Pamela Izevbekhai - Should She Be Deported?

opo

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

So have our immigration officials have changed policy?

Do they now offer asylum at the frontier of Northern Ireland where he was arrested?

Is Northern Ireland no longer a safe country or currently at war and brimming with refugees or have I missed something?

mealone43

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I read that article also and it was strange that Tony is living in luxury with a Mercedes and flash designer clothes and later in the article he is in hiding. How does he earn a living? Gangster no doubt as if he had a job in Nigeria to afford that luxury he could not be in hiding. Lies lies and more f'ing lies. Time to stop the court cases and send here hom and rid us of this stupid headache.

soontobesmokin

Send her back ( I'm not racist, would say the same if was an Irish person in similar situation in other country )

HollyB

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I thought that one of the causes of complaint about why the Nigerian government couldn't protect the Izevbekhai girls was because there were no FGM-related prosecutions, despite FGM being outlawed?

In any case, does fear of prosecution count as grounds for asylum, especially when the alleged crime is not a capital offence? I wouldn't have thought that people who skip the country because they fear being prosecuted would merit asylum, or that the possibility for prosecution - and by Pamela's own account, she consented to the procedure (is FGM illegal where they lived at the time of Elizabeth's alleged death?) being performed on her daughter.

In any case, how could the Nigerian courts possibly charge Pamela, or anybody else, for the death of a baby that, according to the government, never existed?

Ms Leslie seems to be grasping at straws here.

solarant

I will take any bets on this case and honor them all at whatever odd you want.
I will take bets that if this lady is returned to Nigeria and in two ... no make that ten years time you inquire you will find her children fully intact with no mutilation and had never had been in danger of it.

I am only being factious here I just want to highlight the fact FMG is not prevalent in Nigeria and I reiterate if both parents are against this practice then it is never going to happen, FGM happens when the parents WANT it to happen, I said before, find the grave; do a autopsy; if the child died as described then this would be grounds to let the lady stay.

But think of it this way; suppose you are a uneducated single mother living in a village in Somalia and you have a genuine fear of FMG carried out on your daughter so you contact a NGO to help you, I can assure you this; the NGO will not consider Ireland as a alternative, not after what Pamela Izevbekhai has done, whatever chances a genuine case had before this sham any future refugee case will be looked upon using this case as a example, so no matter what the outcome this lady has already done irreparable damage to thousands of refugees living in fear, and for that alone she should be litigated in my opinion and made repay the state for all costs incurred in fighting a bogus case.
But let us wait two weeks and I can assure all readers this Lady will have no proof and no case.

HollyB

solarant wrote: »

I am only being factious here I just want to highlight the fact FMG is not prevalent in Nigeria and I reiterate if both parents are against this practice then it is never going to happen, FGM happens when the parents WANT it to happen, I said before, find the grave; do a autopsy; if the child died as described then this would be grounds to let the lady stay.

I think that it's for the courts to decide whether it's grounds to let the Izevbekhai family stay, should Pamela be able to furnish proof of Elizabeth's existence and her cause of death. It would help bolster Pamela's credibility, if she could be proven to have told the truth about Elizabeth, but that doesn't mean that she qualifies for asylum, especially if internal relocation is considered to be an option available to her.

solarant

The reason the loyal husband would not seek asylum in N.Ireland is they would have to fight the case under uk law and this case would have been looked at under previous similar cases and a precedent has already been set never mind the fact the case is based on forgeries but they knew they would have been put on the first plane to Lagos.

So they come here and abuse the system with bogus claims and get the likes of gullible Antonia Leslie to be advocates for them in the national papers.

opo wrote: »

So have our immigration officials have changed policy?

Do they know offer asylum at the frontier of Northern Ireland where he was arrested?

