Pamela Izevbekhai - Should She Be Deported?

annam

What appears to be interesting here, is 'Mr Donegal 2009' is more concerned with the legal precedent that this case could set and not so much whether she has a good enough argument.

Can you imagine Mr Donegal and all his cronies faces when the legal precedent IS set and all the Nigerians appear in the Irish waters in boats all 150 million of them.....

That would be priceless, then Mr Donegal would be looking for asylum in Australia or Somwhere of the sort.......

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

annam

I was only teasing btw, before you get on your high horse Mr Donegal....

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Ronan|Raven

How much longer is this nonsense of her claims going to be allowed to be dragged through every court in the land? I wonder after/if she looses the supreme court hearing and the European one will she finally then accept the rulings?

Big_Mac

Ronan|Raven wrote: »

How much longer is this nonsense of her claims going to be allowed to be dragged through every court in the land? I wonder after/if she looses the supreme court hearing and the European one will she finally then accept the rulings?

Doubt it if the history of this is anything to go by. I wonder would the let her stay brigade be happy then, when a mockery has been made of all of our judicial and legal systems and we have to foot the bill.

T runner wrote: »

Nope, that will be her children if we deport them to the "protection" of the Nigerian police and courts.

Did Ronald MacDonald tell you that one too?

T runner, if you want to make a point, do it without petty insults.

Mena

Big_Mac wrote: »

Doubt it if the history of this is anything to go by. I wonder would the let her stay brigade be happy then, when a mockery has been made of all of our judicial and legal systems and we have to foot the bill.

I'll be honest and say that I have not followed her case that closely but from what I can tell (and please feel free to correct me), she is simply going through all the legal avenues at her disposal. So as opposed to making a mockery of the legal system, it's actually showing us that it's working for the common "man".

As to the bill, I have an issue there too.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

annam

Anyways,
Donegalfella

Hows about we suggest cutting your male genitalia off, and the male genitalia of your sons (which you doubt you have)!!!!!

Then tell us how you feel about the situation??

you up for that ???

Sizzler

T runner wrote: »

Is this the kind of "rational argument" you give the thumbs up to Donegalfella?

Oh yeah, good one Sizzler-ya got me!

It wasnt an argument, it was a statement

T runner wrote: »

You also knew of a lawyer who swore shed be gone before christmas! Maybe advise your pilot not to fly near large cities or to park his plane into mountains.

Classy. So thats a "rational argument" is it?

annam wrote: »

What appears to be interesting here, is 'Mr Donegal 2009' is more concerned with the legal precedent that this case could set and not so much whether she has a good enough argument.

Can you imagine Mr Donegal and all his cronies faces when the legal precedent IS set and all the Nigerians appear in the Irish waters in boats all 150 million of them.....

That would be priceless, then Mr Donegal would be looking for asylum in Australia or Somwhere of the sort.......

Your consideration for Pamela et al is admirable but I am afraid asylum cases can not be solely based each time on a "good enough argument", do you remember our Nigerian friend Kunle? He had a great argument didnt he? He wanted to complete his leaving cert.....he did and flunked it, got a local bird up the duff and was arrested for driving for no insurance etc. A great human interest case at the time and he was treated like a hero and the Irish public were treated like eejits.

Sizzler

annam wrote: »

Anyways,
Donegalfella

Hows about we suggest cutting your male genitalia off, and the male genitalia of your sons (which you doubt you have)!!!!!

Then tell us how you feel about the situation??

you up for that ???

Solid argument. And the GM enforcement unit would no doubt hunt donegalfella down untill they got their man Im sure as they have nothing better to do :rolleyes:

oscarBravo

For a while, this was looking like a grown-up discussion. It would be nice if it could go back to being one.

Everyone: before you type a snide remark or childish retort, think twice. Then don't do it.

annam

ah sizzler can we do you too??

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

GuanYin

I don't think ANYONE here endorses FGM. I don't want to see anyone making those kind of childish accusations again.

If you can't debate the topics, don't debate.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well here is a point though. She is entitled to challenge the authority of the courts. She's doing it the right way and maybe the wrong way, but she's doing what anyone who was desperate to avoid deportation would do.

Maybe she is a con artist who is really pushing things to extremes or maybe she is genuine and just desperate.

Either way, she's entitled to fight her corner. We may not like it, we may not agree with it but those views will mostly be governed by our view on her case, not our view on her right to fight her case, alas.

