Pamela Izevbekhai - Should She Be Deported?

ParkRunner

blueythebear wrote: »

It's very clear that she is not a refugee. However, the question then arises if she qualifies for Subsidiary Protection. The question asked here is if returning her would put her at serious risk of harm/torture/inhumane treatment. This is an application which is decided upon by the Minister for Justice, Equality & Law Reform and in my view is the relevant decision for her case.

She was not entitled to apply for SP as she was refused asylum before the Regulations came into force. She made an application to the Minister to use his discretion to consider her application for SP based on new facts presented since the initial asylum application was made.

As no new facts were presented, the Minister decided not to exercise his discretion and accept the SP application. The High Court held he was correct to do so and I believe the Supreme Court will uphold this judgment.

HollyB

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Wouldn't it be incredibly foolish of them to deny the existence of Adrian Izevbekhai, if that is the case?

If the doctor is lying when he says that Pamela's first child was born in 2000, then this can be proven if she produces her teenage son, and a DNA test confirms that he is her son. Even if the Nigerian authorities want to deny the existence of Elizabeth Izevbekhai, why would they also deny the existence of Adrian when it would be very possible to prove his existence and therefore discredit the doctor's affidavit about Elizabeth never being born?

blueythebear

EF wrote: »

She was not entitled to apply for SP as she was refused asylum before the Regulations came into force. She made an application to the Minister to use his discretion to consider her application for SP based on new facts presented since the initial asylum application was made.

As no new facts were presented, the Minister decided not to exercise his discretion and accept the SP application. The High Court held he was correct to do so and I believe the Supreme Court will uphold this judgment.

Ah right so Ted...Thanks for clearing that up. So at the minute, she's appealing the failed HC judicial review of the Minister's decision not to permit her application for subsid protection, yeah? And she's going to the ECHR to challenge her deportation?

If her legal team are continuing with a Supreme Court challenge, she must have good grounds, all the moreso as they're working pro bono. Supreme Court is not cheap! And legal types don't take on flimsy cases for free. I hope their case isn't based on the affidavit of the Nigerian obstetrician !

ParkRunner

blueythebear wrote: »

Ah right so Ted...Thanks for clearing that up. So at the minute, she's appealing the failed HC judicial review of the Minister's decision not to permit her application for subsid protection, yeah? And she's going to the ECHR to challenge her deportation?

If her legal team are continuing with a Supreme Court challenge, she must have good grounds, all the moreso as they're working pro bono. Supreme Court is not cheap! And legal types don't take on flimsy cases for free. I hope their case isn't based on the affidavit of the Nigerian obstetrician !

Thats exactly it, they are taking a case all the way to the Supreme Court hoping that it will rule that the High Court erred on a point of law in holding that the Minister's decision not to exercise his discretion was in accordance with the law. It is a pretty weak case and how they can afford to do this is a question I would dearly love to know the answer to.

The ECHR case, as far as I know, is to do with the claim that the decision to deport Pamela and her 2 children breaches various articles of the European Convention on Human Rights (Im guessing Article 3 regarding torture primarily). It will more than likely be deemed inadmissable.

Big_Mac

T runner wrote: »

The HSE talked with a doctor as did an Irish reporter. Both verified his legitimacy. Why would this doctor change his story? Perhaps someone showed him too?

Ok, but have you considered that perhaps the doctor did indeed lie in the first instance and fabricate his story for a long standing paitents request, in the hope that it would be a one time thing and would all blow over. Now that its a much larger issue its concievable that he has now realised this and is not prepared to lie any more?

Fact is, this guy is a liar. Either he lied about it the first time, or he is lying now, in which case he has been discredited and all testimony and affadavid's from him should be stricken. This will have a profound impact on this case condsidering one of the bases of it is that her daughter died from FGM, and as a result now her other children are at risk. Now that this cannot be legitimately verified it certainly takes even more credibility away from her tetley teabag story.

There was also a birth cert given in evidence to the Irish Courts no mention of this.

