Pamela Izevbekhai - Should She Be Deported?

The Corinthian

T runner wrote: »

The poster felt that FGM is not grounds for asylum because it is exclusive to women, and anyone who says otherwise is a marxist-feminist.

No, anyone who starts coming out with the kind of accusations that you normally hear from the loony-left, as you did, probably is from the loony-left.

The poster is actually pinning his idealogical colours to the mast: Lunatic, right. I am not a marxist-feminist neither is the UN or almost every soverign country in the world who disagree with his point. I do not think right wing views are lunatic per se. I think this one is.

I think you'll find a lot of people who are in no way right wing would agree with him.

What are you talking about. The interpretation of PSGs is determined by individual states.

How does that invalidate my statement?

I agree with these countries that FGM is a grounds for asylum if the persons involved are truly in danger of torture on their return home. The ame for any other type of torture.

The exaggeration is in the line that divides cultural self determination versus our own cultural values. If Izevbekhai has a case, it is not because of FGM, but because she is in fear of being forced by third parties to carry out FGM on her daughters.

If she chooses this procedure for her daughters herself, you might find it barbaric, but you just have to accept her right as a parent.

Wheres the exageration. Who are these organisations you claim I support?

The LTS campaign for one, from what I can see.

Looks like a cheap shot but please clarify.

A better example would be circumcision in much of the Islamic World. This is carried out without anaesthetic either, and as with the case highlighted by Kevin Myers, quoted earlier in this thread, can also result in death. One may argue that there are medical advantages to it, but ultimately it's still a potentially dangerous mutilation.

So consider the same case, but replacing those photogenic little girls with boys and a practice that (while carried under medical conditions in the West) is commonplace. How much support for asylum would you see for it from people like the LTS campaign?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Ronan|Raven

For the last few months you are constantly going on about how you are been "misrepreasented" Same old tired worn out rhetoric.

She will be rightly removed from this country.

LostinBlanch

Ronan|Raven wrote: »

She will be rightly removed from this country.

I wouldn't go counting those chickens just yet. Like Donegalfella says we should have had a resolution today. Yet she's been able to waste more court time (and our money) on her spurious claims.

ParkRunner

The case is back on May 1st. Only fair really that she be given an opportunity to reply to the State's affidavits. Fair procedures must take precedence over the emotion surrounding this case, especially has she has no legal reps now.

jmcc

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It will make for some very tricky reporting now that they have been submitted. However there is more than enough for journos to write about in the next few weeks. Most of it will concentrate on the competence of other journalists and the gullibility of those connected with the PI side of the case. There probably will also be some examination of the backgrounds of those involved along with analyses of their motivations. You will also see the agit-prop style spinning from LTS and some of those posting on this thread being recycled by columnists complete with half-assed legal speculation quoting legislation out of context from non-legal types.

The case could probably not have been settled one way or the other today as the new evidence will have to be considered. The counsel for the State wants the appeal dismissed on the basis of the State being fundamentally misled.

Regards...jmcc

jmcc

EF wrote: »

The case is back on May 1st. Only fair really that she be given an opportunity to reply to the State's affidavits. Fair procedures must take precedence over the emotion surrounding this case, especially has she has no legal reps now.

Apparently the names of other solicitors have been submitted. I don't see the case listed for May 1st in the legal diary.

Regards...jmcc

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Big_Mac

jmcc wrote: »

It will make for some very tricky reporting now that they have been submitted. However there is more than enough for journos to write about in the next few weeks. Most of it will concentrate on the competence of other journalists and the gullibility of those connected with the PI side of the case. There probably will also be some examination of the backgrounds of those involved along with analyses of their motivations. You will also see the agit-prop style spinning from LTS and some of those posting on this thread being recycled by columnists complete with half-assed legal speculation quoting legislation out of context from non-legal types.

The case could probably not have been settled one way or the other today as the new evidence will have to be considered. The counsel for the State wants the appeal dismissed on the basis of the State being fundamentally misled.

Regards...jmcc

You never know, the Indo or RTE may well shell out the €5K wanted by Dr Unokanjo now to hear his side of it before the next hearing.

One of the affidavits is clearly from Dr. Unokanjo. I wonder who the other three are from?

