Pamela Izevbekhai - Should She Be Deported?

GuanYin

opo wrote: »

I am not arguing beliefs.

I am arguing facts. PI is not a legal resident of Ireland.

Is that too simple for you?

If you have a point - then make it. If you think PI is a legal resident of this country then state what status that implies.

Please show me where it states you are required to be a legal resident of Ireland to be legally present in the country?

JohnMc1

Was it ever stated how Nigerians reproduce if Female Genital Mutilation is a custom? I wouldn't be surprised if Ms. Izevbekhal is " bull****ting" a little bit to play to entice sympathy in order to be allowed to stay.

GuanYin

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Was it ever stated how Nigerians reproduce if Female Genital Mutilation is a custom? I wouldn't be surprised if Ms. Izevbekhal is " bull****ting" a little bit to play to entice sympathy in order to be allowed to stay.

While there is an association between FGM and infertility, the actual incidence of infertility in women who have undergone FGM is relatively low.

JohnMc1

GuanYin wrote: »

While there is an association between FGM and infertility, the actual incidence of infertility in women who have undergone FGM is relatively low.

Thanks. Did she say what this FGM was?

GuanYin

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Thanks. Did she say what this FGM was?

Does it matter? The laws don't discriminate between the various types.

JohnMc1

GuanYin wrote: »

Does it matter? The laws don't discriminate between the various types.

She's using a potentially far fetched story to garner sympathy to stay since she is here illegally. Many Nigerians have already been deported back to Nigeria and no Nigerian Women AFAIK have used the FGM story. Just her who happens to be an Illegal Immigrant. People have a right to be skeptical.

GuanYin

JohnMc1 wrote: »

She's using a potentially far fetched story to garner sympathy to stay since she is here illegally. Many Nigerians have already been deported back to Nigeria and no Nigerian Women AFAIK have used the FGM story. Just her who happens to be an Illegal Immigrant. People have a right to be skeptical.

OK, we've covered this in the previous few hundreds posts. You didn't answer my question. What has this to do with the type of FGM?

opo

GuanYin wrote: »

Please show me where it states you are required to be a legal resident of Ireland to be legally present in the country?

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/moving-country/moving-to-ireland/coming-to-live-in-ireland/visa-requirements-for-entering-ireland?printpreview=1

Try that for a start. PI didnt.

Mena

opo wrote: »

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/moving-country/moving-to-ireland/coming-to-live-in-ireland/visa-requirements-for-entering-ireland?printpreview=1

Try that for a start. PI didnt.

I could point you to our International obligations under the 1957 Geneva Convention and its related 1967 protocol, but somehow I don't think it would matter.

opo

Mena wrote: »

I could point you to our International obligations under the 1957 Geneva Convention and its related 1967 protocol, but somehow I don't think it would matter.

Really?

In this case, what obligation have we failed to fulfill?

And for your information, I too can point to any of your conventions and show where Ireland is in fact exceeding its obligations and also where the recipitents of this largesse are lacking in theirs.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Mena

opo wrote: »

Really?

In this case, what obligation have we failed to fulfill?

And for your information, I too can point to any of your conventions and show where Ireland is in fact exceeding its obligations and also where the recipitents of this largesse are lacking in theirs.

You stated:

opo wrote: »

I am not arguing beliefs.

I am arguing facts. PI is not a legal resident of Ireland.

Is that too simple for you?

If you have a point - then make it. If you think PI is a legal resident of this country then state what status that implies.

You then pointed to the c.info site which outlines various legal ways to become resident/visit Ireland, but which contained no information on the asylum process.

opo wrote: »

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/moving-country/moving-to-ireland/coming-to-live-in-ireland/visa-requirements-for-entering-ireland?printpreview=1

Try that for a start. PI didnt.

I then stated that Ireland has a legal obligation under the 1957 Geneva Convention and its 1967 protocol to allow her legal residence while her case is being heard.

Ergo, she is legally resident in Ireland, until the ECHR examines the case, at which point she will be granted some form of permanent status or a quick trip back to Nigeria.

opo

Mena wrote: »

I then stated that Ireland has a legal obligation under the 1957 Geneva Convention and its 1967 protocol to allow her legal residence while her case is being heard.