Is Northern Ireland no longer a safe country or currently at war and brimming with refugees or have I missed something?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

EnigmasWhisper

Anyone hear the discussion on newstalk last night ? Some lady presenter interviewing another lady regarding Pamela Izevbekhai . . It was so biast and inaccurate it was sickening. I can only imagine the complaints forwarded to the station, the presenter should be sacked immediately !

solarant

As I am sure Tony and Pamala are very familiar with this case "Zainab Esther Fornah (Appellant) v. Secretary of State"
And you can be assured this is why they chose Ireland and why the ohh so loyal Tony did not want to stay in N.Ireland.
Read this excerpt from the link supplied below it is food for thought for all the doubters.

---

FGM and Asylum FGM is increasingly becoming an asylum issue,and therefore over recent years asylum, inrelation to FGM, has become a growing aspectof our work. There has been much debate as tothe legitimacy of FGM as grounds for asylumand human rights appeals, which are extremelycomplex legal issues. While it cannot bedisputed that FGM constitutes a grave violationof a woman’s rights, the controversy surroundingFGM as grounds for asylum relates to thedebate over whether women from a particularcountry or ethnic group, who are at risk of FGM,constitute a ‘particular social group', in terms ofthe definition of a refugee under the RefugeeConvention 1951.FORWARD’s position on the subject is veryclear: women who legitimately seek asylum onthe grounds of FGM should be grantedprotection, as should any women facing tortureand violence on the basis of their gender.Women seeking asylum due to gender-basedviolence face difficulties in relation todiscussing and proving such personal andsensitive experiences. Therefore, FORWARDalso asserts that the gender guidelines that theUK Home Office incorporated into its asylumpolicy instructions for its asylum case workersin 2004, must be strictly adhered to, which iscurrently not the case.This year we have been contacted in relation to18 cases of women in the UK seeking asylumon the grounds of FGM. Solicitors representingthese women frequently contact FORWARD torequest expert reports on FGM in a particularcountry, or among a certain ethnic group, to beused in court for asylum case hearings. Theyrequire detailed information about theprevalence of FGM within the applicant’scountry of origin and ethnic group, the healthrisks associated with the practice, and theavailability (or lack) of alternatives andprotection for women who do not want toundergo FGM. Of great significance are thelikely methods used by local communities toimpose this practice on young girls and womenagainst their will, and how, even wherelegislation exists prohibiting FGM, it may not beenforced. This year FORWARD has providedeight of these reports. We see this work asanother important way of supporting andprotecting girls and women who are at risk ofFGM, and hope that in the future UK AsylumPolicy and Procedures will be more sensitive to the needs of women and girls seeking asylum because of gender-based violence.The inclusion of FGM carried out under duress,as grounds for an asylum application, wasdiscussed this year in the House of Lords. FORWARD provided background information forthis discussion, which took place on 8 December 2005. It was prompted by the caseof Zainab Esther Fornah, a young woman fromSierra Leone, who since 2003 has been seekingasylum in the UK on the basis that she will besubjected to FGM if she is returned to SierraLeone. Baroness Rendell of Babergh began thediscussion and stated: “My Lords, UNICEF andthe UN have called for asylum status to be granted to girls and young women who flee theircountry to escape female genital mutilation, but in practice few women have been grantedasylum on these grounds”
http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:8EWzInO0vX8J:www.forwarduk.org.uk/downloads/annual-report/FORWARD%2520Annual%2520Report%25202005-2006.pdf+ZAINAB+ESTHER+FORNAH+asylum+fgm+outcome&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/45631a0f4.html

walrusgumble

mealone43 wrote: »

I read that article also and it was strange that Tony is living in luxury with a Mercedes and flash designer clothes and later in the article he is in hiding. How does he earn a living? Gangster no doubt as if he had a job in Nigeria to afford that luxury he could not be in hiding. Lies lies and more f'ing lies. Time to stop the court cases and send here hom and rid us of this stupid headache.

