Pamela Izevbekhai - Should She Be Deported?

ParkRunner

I think things are getting a bit mixed up here. The Minister has discretion to grant permission to remain in the State. If someone qualifies for Subsidiary Protection the Minister must grant them Subsidiary Protection and this person cannot be deported.

The subsidiary protection Regulations came into force in October 2006 so anyone who is told that the Minister is considering making a deportation order against since then them can apply for permission to remain and/or subsidiary protection.

People who had a deportation order made against them before the subsidiary protection regulations came into force (October 2006) may apply to the Minister to use his discretion to consider an application for subsidiary protection. The Minister will then look at the application for SP and consider if there is anything new or different in the representations or in the country of origin information, which is different to what he considered when he signed the deportation order.

In Pamela's case her deportation order was signed before the regulations came into force. She made an application for SP and the Minister decided not to consider the application as the material submitted was not different to what he previously considered when the Deportation Order was signed. Pamela challenged this decision of the Minister (as she had also done challenging the Minister's first decision to sign the order) not to consider the application for SP and the High Court upheld the Ministers decision, i.e. there was nothing really new in the information submitted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ParkRunner

For further info read this judgment:

http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/bce24a8184816f1580256ef30048ca50/75aa40c53d39ef2e802573ad0052cea5?OpenDocument

HollyB

EF wrote: »

I think things are getting a bit mixed up here. The Minister has discretion to grant permission to remain in the State. If someone qualifies for Subsidiary Protection the Minister must grant them Subsidiary Protection and this person cannot be deported.

So there are three ways for an asylum seeker to legally get permission to remain; they are found to merit refugee status, they are found to merit subsidiary protection or the Minister gives them special permission to stay even though they qualify for neither refugee status nor subsidiary protection?

I'd say that the media campaigns are targetted at the last option; when they don't succeed through the proper channels, argue that it's a "special case" and deserves to be treated differently and hope to get enough people on board with the campaign to pressure the Minister into granting leave to remain.

ParkRunner

HollyB wrote: »

So there are three ways for an asylum seeker to legally get permission to remain; they are found to merit refugee status, they are found to merit subsidiary protection or the Minister gives them special permission to stay even though they qualify for neither refugee status nor subsidiary protection?

I'd say that the media campaigns are targetted at the last option; when they don't succeed through the proper channels, argue that it's a "special case" and deserves to be treated differently and hope to get enough people on board with the campaign to pressure the Minister into granting leave to remain.

That's exactly it. Pamela has been refused refugee status and the Minister did not consider her SP application as she did not submit anything materially different from the information considered when the DO was signed. The Minister has already refused her permission to remain also. The only thing stopping her deportation is the promise given by the government not to deport her until the ECHR challenge is heard.

The Minister could still grant her permission to remain hence the huge campaign to try to force the Minister's hand on this. I admire her ability to gain such widespread support and have her case highlighted in the national media but the Minister has already considered every application put before him in this case, refused them and his decisions have been upheld in the Court. Personally I dont think she has a hope in the Supreme Court or the ECHR but the more time she spends in the State the more time she has to whip up the campaign to force the Minister on the issue of permission to remain. I dont see why the Minister would grant her permission to remain at this stage having had her case considered thoroughly in accordance with the law and challenged unsuccessfully in court.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

HollyB

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Good for him. I think that it was a big mistake for McDowell to give into pressure to let Kunle Eluhanla return.

Orizio

Human life and dignity comes before all else. Sending her children back to the barbaric practices of female mutilation is not acceptable for a civilised and liberal nation, if thats what we wish to be. This 'its their problem not ours' thinking is not only petty but irrational, the kind of worthless logic that plagued humanity throughout the 20th century and before.

A far more rational approach would be to find some sort of common ground, leave her and her children here and review her case in the future, looking most particurly at her and her families progress (finding a job, how the children go in school). The state's immigration policy shouldn't deal in absolutes, it should be flexible enough to deal every case by merit.

anladmór

Orizio, excellently said, particulary the part about the children.

ParkRunner

That was a very well written letter in the Indo have to say. I couldnt agree more. And the floodgates argument does hold some sway. Under the IBC '05 scheme some 17,917 applications were received of which a total of 16,984 applicants were granted permission to remain!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ParkRunner

Orizio wrote: »

Human life and dignity comes before all else. Sending her children back to the barbaric practices of female mutilation is not acceptable for a civilised and liberal nation, if thats what we wish to be. This 'its their problem not ours' thinking is not only petty but irrational, the kind of worthless logic that plagued humanity throughout the 20th century and before.