I believe there was, and its been claimed that this was forged and the stamped address for the hospital was incorrect?

Who showed the Gardai where to look? Why has this evidence not been handed over by Nigerian authorities until now? Has Official Nigerian touched this case?

I think your claim that all nigerian officals are corrupt is as racist as branding all nigerians as crooks and thieves. Just because there are some corrupt officals does not mean that they all are, and so should not all be tarred with the same brush.

donegalfella wrote: »

Note the final sentence in this Sunday Times article:
Why? She previously embraced the opportunity to have her story featured in the press, as when the Irish Times commissioned this long and laudatory profile earlier in the year.

Or is Izevbekhai open only to newspapers that will represent her as having "fled" Nigeria to "save" her daughters from the "tragic fate" of their sister—the one who now appears not to exist?

I believe that her refusal to comment answered that in itself.

slimjimmc

blueythebear wrote: »

First off, whether or not her child did die from FGM, Pamela Izevbekhai is NOT a refugee. Internal relocation is available in NIgeria, especially when the people who'd be seeking her are only her husband's family. The other thing is that there are laws against this practise in Nigeria although they're not specific to FGM, i think they're of a more general application. Maybe if the authorities were trying to FGM her children it would be a different story.

This is because the practise of FGM amounts to persecution and the fact that her child previously died from it means she has a legitimate fear that it will be done to her other children and Country of Origin Information confirms that FGM occurs in Nigeria.

The doctor's recent affidavit and official documentation disputes her claim that her child died as a result of FGM. IMO, I don't think anyone can state her claim as fact or otherwise until this dispute is settled.

If the FGM angle in this case is true, then you would feel she has a good case. If it's untrue however, she has no case and should be deported.

Haven't the Courts made a determination of insufficent risk of FGM for her two daughters to warrant her & them staying in Ireland, even if she feels differently.

The issue of the doctor changing his story is very odd.

It is yet to be established that he did change is mind and this will depend on proving whether or not previous evidence atrributed to him was falsified as he claims.

In relation to Nigeria itself, I think that it should be borne in mind that this country is not as safe as you all may think. There is a genuine armed conflict happening in the Niger Delta region at this time, homosexuals are persecuted throughout the country, interreligious conflicts kill hundreds each year and cause many problems for mixed marriage couples (religiously mixed, such as a Christian marrying a Muslim), women have little or no rights and are forced into marriages and are abused by their own families. All of this is exacerbated by the corrupt system in which the police, in addition to being open to bribery, refuse to invesigate any matter involving family conflicts and any matter involving spiritual/ritualistic elements. There are various cults operating throughout Nigeria and all have various rituals required to be carried out with severe consequences for those who fail to adhere including human sacrifice. Admittedly, many of these problems do not occur throughout the country but all i'm saying is that there are Nigerians who are genuinely fleeing persecution and that not all are bogus asylum seekers.

I'm sure there are many such cases but Pamela's not claiming to be escaping conflict, corruption and she has failed to prove sufficient risk (cultural or religious) of FGM to the Courts.

djpbarry

EF wrote: »

I am basing my opinion on independent credible country of origin information when I state that I believe Pamela could live safely with her children in Nigeria. Nobody could say I know 100% that she could live in Nigeria with her 2 children but the evidence says that internal relocation is possible to escape the threat of FGM.

May I ask what evidence you are referring to?

EF wrote: »

In relation to the 2nd point, Pamela had several years to accumulate any documents she might need, if they even exist.

I was speaking generally about the difficulty associated with accumulating evidence in asylum cases.

ParkRunner

djpbarry wrote: »

May I ask what evidence you are referring to?