do people honestly believe that EVERY ONE living in Nigeria is living in complete poverty? that only people who have a bit of wealth in Nigeria are corrupt and gansters? that is a bit unfair and extremely ignorant to nigerian society. have you proof that he is a gangster? last i saw, there was a nigerian version of dragon's den with some wealthy and respected people involved in the show, not to mind that nigerian is rich in raw materials etc sure the delta region is full with america oil companies.

but ye this case smacks of lies. i read the article and one could understand the author's concern for her new super best "friend". what the author appears to neglect to consider that it is up to the applicant to prove her/his case, that documents are often required and if they are not present that applicant's claim needs to be credible and plausible and does not smack in the face of known facts (amnesty international etc) before benefit of doubt is allowed to be given. mrs izevbekhai has failed at the ORAC, RAT and if i am correct in her applications for subsidiary protection.

fgm as the author states would easily fail into a conventional ground for persecution and or serious harm. the big problem with the author is that even she has acknowledged that nigeria is a big country. she neglects to point out that the very same US dept of state report also notes that in some regions like lagos, fgm IS illegal, and that the police and judiciary HAVE brought charges and sentences on those who practice. there is some evidence that the state are willing to act. werre the actor of persecution is non state (in this case her in laws) the applicant would be expected, providing that there is no severe reasons preventing her, to try and relocate to another part of the country

what is noteworthy and the above stated, the father or the children has not even tried to leave nigeria and that the trouble has come from HIS family, there is no reports that he has not being attacked for allowing his wife and two daughters to leave nigeria. moreover, if "elizabeth" died in the early 1990's why has it taken so long to flee the country.

one distrubing issue with the author's article appears to be her apparent misunderstanding that asylum and other supplementary forms of protection are not available merely for people who want to start a new life - (economic wise) stupidly, her comparison with irish diaspora and other immigrants in america over obama is completely uncalled for. how many irish apply for asylum in the us? this after all are grounds on which this lady is in court for.

i would believe that this lady has made it extremely difficult for herself to return to nigeria if its is found that she has being ecomonical with the truth. the author is correct to have some disregard over conor lenihan's readily belief and reassurance from the nigerian government. but the author would do very well to actually read the reports in full.

walrusgumble

HollyB wrote: »

I thought that one of the causes of complaint about why the Nigerian government couldn't protect the Izevbekhai girls was because there were no FGM-related prosecutions, despite FGM being outlawed?

In any case, does fear of prosecution count as grounds for asylum, especially when the alleged crime is not a capital offence? I wouldn't have thought that people who skip the country because they fear being prosecuted would merit asylum, or that the possibility for prosecution - and by Pamela's own account, she consented to the procedure (is FGM illegal where they lived at the time of Elizabeth's alleged death?) being performed on her daughter.

In any case, how could the Nigerian courts possibly charge Pamela, or anybody else, for the death of a baby that, according to the government, never existed?

Ms Leslie seems to be grasping at straws here.

according to the following paragrph of the UN Handbook on the Procedures and Criteria for determing refugee status 1992

(b) Persecution
51. There is no universally accepted definition of “persecution”, and various attempts to formulate such a definition have met with little success. From Article 33 of the 1951 Convention, it may be inferred that a threat to life or freedom on account of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership of a particular social group is always persecution. Other serious violations of human rights--for the same reasons--would also constitute persecution.
52. Whether other prejudicial actions or threats would amount to persecution will depend on the circumstances of each case, including the subjective element to which reference has been made in the preceding para. graphs. The subjective character of fear of persecution requires an evaluation of the opinions and feelings of the person concerned. It is also in the light of such opinions and feelings that any actual or anticipated measures against him must necessarily be viewed. Due to variations in the psychological make-up of individuals and in the circumstances of each case, interpretations of what amounts to persecution are bound to vary.
53. In addition, an applicant may have been subjected to various measures not in themselves amounting to persecution (e.g. discrimination in different forms), in some cases combined with other adverse factors (e.g. general atmosphere of insecurity in the country of origin). In such situations, the various elements involved may, if taken together, produce an effect on the mind of the applicant that can reasonably justify a claim to well-founded fear of persecution on “cumulative grounds”. Needless to say, it is not possible to lay down a general rule as to what cumulative reasons can give rise to a valid claim to refugee status. This will necessarily depend on all the circumstances, including the particular geographical, historical and ethnological context.