A far more rational approach would be to find some sort of common ground, leave her and her children here and review her case in the future, looking most particurly at her and her families progress (finding a job, how the children go in school). The state's immigration policy shouldn't deal in absolutes, it should be flexible enough to deal every case by merit.

A far more sensible approach would be to uphold the laws of the land and not discriminate in her favour and against all the others who have the exact same fears. Her case was thoroughly considered on its merits and rejected at all levels.

Big_Mac

T runner wrote: »

The post was do YOU think she should be deported. Ive no problem with Blackbests answer. He told the truth and didnt try to bull**** which some of the posters who slammed him should note. His post was reasonable and understandable in the context of someone who knows her.

Yipee, we are going back to the 'She's nice, so let her stay' arguement

I wonder how much Simon Cowell could make on this in text votes.... Maybe we could use these profits to pay her legal bills.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

+1. Here here.

Orizio wrote: »

Human life and dignity comes before all else. Sending her children back to the barbaric practices of female mutilation is not acceptable for a civilised and liberal nation, if thats what we wish to be. This 'its their problem not ours' thinking is not only petty but irrational, the kind of worthless logic that plagued humanity throughout the 20th century and before.

A far more rational approach would be to find some sort of common ground, leave her and her children here and review her case in the future, looking most particurly at her and her families progress (finding a job, how the children go in school). The state's immigration policy shouldn't deal in absolutes, it should be flexible enough to deal every case by merit.

Again, the courts of Ireland have found that there are adequate protections within her home country

Sizzler

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

James Kennedy, Ardfert, Co.Kerry.

You sir are a legend, take a bow son.

AlekSmart

James Kennedy from Ardfert has been a regular contributor to the print media for some time now.

He has a gift for....hmmm..."directness" which immediately places him at odds with our native liking for a bit of guile or "blàs" within which our true opinions can be hidden.

I have seen many responses to his letters over the years and most of them write him down as a reactionary right wing looney etc etc.

However,all that aside I usually find a he displays a solid grasp of what "de peeple is thinkin Boss"...a là the late Eamon DeVelera.


Modern Ireland is a strange place indeed wherein reside folk who refrain from direct speaking and like listening to it even less.

The state's immigration policy shouldn't deal in absolutes, it should be flexible enough to deal every case by merit.

I believe that having a "Policy" on any given issue is dependent upon knowing the absolutes within which that "Policy" can then operate.

In the Izevbekhai case the Irish Asylum/Legal systems are proving beyond any doubt that "Flexibility" is now their mainstay whether or not that is to the benefit of the greater good or not.

As HollyB points out..

I'd say that the media campaigns are targetted at the last option; when they don't succeed through the proper channels, argue that it's a "special case" and deserves to be treated differently and hope to get enough people on board with the campaign to pressure the Minister into granting leave to remain.

The fact that virtually the entire Irish Lawful Process conducted with the utmost due diligence has singluarly failed to find sustainable merit in Ms Izevbekhai`s case is most likely understood by the main movers of the "Let Them Stay" campaign.

However,as befits a highly motivated grouping who appear to have some grounding in the media and PR field,they recognize the essential weak link in the Irish administrative chain.....The professional Politician...I expect the LTS campaign to ramp up its operations in the near future with the focus being directed towards the Minister for Justice himself.

Arcane,dull lengthy Legal Judgements do not sell newspapers or increase viewer/listener figures but well orchestrated and hi-viz Photo-Op`s most certainly do !

T runner

Sizzler wrote: »

James Kennedy, Ardfert, Co.Kerry.

You sir are a legend, take a bow son.

I think the asylum system in Ireland can benefit from debate but it needs to be kept honest. Letting idiots like this onto the letters page of a National Newspaper doesn't help anything. Although I'm not surprised: they have somebody with the integrity of Tom Brady as their security editor.

From the article:

The two most common excuses are "female genital mutilation" and "voodoo curses". Both these reasons have been fully considered by the Irish courts and have been dismissed as legitimate reasons to be granted refugee status here.

That is false. FGM is considered a legitimate reason for asylum by the Irish Courts and has been for some time. To say it has been "legitimately dismissed" is just a bald faced lie.

If we accept that female genital mutilation is a genuine reason for granting asylum in Ireland, then we will open up the floodgates for thousands of other women and children from Nigeria (and other African countries) coming here to escape this practice.

Em, it already is a genuine reason for granting asylum and the floodgates havent opened. Also the seminal Fornah case in the UK (a girl was given asylum for fear of persecution through FGM) has shown that the floodgates will not open (1 asylum grantd in 3 years).