Well there is evidence scattered across this thread so ill just cite them here. Section 4 of Landinfo, Female genital mutilation of women in West Africa, 12 January 2009. Online. UNHCR Refworld, available at:

http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,,,NGA,,4980858a0,0.html

Paragraphs 23.17, 23.18 and 24.15 of United Kingdom: Home Office, Country of Origin Information Report - Nigeria, 5 December 2008. Online. UNHCR Refworld, available at:

http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,,,NGA,,493e3bb12,0.html

opo

EF wrote: »

Well there is evidence scattered across this thread so ill just cite them here. Section 4 of Landinfo, Female genital mutilation of women in West Africa, 12 January 2009. Online. UNHCR Refworld, available at:

http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,,,NGA,,4980858a0,0.html

Paragraphs 23.17, 23.18 and 24.15 of United Kingdom: Home Office, Country of Origin Information Report - Nigeria, 5 December 2008. Online. UNHCR Refworld, available at:

http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,,,NGA,,493e3bb12,0.html

Can you find a single report or mention a single case where an individual deported from a country, where asylum was claimed on grounds of FGM - actually sufferred the fate?


I think I would find that more relevant to the case in hand rather than evidence that FGM is practiced - which, after all, is simply not in dispute.


I failed to do so myself and I must admit to being quite surprised at the insistence that one side places on the certainty of such an event.

AlekSmart

Fact is, this guy is a liar. Either he lied about it the first time, or he is lying now, in which case he has been discredited and all testimony and affadavid's from him should be stricken.

I dont believe it`s quite so simple.

Much credence appears to be given to the (telephone) interview carried out by Phillip Boucher Hayes in which an individual identified as Dr Joeseph Unokanjo gave an account largely verifing Pamela Izevbekhai`s accounts.

Given Mr Boucher Hayes`s subsequent actions as a referee and supporter of Ms Izevbekhai`s case I would have to question the amount of verification employed by Mr Boucher-Hayes or his editorial team.

Whilst several posters appear to question the very clear rebuttal of the original affidavit by THIS Dr Joeseph Unlkanjo as suspicious,there is surely an equal amount of suspicion which can be attributed to the arrival back in 2005 of the Boucher-Hayes Doctor at such an important time in the case.

There is a somewhat familiar thread in all of this and it centres on an ancient tactic of the indigenous Irish at weaving as much of a thread of part-truths,disputed identities,language difficulties and whatever else could be utilised to make any waters so muddy as to be opaque.

This may well be the direction being advised to Ms Izevbekhai as an option to pursue as the current prevailing view appears to show her Legal avenues closing off rapidly.

It will probably end up as a stage managed "What about the poor Children" scanario with the great and the good lined up to deliver passionate pleas to whatever Minister is sitting in the chair at the time....now THAT will test the political resolve !

HollyB

Another article on the subject.

Now Pamela admits papers are faked
(From The Sunday Times)

Now Pamela admits papers are faked

The Nigerian refugee’s court challenge against deportation from Ireland is now likely to collapse

John Mooney and Mark Tighe

Pamela Izevbekhai, the Nigerian woman who claims she fled to Ireland in order to save her two daughters from female genital mutilation (FGM), has admitted that documents used in a series of legal challenges against her deportation were counterfeits.

She still insists that she had a daughter, named Elizabeth, who died in 1994 at the age of 17 months after undergoing female circumcision.

Izevbekhai, whose landmark Supreme Court challenge to stay in Ireland with her two daughters, Naomi, 7, and Jemima, 6, is due to be heard this Friday, made the admission yesterday. The disclosure is almost certain to cause the collapse of her legal challange.

Izevbekhai admitted that a document purporting to be Elizabeth’s death certificate was a fake. An affidavit from Joseph Unokanjo, an obstetrician who purportedly treated the child before she died, was also a counterfeit.

Izevbekhai said she only learned that the documents were fake on Friday night when her husband Tony, who is living in Nigeria, admitted he had obtained them from a fraudster. She claimed her husband was forced to obtain the fake documents because Unokanjo had refused to supply the real papers and medical reports without a substantial payment.

Unokanjo has denied this in an interview with The Sunday Times but refused to answer detailed questions about the case unless he received a payment of €5,000 from the newspaper.

Izevbekhai said she now regretted taking a series of legal challenges, including one to the European Court of Human Rights, against her deportation and those of her daughters.