Good question. In fairness, if this much light can be cast on the proceedings based on one affadavit, one can only assume that the state has something up its sleeve with the other three.

ParkRunner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

An educated guess would be the same people who swore the affidavits that were lodged in the ECHR. 2 of the others who lodged affidavits were identified by position or name in that case anyway

ParkRunner

jmcc wrote: »

Apparently the names of other solicitors have been submitted. I don't see the case listed for May 1st in the legal diary.

Regards...jmcc

Give it time

Big_Mac

EF wrote: »

An educated guess would be the same people who swore the affidavits that were lodged in the ECHR. 2 of the others who lodged affidavits were identified by position or name in that case anyway

I wonder if one of them is Philip Boucher-Hayes, considering his previous affadavit based on a duff interview.

ParkRunner

Big_Mac wrote: »

I wonder if one of them is Philip Boucher-Hayes, considering his previous affadavit based on a duff interview.

That can definitely be ruled out anyway as he was lodging an affidavit on behalf of Pamela in the ECHR. The 4 affidavits were on behalf of the State.

The Corinthian

When asked by the Chief Justice as to why, lawyer Mel Krystle replied that it was as a result of conflicting instructions from Pamela.

I believe this is legalese for "she's changed her story".

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Now, see if you can answer the question instead of dodging it.[/QUOTE]

Oh God! PSG stand for particular social group. That is where you are misreading the convention. The person must be a member of the PSG and other conditiojns inclusing a well founded fear of persecution. Do you get this?

I believe Ireland seems to define that social group as "females in danger of FGM". If they dont say so. Everybody seems to be fine with this but you.

The only reason this conversation is happening is to cover up your blunder in interpreting the convention which casts serious doubt on your understanding of the asylum relates issues on debate here.

You thought that the PSG for FGM cases was "females". You made a blunder. Please move on.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Big_Mac

T runner wrote: »

I believe Ireland seems to define that social group as "females in danger of FGM". If they dont say so. Everybody seems to be fine with this but you.

Do not make the assumption that you are in a position to speak for anyone else here based on your beliefs. You are not.

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

"A person who owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.."

We are talking about how the "particular social group" is defined. You will notice that every social group must have "a well-founded fear of being persecuted". This implies that the well founded fear needs not be defined in the definition of the PSG as you seem to indicate. The folowing letter from the High Commisioner of the UN to the British Refugee Legal Centre should clear it up for you.



The letter states that:

“FGM,
which causes severe pain as well as permanent physical harm, amounts to a violation of human rights, including the rights of the child, and can be regarded as persecution. The toleration of these acts by the authorities, or the unwillingness of the authorities to provide protection against them, amounts to official acquiescence. Therefore a woman can be considered a refugee if she or her daughter/daughters fear being compelled to undergo FGM against their will; or, she fears persecution for refusing to undergo or allow her daughters to undergo the practice.” The UN Refugee Convention defines a refugee as someone who “...owing to well-founded fear of
being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable, or owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country...” (Article 1(A)(2)). Under this definition,
women from a particular country or ethnic group who are at risk of female genital mutilation (FGM) can be properly construed as a “particular social group”.

The fact that the “particular social group” may consist of large numbers of women is irrelevant; other Convention grounds, such as nationality and political opinion, are also characteristics shared by large numbers of people.

"The toleration of these acts by the authorities, or the unwillingness of the authorities to provide protection against them, amounts to official acquiescence."

This in effect means that Nigeria's record of having no convictions ever under their laws against FGM and their police force turning a blind eye to the practice can be correctly interpreted as Official Acquisance.

blueythebear

Lads, you're getting bogged down in semantics here. The Social Group in question is females. THat's all. The Refugee Act 1996 states that the definition of social group includes a "group of persons whose defining characteristic is their belonging to the female gender".

Every female in that particular country (and the world) is part of that social group but the only ones who are refugees are those with a well founded fear of persecution who are not in a position to internally relocate. I would have thought it's simple.