She will eventually succeed or exhaust her options, in which case the immigration system in Ireland may have improved from the whole scenario.

Big_Mac

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

To top this all off we have the media campaign and the 'let her stay' brigade' which does nothing but purport propaganda about how nice she is and how sad this all is and how there is a Guestappo waiting at the airport for her in Nigeria. (Yes, I am exaggerating, but to make my point)

Thankfully the members of our courts are not elected through a popularity campaign like the local and governmental elections. The Minister was a candidate for getting pressurised by the media and general opinion, but thankfully he made the right decision. At least the legal system look at the facts of the case. Which, I would add they have done so numerous times, but still she won't listen. What's the point of taking this to the high court just to ignore their ruling and keep going?

Would one be so agreeable to this if it was a murder suspect who tried to appeal their case to the Supreme Court?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ShooterSF

Can anyone tell me who is footing the bill for her stay while the E.U decide her case? The Irish courts have decided she has no right to stay, I don't think the Irish taxpayers should continue paying her maintenance while the E.U makes it's decision so.

Also having read through the last few pages since my last post I agree with pretty much everything Donegalfella said. The real loss here if she get's to stay by the minister for justice caving is that our courts of law can now be by-passed by a pull on the heart strings pr stunt. I wonder would there be support to setup a group to voice the other side to this argument and god-forbid even show support for a FF government as much as that would hurt.

jmcc

GuanYin wrote: »

Well here is a point though. She is entitled to challenge the authority of the courts.

Even with my limited knowledge of Irish Law, I think that you are wrong. She may be entitled to challenge a ruling of an Irish court in an appeal. And it appears that she is doing so ad nauseum.

Regards...jmcc

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Several Times, I explained the case where the Refugee Appeals Tribunal spent most of the hearing arguing with and confronting the appellant about "State Laws" against FGM in Delta state (The applicant claimed there was no laws the Tribunal member insisted the opposite. In fact there was actually no Laws against FGM in Delta state!

The applicant clearly did not get a fair hearing and the High Court should have made an order of Centiori to quash the case. It didnt.

The truth is if you dont get your asylum in the RAT you wont get it. Your best bet is to start a campaign like Pamela and try and persuade the minister. Thats a fact.

donegalfella wrote: »

Actually, no—I'm concerned that this case follow the legal precedent that has already been set. Izevbekhai is not the first Nigerian to arrive in Ireland, daughter(s) in tow, to claim state protection from female genital mutilation. As far as the courts are concerned, Izevbekhai's case is no different from those of other applicants who have been refused refugee status on similar grounds.

Yes and thats the problem. The RAT assumes state protections in Nigeria to be adequate (they are FAR from it). The high courts dont overrule the RATs verdict, so the only chance is the minister.

If Izevbekhai has a good enough legal argument to win her case, then good for her. However, Izevbekhai's efforts extend far beyond her fruitless attempt to win asylum by legal means. Under the banner of the "Let Them Stay!" campaign, she has recruited Fine Gael and Labour politicians, journalists, a prominent novelist, a former president, and members of the public to rally behind her in a political crusade. Her goal to pressure the Minister into granting her discretionary subsidiary protection, regardless of the courts' decisions. That is not how this case should be decided.

Then your problem is with the asylum system. Because if you lose in the RAT changing the Ministers mind is your only hope. If she wants to protect her children she is going about it the only way she can. The structure and deficiencies of the asylum system means that the best chance of success for asylum seekers is thw path we are witnessing.

Through her political campaigning, Izevbekhai is making a joke of our courts, and a laughing stock of our asylum system. This case will end with her rightful deportation to her home country—at this stage, the only question is when.

She is not making a laughing stock of the asylum system, she is showing us all that it is already a laughing stock.

You have a High Court who never overturn decisions by the RAT because they are expert. The RAT infact is made up of members who are inexperienced in Refugee Law whose inconsistencies go unnoticed and unpunished. Each hearing has only one member. In Ireland the hearing is supposed to be inquisatorial yet most of the hearings are adversarial.
The RAT accepts a precedent which means that if a country is sovereign it assumes it can protect its citizens.
But There has never been a conviction under anti FGM Laws in Nigeria.
The Police wont respond if you ring claiming your daughter is being kidnapped for FGM. Where is the protection?
And the Irish courts heartily endorse this RATs every decision.