The other question I would like to ask about this particular case is, why did they come to Ireland in the first place?

Absolutely no relevance to eithet the irish courts and shouldnt be to the RAT although it is often brought up (grounds for Judicial review without doubt)

Pamela Izevbekhai and her family have already cost Irish taxpayers tens of thousands of euro, supporting her and her family and also footing the bill for her numerous legal challenges.

She is entitled to every 19 Euro per week she got and she has grounds for every case she has made in her efforts to get asylum for her family.

T runner

opo wrote: »

T runner wrote: »

I couldnt give a rats what Brady said about bogus asylum seekers. I was specifically referring to the fact of 1000 cases for judicial review and I have made a number of points regarding the massive increase in court cases associated with claims for asylum.

(Not too worried what you give a rats about.)The point is that your 1000 figure is incorrect. The bogus asylum seeker comment should have alerted you to examine everything he said.

You on the other hand seem to regard this as vindication of your theory that the RAT is flawed when it does no such thing for one simple reason; the overwhelming majority of these cases fail.

If the cases are failing then why is the RATs handling of them open to judicial review. Apparently the RAT has tried to tighten up in recent years. Look at EFs post as you were asked.

Judicial review lists in this country are now dominated by asylum and immigration cases - of which only the smallest percentage manage to establish an arguable case.

But the cases are substantive enough for the high court to consider hearing them indicating error at the RAT level.

My point remains that the courts - at judicial review stage - have now become a third layer in an already exhaustive and badly abused process.

Again the courts will only hear reviews if there is "substantive reason". The RAT's unexpert handling of these cases has left it open to claim it acted unlawfully.

Ms Izevbekhai's case - now in it's seventh layer of appeal and fourth year - simply underscores the neccessity to curb abuse of the legal system and terminate processing of dubious claims at some reasonable stage - preferably before they even enter what is clearly a broken system.

The system was broken by the architecture and expertise of the RAT.

Now - can you point to a single case where an individual was returned to Nigeria and FGM performed, or not, because really, that would be of more interest to me than your circular arguments and nitpicking.

I should be able to find something one way or the other. Part of a repatriation agreement between Nigeria in Ireland in 2001 was
"to safeguarding the human rights and dignity of those being returned when repatriation has taken place;".

Unfortunately this side of our "agreement" hasn't taken place. The money which has been handed over to Nigerian Officials to help returnees hasnt made it to them and the government as failed in their obligations re. their human rights.

A clue as to what might happen them is in the following report
“West African Review (2003) Corruption and Human Trafficking: the Nigerian Case”, which refers corruption of Nigerian police and that returnees had been detained by that force and been subject to extortion.

The moneys are in effect payment for keeping Nigeria collecting the returnees. (How could we claim state protections are inadequate?). What happens after that is of no concern to the Irish government. Its agreement means only slightly more than Nigerias FGM laws.


The returnees whose human rights were in danger of violation will have them violated.

I will look but youll appreciate that the source we should look to for information on the the welfare of returnees from Ireland is not there.

ParkRunner

T runner wrote: »

opo wrote: »

(Not too worried what you give a rats about.)The point is that your 1000 figure is incorrect. The bogus asylum seeker comment should have alerted you to examine everything he said.


.

Please see post #1314. It seems Mr. Brady was correct afterall!

Also see post #1315. I think Mr.Kennedy made much more thoughtful and comprehensive comments compared to this lady in the letters page

ParkRunner

T runner wrote: »

She is entitled to every 19 Euro per week she got and she has grounds for every case she has made in her efforts to get asylum for her family.

She may have some kind of grounds but the courts decided that they weren't substantial enough. It is incredible that €19 euro a week can cover the basic necessities and a few high court cases thrown in every few months.

opo

T runner wrote: »

opo wrote: »

(Not too worried what you give a rats about.)The point is that your 1000 figure is incorrect. The bogus asylum seeker comment should have alerted you to examine everything he said.



If the cases are failing then why is the RATs handling of them open to judicial review. Apparently the RAT has tried to tighten up in recent years. Look at EFs post as you were asked.



But the cases are substantive enough for the high court to consider hearing them indicating error at the RAT level.

Again the courts will only hear reviews if there is "substantive reason". The RAT's unexpert handling of these cases has left it open to claim it acted unlawfully.



The system was broken by the architecture and expertise of the RAT.



I should be able to find something one way or the other. Part of a repatriation agreement between Nigeria in Ireland in 2001 was
"to safeguarding the human rights and dignity of those being returned when repatriation has taken place;".