For the record, males can equally form the basis of a social group and there are successful Nigerian asylum cases whereby males are forced into rituals against their will by their own families. Usually these have been involving an applicant from a certain village where their father is the chieftain or shaman or in some other position of power and then dies. Traditional law holds that the eldest son must then take their father's place. If that son refuses, he would be likely to be killed as the traditions demand that the eldest living son take over.

solarant

The debate is mute, the powers that be who were voted into power democratically will base their decision on their empirical research in this case at a cost to every individual they went to Nigeria and confronted the establishment with forged documents.
Also remember this lady knew she produced forged documents yet she let representatives of this government go to Nigeria on a fools errand.

So let the courts decide what the outcome will be, you can be sure it will not set a precedent with this case as this would leave the European door open for every disgruntled African with a penny to spare to buy forged documents.
The bottom line is this lady knew the documents were forged yet does she care she did irreparable damage to genuine refugee cases, NO she did not, she based her case on her own personal view of how democracy works and in my opinion used her daughters to further her own cause whatever that may be.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Joey the lips

Kick her out fast before the lier has time to waste more money apealing to our idotic system that allowed her stay in the first place

Oh it would also be nice to tell the gobsh1ts that held up the plackards for her to do something more usefulll with their time like protest to the goverment for allowing such a waste of money

blackiebest

solarant wrote: »

The debate is mute, the powers that be who were voted into power democratically will base their decision on their empirical research in this case at a cost to every individual they went to Nigeria and confronted the establishment with forged documents.
Also remember this lady knew she produced forged documents yet she let representatives of this government go to Nigeria on a fools errand.

So let the courts decide what the outcome will be, you can be sure it will not set a precedent with this case as this would leave the European door open for every disgruntled African with a penny to spare to buy forged documents.
The bottom line is this lady knew the documents were forged yet does she care she did irreparable damage to genuine refugee cases, NO she did not, she based her case on her own personal view of how democracy works and in my opinion used her daughters to further her own cause whatever that may be.

Just to clarify the position, Pamela maintains she did not know that any documents were false before March 27th, i.e. this day last week.

Her story stands or falls on one simple as yet unknown fact; Did Elizabeth live and die from FGM or did she never exist or die from natural cause? If she had a daughter called Elizabeth who died from FGM then Ireland must, IMO, grant them residency here, if not then she should be deported even though her children will suffer untold trauma as a result.

benoit08

She has caused untold damage to future asylum seekers with her untruths ..who is going to believe a similar story again? I have read, on boards ,people saying that she at least has raised the issue of FGM in Ireland and the West....all she has actually done is sow seeds of doubt in peoples' minds as to it's prevelance.

Justice must be seen to be done,she needs to be deported ASAP.

blueythebear

I think the question is if she is deserving of subsidiary protection or humanitarian leave to remain. Her asylum application has been refused as she does not fall under the Convention definition of a refugee. She has exhausted all legal avenues to being given asylum and the only ones left are these applications (although i presume she has been refused humanitarian leave, I know she was challenging the Ministers decision to not allow her even apply for subsid protection).

She would only be worthy of subsidiary protection if she can show that she and her children are at risk of torture / inhuman and degrading treatment if they were to be returned. If she can show that this is the case, for example by showing previous persecution (e.g. death of her daughter by FGM) then she would have a case for subsidiary protection. We all know about the forgeries etc. so I would say she has not shown this and so does not warrant subsidiary protection.

She does not deserve leave to remain as she has used fraudulent documents and one of the factors to be judged by the Minister in making a decision in this regard is the character or conduct of the applicant.

On an objective basis she doesn't deserve to stay in Ireland. It's horrible for the kids but unfortunately the head must rule the heart here and look at the facts objectively. Her credibility is shot to pieces at the moment. If she can prove Elizabeth died of FGM, it might be a different story but we'll have to see what happens...

The Corinthian

solarant wrote: »

The debate is mute

Moot.

blueythebear wrote: »

If she can prove Elizabeth died of FGM, it might be a different story but we'll have to see what happens...

Actually no in itself it changes nothing. Unfortunately, this debate has ended up centred around the issue of FGM, largely because it has become politicized so.

The reality is that, like it or not, FGM is practised in many countries because the parents of the children in question choose this for them, just as little girls getting their ears pierced is commonplace in countries such as Spain, or ritual circumcision is in much of the Islamic World, or boarding school in the West.

