see what has and has not worked in the courts. They could then tailor their claims and their stories accordingly, so as to "game" the system.

This will happen anyway. It is a risk worth taking if it cuts out inconsistencies and forces the RAT to adjudicate more in line with UNHCR guidelines and less like prosecution Barristers.

I don't see your complaint here, honestly. The state pays for the claimant to have legal representatives prepare his or her side of the case. It is up to the Tribunal judge to decide whether the case that has been prepared is a valid one. The role of the judge is hardly to suggest things that could have been included but weren't!

It is not to judge the case that has been prepared. This would mean that you might have 2 asylum seekers in exactly the same circumstances getting a different verdict.
It is to judge if the applicant deserves asylum.

From the UNHCR Handbook:

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…

Do you really have any instance where one line from an otherwise damning country of origin report has refuted an applicant's claim?

Country of origin information suggests that while there are, no doubt, problems with the police in Nigeria, state protection is available to those who are in fear of violent crime. No clear or compelling confirmation has been provided of the inability of the Nigerian state to protect the applicant. The Tribunal Member cannot therefore be faulted for concluding as she did in respect of state protection.

The statement in bold is simply not factually correct. The Country of Origin Report from the USA says literally the exact opposite among many other things. Yet the inclusion of Nigerian officials opinions means that RAT members cannot be faulted for always concluding that State Protections in Nigeria are adequate.

speedboatchase

She's STILL here?! How much is it all costing us now :rolleyes:

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

AlekSmart

Last November Mr Justice John Hedigan found there was no reason to grant an injunction stopping the deportation. On the same day the ECHR requested the Irish Government not to proceed with it because it said it wanted to consider the woman’s arguments.

The Government agreed to the request.

Interesting that all of this occurred within the span of a single day.

What level of Governmental deliberation took place concerning this "Request" ?

I suppose we`ll have to leave it to our descendants to find out under the Thirty-Year rule in 2035 .

pepsicokeacola

ill be still alive

AlekSmart

WEll I hope you know your way around a Ouija Board so...cos I`d like to know what reasoning the Govt of the Day used in agreeing to defer the deportation.

FreedomJoe

Regardless of her outcome at the Irish court, she still has her impending case with the ECHR, and we all know the Irish government wont upset Europe!

So expect a prolonged indefinete delay in the ECHR hearing.

Expect it to be heard sometime around 2030.

AlekSmart

Hey Joe..... I thought we ALREADY had upset Europe or at least that part of it living around Lisbon !!!!

T runner

AlekSmart wrote: »

Interesting that all of this occurred within the span of a single day.

What level of Governmental deliberation took place concerning this "Request" ?

I suppose we`ll have to leave it to our descendants to find out under the Thirty-Year rule in 2035 .

I believe the ECHR were contacted previously to that day, by Amnesty.
The vast majority if not all European states would accede to a request by the ECHR. They are rightly giving the ECHR respect.

BTW, I think it was suggested that there was doubt or a difference of opinion over Elizabeths cause of death. Her COD has always being described as possibly by FGM. Maybe this was on the death cert and this is "how they do it" in Nigeria, who nows, but there is no doubt.

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It means that there enough positive evidence for him not to have enough reason to disagree. If those sources were not present it would not have been posssible to agree with the RAT. They effectively make all the difference.

But the judges weigh the evidence that is placed before them for consideration. That's all. They don't introduce additional evidence at their own discretion!

But thats the problem, they do! They introduce evidence to counter the appellants claim. They are supposed to judge and introduce relevant evidence to both sides if necessary the UNCHR are clear on this.

Introducing evidence only to defeat the claim turns the TRibunal member into 'counsel for the prosecution' and Judge.

But Ms Izevbekhai is now represented by a Senior Counsel with more than thirty years' experience at the bar. And the best he can come up with after 4 years is Amnesty International reports and emails from Irish journalists?

In the Judiciary you must show that there has been a change in the situation. This limits the possibilities somewhat.

For example, if the Human Rights abuses and Oil related Violence in Delta Provence and elsewhere had recently caused Nigeria to be viewed somewhat differently to what it had been, the counsel could argue Nigerias soverignty.
(The vast majority of Nigerias asylum seekers world wide are from this reason.
There was 10,000 displaced into Cameroon alone last year I believe. It should be noted also that Shell and a myriad of other US Oil companies are neck deep in the abuses in Delta State and have teh Nigerian Police at their beck and call to dole out 'State Protections'. It should also be noted that Nigeria are the 5th largest exporter of Oil to the US.)

Do you have proof that a court stenographer was not used by the Refugee Appeals Tribunal prior to 2003?

According to the Irish Refugee Counsel Report on the Appeals Tribunal (on their site) the Member took notes before then.

Don't you think that the applicant's credibility should be emphasized?

Here were the worries about the overuse of credibility expressed by the Legal representatives who answered a questionnaire on the appeals board:

More than 2/3 (68%) of representatives agreed with the statement that ‘In general, the issue of applicant’s credibility is overemphasized at the Hearing’. Some representatives considered that there was an over emphasis on dates, which are not as relevant in other cultures. In addition, several representatives also referred to their clients being repeatedly questioned about the method of travel to Ireland and the reason they chose this country to make their application for refugee status, in view of the fact that none of these issues are referred to legislation as being relevant to the claim.

A further difficulty referred to by some representatives with regard to the issue of credibility was that, if further information was provided by appellants at the hearing, or if they expanded on answers they have given in the questionnaire or at interview, they are accused of inconsistency and lack of credibility.