Unfortunately this side of our "agreement" hasn't taken place. The money which has been handed over to Nigerian Officials to help returnees hasnt made it to them and the government as failed in their obligations re. their human rights.

A clue as to what might happen them is in the following report
“West African Review (2003) Corruption and Human Trafficking: the Nigerian Case”, which refers corruption of Nigerian police and that returnees had been detained by that force and been subject to extortion.

The moneys are in effect payment for keeping Nigeria collecting the returnees. (How could we claim state protections are inadequate?). What happens after that is of no concern to the Irish government. Its agreement means only slightly more than Nigerias FGM laws.


The returnees whose human rights were in danger of violation will have them violated.

I will look but youll appreciate that the source we should look to for information on the the welfare of returnees from Ireland is not there.

Try drop your obsession with Brady when responding to me. I am not even remotely interested in your personal issues there. If my figure for 1000 cases is incorrect then at least do me the courtesy of correcting it with an appropriate link.

Also, brush up on your knowledge of the legal system. Judicial review cases can be brought about for any reason. If you know of a process that prevents or pre-screens this, in the first instance, then please inform me and please give me a single example.

Also, please explain how this mysterious procedure is so completely ineffective in allowing so many cases to proceed that ultimately fail.

I accept that the RAT has probably become increasingly more concious of the explosion of judicial review cases taken and the anger and annoyance that this is bound to cause those, footing the bill, and has responded in a manner to try minimise such rampant abuse - albeit failing.

I accept this in the context that you are trying to avoid. That of a legal circus, wining and dining on thousands of risk free cases.

The rest of your post is the usual mixture of blather and red herring, so please excuse me for sticking to my points.

Please afford me the courtesy of responding exclusively to those points that I have raised with you or don't bother at all.

And I am still waiting for an example of a failed asylum seeker - returned to Nigeria - or anywhere else - who had forced FGM performed on their person.

And for your information - we have deported plenty of Nigerians and others, who have claimed such a fate - as have plenty of other countries - so you should have no difficulty in proving this point alone.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

HollyB

T runner wrote: »

Letting idiots like this onto the letters page of a National Newspaper doesn't help anything.

I would guess that the papers receive many letters, and probably more than a few of them about this case. Why shouldn't they print differing opinions instead of focusing exclusively on either side?

T runner

opo wrote: »

Try drop your obsession with Brady when responding to me. I am not even remotely interested in your personal issues there. If my figure for 1000 cases is incorrect then do me the courtesy of correcting it with an appropriate link.

You correct it you introduced the bogus article.

Also, brush up on your knowledge of the legal system. Judicial review cases can be brought for any reason. If you know of a process that prevents or pre-screens this then please inform me and give a single example where a judicial review was blocked in the manner you have suggested.

Wasting our time again. Please read previous posts:

The Supreme Court has held that:

“As regards the requirement that an Applicant for leave to issue judicial review proceedings establish ‘substantial grounds’ that an administrative decision is invalid or ought to be quashed, this is not an unduly onerous requirement since the High Court must decline leave only where it is satisfied that the application could not succeed or where the grounds relied on are not reasonable or are ‘trivial or tenuous”.



Section 5 of the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act, 2000 provides that, inter alia,

(i) a decision of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal under Section 16 (as amended by Section 11(1)(K) of the Immigration Act, 1999 of the Refugee Act, 1996.
(k) a determination of the Commissioner or a decision of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal under Section 22 (as amended by Section 11(1)(p) of the Immigration Act, 1999) of the Refugee Act, 1996

…can only be challenged by way of judicial review.

Have you got it now? The high court decides, as stated by the Supreme court.

I accept that the RAT has probably become increasingly more concious of the explosion of judicial review cases taken and the anger and annoyance that this is bound to cause those footing the bill and has responded in a manner to try prevent such rampant abuse.

So it has stopped acting in a way that gave the high court reason to believe a "substantial" case for the RAT acting unlawfully? In an expert body which adjudicates with peoples lives you may have expected this attitude from the start, No?

The rest of your post is the usual mixture of blather and red herring, so excuse me for sticking to my points.

Im sorry, but I have consistently backed up my posts on this thread often with Country of Origin evidence admissable in Court. You either dont back up your arguments or do so with evidence with Tom Brady articles from the Indo.

Please afford me the courtesy of responding exclusively to those points that I have raised with you or don't bother at all.

A tad hypocritical coming from someone who doesn't respond to mine but you may get your wish. Youll get your wish if you keep that up.