The Irish Asylum System IS A JOKE.

donegalfella wrote: »

I have been arguing in this thread that Izevbekhai's asylum application should be decided by the courts, according to established legal precedent. It is not up to Fine Gael, Labour, Roddy Doyle, T runner, or the general public to decide whether Izevbekhai merits the protection of the Irish state. The courts have consistently ruled against her over the past three years, just as they have ruled against analogous applicants. Absent a sudden legal turnaround, which I don't think will happen, the courts will continue to rule against her. And Izevbekhai should not be trying to undermine the authority of the courts with her own public relations campaigning.

And are we not allowed to question the courts in this country? When the courts say Nigeria has state protections when it clearly hasnt, cant we try and ascertain why the courts are saying something which is so patently not true?
You even dont believe protections are adequate and are therefore in disagreement with the Irish courts.

donegalfella wrote: »

Well, Pamela Izevbekhai knows that the Minister is empowered, at his discretion, to grant subsidiary protection to her and her daughters—regardless of what the courts decide. So she is now trying to use that approach as an end-run around the legal battle she has been fighting for the past three years. But this approach only turns asylum cases into media circuses—with campaign websites, petitions, statements from novelists, letters to the editor, civic receptions, competing political agendas, etc., all involved to pressure the Minister into making a choice according to populist demand.

You might disagree with me—but my argument is that this kind of approach does not benefit justice, and it does not benefit the integrity of our asylum system. It sends the message that the asylum applicants who will succeed in our country are those who are the most popular, the most charming, and the most talented at public relations—but not necessarily the most deserving. I don't think that should be the case!

I believe the point was that she has been entitled to every case she has been in. You dont get to go to the high court unless you have a chance of success, and no its not her lawyers who decide this it is the courts.

If the Irish Asylum system is so poor that the only way to reverse a decision of the RAT is to persuade the minister, then this needs to be addressed by legislation. Highlighting this is not making the asylum system weaker than it was: it is potentially making it stronger.

ParkRunner

The asylum system is not ideal but when the new Bill becomes enacted things will move a lot faster and we wont, fingers crossed, have asylum seekers waiting years before they finally get their cases decided.

Pamela has had her case analysed at ORAC, RAT, at leave to remain stage, at Regulation 4(2) Subsidiary Protection stage and in several judicial review challenges, with more court hearings to come. She has lost at every stage despite being represented by top barristers and having her case highlighted in the media so it's fair to say that her case has been analysed exhaustively and she has been given a fair chance to have her case heard.

She has rights, but the State also has rights to have regard to the integrity of the asylum system, however inadequate it currently is and to the control of non-nationals entering and exiting the State.

Also, many others have been through the asylum system only recently with similar claims that their children will suffer FGM and have been unsuccessful..without an eyebrow raised from the media, amnesty and the many concerned parties highlighting Pamela's case. Why is that?

wannabparamedic

if we let her stay than other people like her can use the same excuse then we would look hypocritical

AlekSmart

Also, many others have been through the asylum system only recently with similar claims that their children will suffer FGM and have been unsuccessful..without an eyebrow raised from the media, amnesty and the many concerned parties highlighting Pamela's case. Why is that?

A very good point and one which may not be easily answered.

There is a somewhat noticable air of personal disrespect for Ms Izevbekhai creeping into the debate and I believe it does nothing for reasoned debate in the matter.

I do not know Ms Izevbekhai personally nor do I need to in order to formulate and hold the opinions I have on her situation and ongoing case.

However I am also beginning to formulate an opinion that Ms Izevbekhai has long ceased to be the driving force behind these extended proceedings.
I now believe that her case has been taken over by a grouping of individuals who have several axes to grind with the State as an entity in itself.

I believe that these individuals and bodies actually represent more of a threat to Pamela Izevbekhai`s wellbeing than the percieved threats supposedly awaiting her and her family back in Nigeria.

There is also a niggling doubt in my mind concerning the actual veracity of her claims relating to her family situation in Nigeria.

The extent of her obfuscation at the earliest stages of her case against Ireland gives me cause to question the plausibility of her story to date.