Ergo, she is legally resident in Ireland, until the ECHR examines the case, at which point she will be granted some form of permanent status or a quick trip back to Nigeria.

You might want to refer to article in the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees.

It states:

Article 31. Refugees unlawfully in the country of refuge

1. The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.

As you can see, a refugee can be quite genuine and still be illegally resident in another country.

You might note that PI, despite numerous reassessments, is not considerd a refugee.

You might also note that the Irish authorities have been unable to provide substance to her claim to have arrived here directly and nor has she.

Can you point to any legislation that gives asylum seekers a legal status that is not simply a statement to postpone remedies (such as deporation) otherwise applicable to illegal immigrants whilst a claim is settled?

ParkRunner

See Refugee Act 1996, section 8 and 9


8.—(1) ( a ) A person who arrives at the frontiers of the State seeking asylum in the State or seeking the protection of the State against persecution or requesting not to be returned or removed to a particular country or otherwise indicating an unwillingness to leave the State for fear of persecution—

(i) shall be interviewed by an immigration officer as soon as practicable after such arrival, and

(ii) may apply to the Minister for a declaration.

9.—(1) Subject to the subsequent provisions of this section, an applicant, being a person referred to in section 8(1)(a), shall be given leave to enter the State by the immigration officer concerned.

(2) Subject to the subsequent provisions of this section, a person to whom leave to enter the State is given under subsection (1) or an applicant, being a person referred to in section 8(1)(c), shall be entitled to remain in the State until—

( a ) the date on which his or her application is transferred to a convention country pursuant to section 22, or

( b ) the date on which his or her application is withdrawn or deemed to be withdrawn pursuant to subsection (14)(b), or

( c ) the date on which notice is sent that the Minister has refused to give him or her a declaration.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ParkRunner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yes her legal right to reside in the State expired once her deportation order was signed. It is only if a Court grants an injunction can the State then be prevented from deporting somebody. I don't know if an injunction was granted in her initial judicial review proceedings but either way any injunction granted by an Irish court would have lapsed now that judgments have been delivered (all in favour of the State). She is merely remaining here on the basis of the promise given by the State to the ECtHR

GuanYin

opo wrote: »

Can you point to any legislation that gives asylum seekers a legal status that is not simply a statement to postpone remedies (such as deporation) otherwise applicable to illegal immigrants whilst a claim is settled?

You might want to learn the difference between refugee and asylum seeker.

As for you question, donegalfella has already provided it.

JohnMc1

GuanYin wrote: »

OK, we've covered this in the previous few hundreds posts. You didn't answer my question. What has this to do with the type of FGM?

The tax payers have a right to know if this is valid and not some fairy tale made up so she can stay.

opo

GuanYin wrote: »

You might want to learn the difference between refugee and asylum seeker.

As for you question, donegalfella has already provided it.

I know the difference, Thank you.

What's your point?

TomRooney

this woman is obviously playing the system, the nigerian government have given assurances that her children will not be harmed, they say her claims are false and have asked for her to provide them with details of the death of her child, which she wont provide, they have also asked her for the details of her husband who she claims will perform the FGM but she wont provide that either.

the fact is the Law of this land has determined she is a false asylum seeker, and according to the Law of this land she has no right to stay her this is the plain fact of it and the rule of Law should be respected otherwise it is not Law but merely suggestion.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ParkRunner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The Supreme Court case is moot at this stage anyway because this was to do with the refusal to grant an injunction until her High Court case had concluded. Now that judgment has been delivered in the High Court the issue of an injunction is irrelevant so this case shouldn't go ahead.

Once the ECtHR rules on her case and I can only imagine one outcome, that should be the end of it, although I wouldnt be surprised if another delaying tactic surfaces.

It will give me no delight to see Ms. Izevbekhai and her 2 children deported but it would be an injustice in my opinion to let them stay on the basis of a public relations campaign while at the same time the same voices are silent in relation to the thousands of others going through the asylum system.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ParkRunner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Ah a bit of Monday morning confusion on my part sorry. She did actually challenge the decision refusing the injunction to the Supreme Court before Xmas and that case is moot. As far as I know she hasn't initiated any new Supreme Court challenge yet seeking to overturn the High Court judgment of McGovern in January. She can if she wants, as is her right, but even she must know now that she won't get a favourable judgment in the Irish courts. As money seems to be no object to her anyway she could be fighting a Supreme Court case while living in Nigeria at this rate.