“I didn’t know the documents were fake when I passed them to my lawyers. I am so sorry for what has happened. If people are upset, they have every right to be upset. Everything I did, I did it believing the documents to be true. I know I am in a lot of trouble and I don’t know how to get myself out of it,” she said.

Izevbekhai appealed to Dermot Ahern, the justice minister, to “pardon” her for what had happened. She said she feared being killed in her native country if her deportation to Nigeria proceeded. “Anything that I did was for the safety of my children. Nigeria is not a safe place for me any more.” Izevbekhai said she felt she had let down her supporters, friends and legal team. “My lawyers acted in good faith. I didn’t set out to deceive anyone because I didn’t know the documents were fakes.”





If she regrets taking the case to the European Court of Human Rights, and making the legal challenges against the deportation orders, I'd like to know if she plans to abandon the challenge and comply with the November 2005 deportation order.

ParkRunner

opo wrote: »

Can you find a single report or mention a single case where an individual deported from a country, where asylum was claimed on grounds of FGM - actually sufferred the fate?


I think I would find that more relevant to the case in hand rather than evidence that FGM is practiced - which, after all, is simply not in dispute.


I failed to do so myself and I must admit to being quite surprised at the insistence that one side places on the certainty of such an event.

You want me to find evidence that a failed returned asylum seeker was subjected to FGM, after I presented evidence that states that escape from FGM in Nigeria is possible? You have lost me

ParkRunner

HollyB wrote: »

If she regrets taking the case to the European Court of Human Rights, and making the legal challenges against the deportation orders, I'd like to know if she plans to abandon the challenge and comply with the November 2005 deportation order.

Amazing! A proper kick in the teeth for letthemstay.org but a sad day for genuine asylum seekers coming to this country

opo

EF wrote: »

You want me to find evidence that a failed returned asylum seeker was subjected to FGM, after I presented evidence that states that escape from FGM in Nigeria is possible? You have lost me

My apologies. I did not phrase that too well. Having done the type of research you have done and having drawn the same conclusions - I often feel that those who disagree with these findings feel there is another dimension overlooked.

I have tried to find that dimension ie a failed asylum seeker that was subjected to FGM on deportation.

I wondered if you had any luck

ParkRunner

opo wrote: »

My apologies. I did not phrase that too well. Having done the type of research you have done and having drawn the same conclusions - I often feel that those who disagree with these findings feel there is another dimension overlooked.

I have tried to find that dimension ie a failed asylum seeker that was subjected to FGM on deportation.

I wondered if you had any luck

No hassle, there is a section (35) in the UK Home Office source I quoted entirely on the topic of Treatment of Failed Returned Asylum Seekers and there is no evidence also that any illtreatment was suffered.

opo

HollyB wrote: »

Another article on the subject.

Now Pamela admits papers are faked
(From The Sunday Times)

Now Pamela admits papers are faked

The Nigerian refugee’s court challenge against deportation from Ireland is now likely to collapse

John Mooney and Mark Tighe

Pamela Izevbekhai, the Nigerian woman who claims she fled to Ireland in order to save her two daughters from female genital mutilation (FGM), has admitted that documents used in a series of legal challenges against her deportation were counterfeits.

She still insists that she had a daughter, named Elizabeth, who died in 1994 at the age of 17 months after undergoing female circumcision.

Izevbekhai, whose landmark Supreme Court challenge to stay in Ireland with her two daughters, Naomi, 7, and Jemima, 6, is due to be heard this Friday, made the admission yesterday. The disclosure is almost certain to cause the collapse of her legal challange.

Izevbekhai admitted that a document purporting to be Elizabeth’s death certificate was a fake. An affidavit from Joseph Unokanjo, an obstetrician who purportedly treated the child before she died, was also a counterfeit.

Izevbekhai said she only learned that the documents were fake on Friday night when her husband Tony, who is living in Nigeria, admitted he had obtained them from a fraudster. She claimed her husband was forced to obtain the fake documents because Unokanjo had refused to supply the real papers and medical reports without a substantial payment.