And I am still waiting for an example of a failed asylum seeker - returned to Nigeria - who had forced FGM performed on their person.

And for your information - we have deported plenty who have claimed so.

As ive explained in the last post (and you ignored) the source for this information is not doing its job so its difficult to information (either way). If you have a source for your implication that no person has returned to FGM then lets have it.

I have quoted a report which shows what may happen to returned deportees but you seem to have dismissed this also.

A question for you.

The Irish courts hold that state protections in Nigeria are adequate against FGM.
This is central to the courts assertion that the girls in this case will be "safe" when they return to Nigeria.
Do you believe that in reality protections are adequate there?

T runner

HollyB wrote: »

I would guess that the papers receive many letters, and probably more than a few of them about this case. Why shouldn't they print differing opinions instead of focusing exclusively on either side?

I didnt say they shouldnt print letters from either side I just said they shouldnt print idiotic letters (from either side).

His main premise is that FGM (like Voodoo!) is not a basis for asylum. That alone should have had it consigned to the dustbin.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

opo

T runner wrote: »

You correct it you introduced the bogus article.



Wasting our time again. Please read previous posts:



Have you got it now? The high court decides, as stated by the Supreme court.



So it has stopped acting in a way that gave the high court reason to believe a "substantial" case for the RAT acting unlawfully? In an expert body which adjudicates with peoples lives you may have expected this attitude from the start, No?



Im sorry, but I have consistently backed up my posts on this thread often with Country of Origin evidence admissable in Court. You either dont back up your arguments or do so with evidence with Tom Brady articles from the Indo.



A tad hypocritical coming from someone who doesn't respond to mine but you may get your wish. Youll get your wish if you keep that up.



As ive explained in the last post (and you ignored) the source for this information is not doing its job so its difficult to information (either way). If you have a source for your implication that no person has returned to FGM then lets have it.

I have quoted a report which shows what may happen to returned deportees but you seem to have dismissed this also.

A question for you.

The Irish courts hold that state protections in Nigeria are adequate against FGM.
This is central to the courts assertion that the girls in this case will be "safe" when they return to Nigeria.
Do you believe that in reality protections are adequate there?

So that person subjected to FGM post deportation goes by the name of?

opo

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

(I think he's been sinking a few voodoos tonight)

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Please dont misrepresent me.

Can you show us one case in the Irish courts where FGM has been accepted as a legitimate rationale?

Every single one in the last number of years. Fear of FGM is an accepted grounds for asylum.

Please stop citing the Fornah case. I've told you about a dozen times that Fornah was not a "girl"—she was an 18-year-old woman—and that she came from a tribe in Sierra Leone, not a city in Nigeria.

Im not with you frankly. The letter writer stated that if we allowed FGM be a reason for asylum thousands of people would turn up here from all parts of Africa. Well heres what happenned in the UK when a person was granted asylum for FGM. One case in 3 years.

The Fornah case only rears its head to counter the emotive floodgates opening argument that is so polular on this thread (and in the Indo)

ParkRunner

Despite the Fornah case this is how the UK Home Office believes claimants fearing FGM from Nigeria should be considered:

http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/publisher,UKHO,,NGA,474bd26a2,0.html

Furthermore, there are between 10 and 15 NGOs operating throughout Nigeria who are exclusively devoted to support women including those escaping
FGM.

3.10.5 Internal relocation. The Nigerian constitution provides for the right to travel within the country and the Federal Government generally respects this right in practise. Although law enforcement agencies regularly use roadblocks and checkpoints to search for criminals, there are no reports that government officials restrict movements of individuals.

3.10.6 Internal relocation to escape any ill-treatment from non-state agents is almost always an option. As would be expected, some individuals may encounter a normal level of lack of acceptance by others in the new environment as well as lack of accommodation, land etc, and the situation would be considerably easier if the individual concerned has family or
other ties in the new location. In the absence of exceptional circumstances it would nevertheless not be unduly harsh for any individual, whether or not they have family or other ties in any new location, to internally relocate to escape this threat.

3.10.7 Conclusion. Whilst protection and/or assistance is available from governmental and nongovernmental sources, this is limited. Those who are unable or, owing to fear, unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of the authorities, can safely relocate to another part of Nigeria where the family members who are pressurising them to undergo FGM would be unlikely to be able to trace them. Women in that situation would if they choose to do so, also be able to seek assistance from women’s NGOs in the new location. The grant of asylum or Humanitarian Protection is unlikely therefore to be appropriate and such claims should be certified as clearly unfounded.