It was felt that by interrupting appellants while attempting to tell their story or answer a question posed by their representative, the Tribunal or the Presenting Officer may confuse appellants, especially those who may be particularly vulnerable. This, in turn leads to doubts over their credibility.

Yes, but legal precedent from the USA does not hold in Ireland.

Country of Origin Information from the US is admissable in an Irish Court.

ParkRunner

Yet another defeat for Pamela today in the High Court! She is also liable for the costs of the case

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Mena

As to the liability for costs, surely that's a waste of time? You can't get blood from a stone and it will end up costing us. the taxpayer either way.

ParkRunner

McGovern J. refused her case on all grounds and awarded costs against her. That's all I heard. The judgment should be online in a few days

dodgyme

Mena wrote: »

As to the liability for costs, surely that's a waste of time? You can't get blood from a stone and it will end up costing us. the taxpayer either way.

Probably - the usual story

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ParkRunner

It's a seperate case which has yet to be deemed admissable..it could take a few months, a year even

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

AlekSmart

That court has instructed the Government not to deport the family in the meantime.

Now is this a new slant on the ECHR issue....?

From past posts here I was inder the impression that the Government was acceeding to a REQUEST from the ECHR to refrain from a deportation.

Is the RTE description of an INSTRUCTION accurate ?

The issue of costs must surely now assume a greater significance as it would assume Ms Izevbekhai`s total bill as coming from the pot which feeds other,perhaps more deserving contestants ?

Whither stands the State on the respect of it`s own institutions and their judgements ?

In the meantime I would expect a media blitz of professional proportions to deflect people from reading through those 22 pages of reasoned arguement delivered today.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Big_Mac

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

tbh, I don't think it matters what the courts of Ireland say, or the ECHR for that matter, because if its not the news that they want to hear, they'll just appeal it. She tried, she lost, go home get over it. After all, its not like she is going to be the one who pays the bill for this.

gerryjc

Seems people are pretty passionate on this topic.
This thread has been going for a long time.

I tried to read as much as I could to get a full grasp of the facts, but to be honest it was tough going.

Some pig ignorant "rather them than us" remarks, but mostly a well informed and well written (if not a bit repetitive) argument from both sides.

It's fairly obvious though that some of the main contributors have deliberately distanced themselves from the human factors involved in this case.

Perhaps in their mind it absolves them from any guilt should this womans children be abused or killed if she does get deported.

As far as I can tell this womans motivation is the safety of her children.
As a parent of 2 small children I can relate to that, and I admit it is what swings me in the direction of the "Let them stay" camp.

I cannot see why anybody would fight to stay here for economic reasons given the black hole we have been driven into by a rudderless bunch of politicians who are rotten to the core.

If she is trying to integrate then I say let her stay.
My taxes are being wasted on far less worthy causes such as Mary Harneys beauty treatments (talk about pi**ing in the wind) or independent TDs expenses (which amount to more than a year of my salary).
Or even worse paying for food and board for the dirty little scumbags and their gang wars.

It's about time the people of this country started focusing on the enemies that lie within.

ShooterSF

First may I say I'm not trying to attack you here but just want to give some reasons why ywhat you suggest is not a good idea.

gerryjc wrote: »

Perhaps in their mind it absolves them from any guilt should this womans children be abused or killed if she does get deported.

Fair enough. Personally from what I've read about her I have no respect for her and care less what happens to her. Her kids on the other hand are unfortunate to be caught up in the situation. I feel sorry for them but we can't take children away from parents so they have to leave with her. They are not a bargaining chip for to get one over the country.

As far as I can tell this womans motivation is the safety of her children.
As a parent of 2 small children I can relate to that, and I admit it is what swings me in the direction of the "Let them stay" camp.

I cannot see why anybody would fight to stay here for economic reasons given the black hole we have been driven into by a rudderless bunch of politicians who are rotten to the core.

Are you sure? Really? Would you have any objection to going to Nigeria to live and work instead of Ireland then? It might not be a great place but I can tell you economic reasons come into. Why didn't she head for Egypt, South Africa, Sudan,Ethopia etc. if it was not for economic reasons. I accept the law is on her side here (Something I'd support being changed but know it's not to be debated in here )
As I said you really can't believe that claim you made, surely?

If she is trying to integrate then I say let her stay.
My taxes are being wasted on far less worthy causes such as Mary Harneys beauty treatments (talk about pi**ing in the wind) or independent TDs expenses (which amount to more than a year of my salary).
Or even worse paying for food and board for the dirty little scumbags and their gang wars.

It's about time the people of this country started focusing on the enemies that lie within.

Fair enough. Then we might as well say O.K anyone that can get here from Nigeria and is willing to integrate, come on over. A wonderful idea in a fantasy world but think of the repercussions of such an act.
Anywho I just thought I'd give you an opposite view without yelling Dey tuck our jobs.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Big_Mac

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Give me strength! So when she loses her supreme court challenge, what next? Run for office and get the job as miniter for justice so she can overturn her own decision?

How much is this going to cost us now?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

mountainyman

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I agree donegal fella and it is unclear to me why so many on the left fall over themselves to help the most able africans to join a comprador class rather than remaining at home where they would be most use.

Further I understand that the husband is in Europe and that she is in contact with him.

gnxx

Please don't suggest that the money spent on this case would have gone to charity. We all know that this isn't true.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.