Unokanjo has denied this in an interview with The Sunday Times but refused to answer detailed questions about the case unless he received a payment of €5,000 from the newspaper.

Izevbekhai said she now regretted taking a series of legal challenges, including one to the European Court of Human Rights, against her deportation and those of her daughters.

“I didn’t know the documents were fake when I passed them to my lawyers. I am so sorry for what has happened. If people are upset, they have every right to be upset. Everything I did, I did it believing the documents to be true. I know I am in a lot of trouble and I don’t know how to get myself out of it,” she said.

Izevbekhai appealed to Dermot Ahern, the justice minister, to “pardon” her for what had happened. She said she feared being killed in her native country if her deportation to Nigeria proceeded. “Anything that I did was for the safety of my children. Nigeria is not a safe place for me any more.” Izevbekhai said she felt she had let down her supporters, friends and legal team. “My lawyers acted in good faith. I didn’t set out to deceive anyone because I didn’t know the documents were fakes.”





If she regrets taking the case to the European Court of Human Rights, and making the legal challenges against the deportation orders, I'd like to know if she plans to abandon the challenge and comply with the November 2005 deportation order.

Well what a surprise.

Most interesting too from the piece:

Unokanjo has denied this in an interview with The Sunday Times but refused to answer detailed questions about the case unless he received a payment of €5,000 from the newspaper.

Boucher-Hayes had access for free I take it.

Why was that?

Did Tony knock a few bob his way at the time and forget to tell poor Pamela?

HollyB

opo wrote: »

Boucher-Hayes had access for free I take it.

Apparently not in the opinion of the Gardaí.

Unokanjo denied yesterday that he was ever interviewed by RTE Radio, and gardai are satisfied that the “Nigerian doctor” who featured in the RTE interviews is not him.

Boucher-Hayes has admitted that he cannot be 100% certain who he spoke to.

(Another article from The Sunday Times - Nigerian says baby death tale still true)

opo

HollyB wrote: »

Apparently not in the opinion of the Gardaí.



Boucher-Hayes has admitted that he cannot be 100% certain who he spoke to.

(Another article from The Sunday Times - Nigerian says baby death tale still true)

I suspect he is one of the many deluded that will wish they never had any truck with this case.

And yet another case, inevitably involving a Nigerian. So riddled with holes that armchair researchers without the means of mass media can see obvious blunders and the simplest questions unasked and unanswered falls asunder.

Boucher-Hayes better hope his conspiracy theories stick and stick hard - with concrete evidence. Otherwise, he should be sacked from RTE for desertion of duty as an objective and unbiased journalist.

And Pamela really needs to leave as quietly and as quickly as possible.

HollyB

opo wrote: »

I suspect he is one of the many deluded that will wish they never had any truck with this case.

And yet another case, inevitably involving a Nigerian. So riddled with holes that armchair researchers without the means of mass media can see obvious blunders and the simplest questions unasked and unanswered falls asunder.

Boucher-Hayes better hope his conspiracy theories stick and stick hard - with concrete evidence. Otherwise, he should be sacked from RTE for desertion of duty as an objective and unbiased journalist.

And Pamela really needs to leave as quietly and as quickly as possible.

Preferably before the State has to pay Heaven knows what to defend against her case before the ECHR (assuming they hear her case, under the circumstances) or before the Supreme Court.

Legally, what's the situation? I would have thought that she would be able to withdraw the case and the appeals that she now says she should not have taken, and comply with the existing deportation order. Is that the case?

ParkRunner

HollyB wrote: »

Legally, what's the situation? I would have thought that she would be able to withdraw the case and the appeals that she now says she should not have taken, and comply with the existing deportation order. Is that the case?

Her solicitors should come off record and withdraw all proceedings. Once a deportation order is made there is an obligation on the individual to remove themselves from the State. It is only when they do not do so that the State has to intervene and remove the person, at the taxpayer's expense. Any legal challenge could not be pursued at this stage, all credibility is out the window and I can see the Minister booking her on the next flight to Lagos.