It would appear that the details which she provided at the outset have thus far NOT been verified save for supportive accounts from her supporters whose actual knowledge of Ms Izevbekhai`s circumstances in Nigeria are based totally on what she herself has told them

I think also it must be worthwhile recording my personal gratitude to those members of the Garda National Immigration Bureau and the various Government Departments who have had a thankless task in attempting to enforce the laws of the land in the face of often personalized attempts to portray them as some form of devils incarnate.

GuanYin

AlekSmart wrote: »

There is a somewhat noticable air of personal disrespect for Ms Izevbekhai creeping into the debate and I believe it does nothing for reasoned debate in the matter.
..........
There is also a niggling doubt in my mind concerning the actual veracity of her claims relating to her family situation in Nigeria.

The extent of her obfuscation at the earliest stages of her case against Ireland gives me cause to question the plausibility of her story to date.

It would appear that the details which she provided at the outset have thus far NOT been verified save for supportive accounts from her supporters whose actual knowledge of Ms Izevbekhai`s circumstances in Nigeria are based totally on what she herself has told them

Am I misreading this or did you claim there shouldn't be disrespect towards her and then go on to imply she's a liar?

Surely the veracity of her story is for the supreme courts to decide.

Pub07

Shure every female child in Nigeria must be in the same situation as the children in this case...if the mother is to believed, which I dont think she is. Are we supposed to let everyone single nigerian family that contains a girl under 13 into the country? It would be complete open season.

AlekSmart

Am I misreading this or did you claim there shouldn't be disrespect towards her and then go on to imply she's a liar?

I suppose it`s one way of looking at it ?

However I can disbelieve her account without necesarily being offensive or personally disrespectful to her.

Remember our former Taoiseach is quite generally regarded a nice lad whom one would have a pint with....but would you believe a word that came from his mouth...????

As for the Courts deciding on her (or His !) veracity,that is exactly what has been occurring with a rather incredible commonality of result.

T runner

Pub07 wrote: »

Shure every female child in Nigeria must be in the same situation as the children in this case...if the mother is to believed, which I dont think she is. Are we supposed to let everyone single nigerian family that contains a girl under 13 into the country? It would be complete open season.

If youd bothere to read through the thread you would know that there is a precedent for FGM. In 2005 the seminal Fornah case allowed a girl asylum statuus for fear of FGM.
Since then in the UK there has been one case granted for this one refused and one on appeal.. I. e No Floodgates will open. Can people stop using this red herring scare mongering emotive argument please?

T runner

EF wrote: »

The asylum system is not ideal but when the new Bill becomes enacted things will move a lot faster and we wont, fingers crossed, have asylum seekers waiting years before they finally get their cases decided.

Pamela has had her case analysed at ORAC, RAT, at leave to remain stage, at Regulation 4(2) Subsidiary Protection stage and in several judicial review challenges, with more court hearings to come. She has lost at every stage despite being represented by top barristers and having her case highlighted in the media so it's fair to say that her case has been analysed exhaustively and she has been given a fair chance to have her case heard.

She has rights, but the State also has rights to have regard to the integrity of the asylum system, however inadequate it currently is and to the control of non-nationals entering and exiting the State.

Also, many others have been through the asylum system only recently with similar claims that their children will suffer FGM and have been unsuccessful..without an eyebrow raised from the media, amnesty and the many concerned parties highlighting Pamela's case. Why is that?

I dont think it will correct the fundamental flaw of a non expert body (RAT) being treated as experts by the courts and the subsequent dire results for all to see.

ParkRunner

I think the courts have shown that they are more than willing to uphold the rights of people in the State e.g. serious criminals who have had their sentences reduced due to the weight which the court attaches to their constitutional rights. While Pamela and her children would not have constitutional rights in the State, I think it is worthwhile noting that the courts will overturn a ruling or a sentence where a persons rights may be violated. Her case has been fully considered under the European Convention on Human Rights
Pamela's case is now being prioritised in the ECHR so a ruling should be made on the admisssbility of her case by the summer!

AlekSmart

I dont think it will correct the fundamental flaw of a non expert body (RAT) being treated as experts by the courts and the subsequent dire results for all to see.

That description of the results is of course one held by T-Runner and others supportive of the Izevbekhai case and it`s hoped for implications generally.

Speaking for myself I remain quite satisfied with the current Safeguards offered by the RAT and the very clear Public and Judicial monitoring of its decisions.

That said,I am hopeful that the New Improved methodology to be introduced will even further reduce the incidences of system manipulation which have been so successfully employed thus far.