With our liberal Western sensibilities, practices such as FGM may offend or even horrify us, but they are only grounds for asylum when they are forced upon someone and that someone (or their guardian) is left no alternative but to escape to another jurisdiction for sanctuary.

As such, it makes no difference if Izevbekhai had a daughter who died. Or that she died as a result of complications following FGM. What does make a difference is if by returning to Nigeria she would be forced to carry out this procedure by third parties, or that those third parties would take her daughters and carry out this procedure on them.

My understanding is that there has been little or no evidence of this to date, outside of Izevbekhai's own testimony, which has meant that her claim to asylum was tenuous. The revelation that evidence was so brazenly falsified has decimated her credibility, and while it may be possible that she was ignorant of her husband's actions, most would view this claim with extreme scepticism - to the point that many are questioning the very existence of Elizabeth in the first place, let alone the circumstances of her alleged death.

And that's really what it comes down to.

HollyB

blackiebest wrote: »

Just to clarify the position, Pamela maintains she did not know that any documents were false before March 27th, i.e. this day last week.

Her story stands or falls on one simple as yet unknown fact; Did Elizabeth live and die from FGM or did she never exist or die from natural cause? If she had a daughter called Elizabeth who died from FGM then Ireland must, IMO, grant them residency here, if not then she should be deported even though her children will suffer untold trauma as a result.

If Elizabeth existed, then there must surely be some kind of physical evidence of that, even if - for argument's sake - the birth and death certificates were destroyed. Even proving Adrian's existence would be a start, since he would have been born before 2000.

ParkRunner

An interesting quote from the Supreme Court in a previous asylum case eventually won by the State where the applicant engaged in telling lies:

"However, while it may be appropriate to enable a judicial review proceed as an exercise of discretion in circumstances where there has been lying and dishonesty, such discretion should, as here, be exercised cautiously. In most circumstances such dishonesty may be fatal to an application. However, if the rights of other parties, such as a citizen child, under the Constitution and the Convention are in issue, then it may be it appropriate on balance to favour the weight of the rights of a child. But any such dishonesty remains a factor in the circumstances as a whole."

The 2 children in the Izevbekhai case would not have Constitutional rights but they would have Convention rights. It is unlikely that Pamela's deceptions themselves will be fatal to her and her children's case but it will have weakened her case to the extent of leaving the Supreme Court with very little option but to rule against her.

solarant

I am not being stereo typical but when I first learned of this case I knew with her being Nigerian there had to be something unofficial, I was not surprised when the forged documents came to light it the modus operandi of Nigerian society and they will take advantage of any good Samaritan without blinking a eye.
Also to my knowledge from working in Africa FGM always has to have the consent of the parents but if the two parents object then it is not going to happen, bottom line.

Also FGM is carried out on children between the ages of 0-5 years of age, how old are the children concerned ??.
This lady lied, cheated and she was caught now it is time to send her back to Nigeria and let other would be illegal refugee seekers that Ireland is not a revolving doorway to enter the EU.
Just curious what religion is this lady, is she Muslim. ??

opo

blackiebest wrote: »

Just to clarify the position, Pamela maintains she did not know that any documents were false before March 27th, i.e. this day last week.

Her story stands or falls on one simple as yet unknown fact; Did Elizabeth live and die from FGM or did she never exist or die from natural cause? If she had a daughter called Elizabeth who died from FGM then Ireland must, IMO, grant them residency here, if not then she should be deported even though her children will suffer untold trauma as a result.

It simply does not.

Her story is irrelevant to the core issue that has been rejected and it remains - that her daughters have at no time and should not in the future, find themselves in a position of having FGM performed on them without their parents consent.

If there was even the remotest possibillity of that happening, then furthermore, it is believed that internal relocation within Nigeria is perfectly feasible.

I accept an element of untold trauma has already been imposed on these childern, led to believe thay are related to pyschotic razor wielding savages determined to slice their genitals - but that trauma is the gift of the legally contemptuous - publicity seeker - Pamela Izevbekhai and her few remaining, latch-on, ultra-radical supporters (who also crave publicity over facts) and no-one else.