HollyB

EF wrote: »

Her solicitors should come off record and withdraw all proceedings. Once a deportation order is made there is an obligation on the individual to remove themselves from the State. It is only when they do not do so that the State has to intervene and remove the person, at the taxpayer's expense. Any legal challenge could not be pursued at this stage, all credibility is out the window and I can see the Minister booking her on the next flight to Lagos.

But would Izevbekhai's side have to formally withdraw proceedings before the deportation order could be put in force, assuming that the family does not leave by themselves before they can be removed?

ParkRunner

HollyB wrote: »

But would Izevbekhai's side have to formally withdraw proceedings before the deportation order could be put in force, assuming that the family does not leave by themselves before they can be removed?

The deportation order is valid and has been since it was first signed. The Minister did give an undertaking not to deport Pamela and her 2 children until the ECHR case had been adjudicated upon but no court could rule that deportation now would be invalid. The ECHR case has collapsed, it is only a formality for it to be withdrawn and it would take a very brave legal representative at this stage, pro bono or not, to challenge that the deportation of Pamela and her 2 children is in breach of either Irish or European law.

rkeane

It seems the Ms Izevbekhai knows that the game is up. I can't see any reputable solicitor acting on her behalf....this is so obviously just a scam.

I think Dermot Ahern should tell her to pack her bags, she's wasted enough tax payers money.

opo

HollyB wrote: »

Preferably before the State has to pay Heaven knows what to defend against her case before the ECHR (assuming they hear her case, under the circumstances) or before the Supreme Court.

Legally, what's the situation? I would have thought that she would be able to withdraw the case and the appeals that she now says she should not have taken, and comply with the existing deportation order. Is that the case?

A failed asylum seeker is asked to leave voluntarily in the first instance although deemed illegally present. An oft forgotten aspect in these cases by gullible supporters who prefer the "dead of night" "kicking and screaming" tale of the failed asylum seeker who actually prefered not to co-operate and neccesitated removal following issue (with plenty of notice to dissappear) of a deportation order.

I suspect she is free to leave anytime but another deportation order may be required to remove her if she again refuses or there may simply be a reinstatement of the current one (time limitations permitting)

She may also be charged with perjury and obstruction of justice but I think you and I know the likelihood of that ever occuring is virtually non-existent - thanks to the rather demented mindset that prevails - that associates anything to do with treating Nigerians like everybody else - to be inherently racist.

ParkRunner

opo wrote: »

I suspect she is free to leave anytime but another deportation order may be required to remove her if she again refuses or there may simply be a reinstatement of the current one (time limitations permitting)

.

There is no question of the existing deportation order being invaild really and to have to make a new deporation order would be a complete disaster (open to yet another legal challenge). And I find it very hard to believe that the mother of a child who died from FGM would not be in possession of the original death certificate for her child. Her actions can only be described as cold and calculated

HollyB

Is it true that, if somebody is deported from Ireland, they are not allowed to return to the EU?

ParkRunner

HollyB wrote: »

Is it true that, if somebody is deported from Ireland, they are not allowed to return to the EU?

They can come if they want but their fingerprints will be taken and they will be sent to Ireland for another deportation..at taxpayer's expense.

opo

HollyB wrote: »

Is it true that, if somebody is deported from Ireland, they are not allowed to return to the EU?

It's true once a deportation order is issued and whether it occurs or not - although - again - time limited.

HollyB

EF wrote: »

They can come if they want but their fingerprints will be taken and they will be sent to Ireland for another deportation..at taxpayer's expense.

So, essentially, if the Izevbekhai family are deported, that's it for them as far as EU countries are concerned? They couldn't reside in the UK, even if Tony Izevbekhai had a visa there?

opo

HollyB wrote: »

So, essentially, if the Izevbekhai family are deported, that's it for them as far as EU countries are concerned? They couldn't reside in the UK, even if Tony Izevbekhai had a visa there?

He was thrown out of there already for trying to illegally enter here.

I suspect the UK is no different.