The High Court would need to certify that its decision involves point of law of exceptional public importance and that it is desirable, in the public interest, that an appeal should be taken to the Supreme Court on that point of law. What would be interesting is that if she was given the opportunity to appeal to the Supreme Court she wouldnt be confined to the point of law identified by the High Court. She could canvas all issues on appeal. :rolleyes:

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Big_Mac

TomRooney wrote: »

this woman is obviously playing the system, the nigerian government have given assurances that her children will not be harmed, they say her claims are false and have asked for her to provide them with details of the death of her child, which she wont provide, they have also asked her for the details of her husband who she claims will perform the FGM but she wont provide that either.

the fact is the Law of this land has determined she is a false asylum seeker, and according to the Law of this land she has no right to stay her this is the plain fact of it and the rule of Law should be respected otherwise it is not Law but merely suggestion.

Interesting you should say that, as her husband was in her propaganda video (face blurred, coincidentally) saying that he didn't want this to happen to them.

So, is this another one of the many holes in her story?

AlekSmart

What would be interesting is that if she was given the opportunity to appeal to the Supreme Court she wouldnt be confined to the point of law identified by the High Court. She could canvas all issues on appeal.

I believe this element of introducing an entire new mixed bag of somewhat connected issues to fuel a new concerted Supreme Court campaign will be irresistable to some of the movers and shakers in the Letthemstay movement.

There is also the less than palatable fact that the marketability of a significant section of the African Human Trafficking business also hinges on the success of Ms Izevbekhai`s legal travails.

I would be prepared to bet that in Lagos there is a level of understanding of Irish Asylum Procedures which equals or exceeds that at home.

What is happening in this case is remarkable similar to what has befallen the Irish Economic and Banking sector.
A total collapse of confidence subsequent upon the Agencies of State being shown to have failed to adequately support the pre-existing regulatory framework.

There is still a sliver of opportunity to rescue some sort of position from this mess,but it will need a steely resolve not to often seen around Leinster House these days......

Daroxtar

Big_Mac wrote: »

Interesting you should say that, as her husband was in her propaganda video (face blurred, coincidentally) saying that he didn't want this to happen to them.

So, is this another one of the many holes in her story?

If thats true then she should be deported straight away and thats the end of the whole fkn story.
seriously, its one thing to take the pss, but thats seriously taking the pss.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ParkRunner

AlekSmart wrote: »

I believe this element of introducing an entire new mixed bag of somewhat connected issues to fuel a new concerted Supreme Court campaign will be irresistable to some of the movers and shakers in the Letthemstay movement.

There is also the less than palatable fact that the marketability of a significant section of the African Human Trafficking business also hinges on the success of Ms Izevbekhai`s legal travails.

I would be prepared to bet that in Lagos there is a level of understanding of Irish Asylum Procedures which equals or exceeds that at home.

What is happening in this case is remarkable similar to what has befallen the Irish Economic and Banking sector.
A total collapse of confidence subsequent upon the Agencies of State being shown to have failed to adequately support the pre-existing regulatory framework.

There is still a sliver of opportunity to rescue some sort of position from this mess,but it will need a steely resolve not to often seen around Leinster House these days......

I can't disagree with any of this. If you were to graph the performance of the Irish economy over the past 15 years it would look something like the first bar chart here:

http://www.orac.ie/pdf/PDFStats/Annual%20Statistics/Final_Annual%20Report_Full%20version_31.03_Sec.pdf

It wouldnt surprise me in the slightest if traffickers have a hand in the funding of her case given the enormous profits to be made from this industry. If they indeed can show that you can get someone into Ireland without solid proof of your travel route, without even needing a passport to get through the airport and even if you fail at all stages of the asylum process you will still be allowed to remain, it will be a victory for human trafficking.

The same traffickers are bringing women into this country for sexual exploitation and are heavily involved in trafficking children for child labour. The letthemstay organisation seem to have tunnel vision for Pamela and her two children without seeing the wider implications of a coup for human trafficking and exploitation, an industry worth billions annually.