(c) Discrimination
54. Differences in the treatment of various groups do indeed exist to a greater or lesser extent in many societies. Persons who receive less favourable treatment as a result of such differences are not necessarily victims of persecution. It is only in certain circumstances that discrimination will amount to persecution. This would be so if measures of discrimination lead to consequences of a substantially prejudicial nature for the person concerned, e.g. serious restrictions on his right to earn his livelihood, his right to practise his religion, or his access to normally available educational facilities.
55. Where measures of discrimination are, in themselves, not of a serious character, they may nevertheless give rise to a reasonable fear of persecution if they produce, in the mind of the person concerned, a feeling of apprehension and insecurity as regards his future existence. Whether or not such measures of discrimination in themselves amount to persecution must be determined in the light of all the circumstances. A claim to fear of persecution will of course be stronger where a person has been the victim of a number of discriminatory measures of this type and where there is thus a cumulative element involved.

(d) Punishment
56. Persecution must be distinguished from punishment for a common law offence. Persons fleeing from prosecution or punishment for such an offence are not normally refugees. It should be recalled that a refugee is a victim--or potential victim--of injustice, not a fugitive from justice.
57. The above distinction may, however, occasionally be obscured. In the first place, a person guilty of a common law offence may be liable to excessive punishment, which may amount to persecution within the meaning of the definition. Moreover, penal prosecution for a reason mentioned in the definition (for example, in respect of “illegal” religious instruction given to a child) may in itself amount to persecution.
58. Secondly, there may be cases in which a person, besides fearing prosecution or punishment for a common law crime, may also have “well founded fear of persecution”. In such cases the person concerned is a refugee. It may, however, be necessary to consider whether the crime in question is not of such a serious character as to bring the applicant within the scope of one of the exclusion clauses.9
59. In order to determine whether prosecution amounts to persecution, it will also be necessary to refer to the laws of the country concerned, for it is possible for a law not to be in conformity with accepted human rights standards. More often, however, it may not be the law but its application that is discriminatory. Prosecution for an offence against “public order”, e.g. for distribution of pamphlets, could for example be a vehicle for the persecution of the individual on the grounds of the political content of the publication.
60. In such cases, due to the obvious difficulty involved in evaluating the laws of another country, national authorities may frequently have to take decisions by using their own national legislation as a yardstick. Moreover, recourse may usefully be had to the principles set out in the various international instruments relating to human rights, in particular the International Covenants on Human Rights, which contain binding commitments for the States parties and are instruments to which many States parties to the 1951 Convention have acceded.

(e) Consequences of unlawful departure or unauthorized stay outside country of origin
61. The legislation of certain States imposes severe penalties on nationals who depart from the country in an unlawful manner or remain abroad without authorization. Where there is reason to believe that a person, due to his illegal departure or unauthorized stay abroad is liable to such severe penalties his recognition as a refugee will be justified if it can be shown that his motives for leaving or remaining outside the country are related to the reasons enumerated in Article 1 A (2) of the 1951 Convention (see paragraph 66 below).

66. In order to be considered a refugee, a person must show well-founded fear of persecution for one of the reasons stated above. It is immaterial whether the persecution arises from any single one of these reasons or from a combination of two or more of them. Often the applicant himself may not be aware of the reasons for the persecution feared. It is not, however, his duty to analyze his case to such an extent as to identify the reasons in detail.

i would point out of course that this is not a binding instrument, more a persuasive article used by most refugee decision makers

Yellowknife

Just read she could face perjury charges next. If she goes to jail the tax-payer will have to foot the bill again.

marcsignal

Yellowknife wrote: »

Just read she could face perjury charges next. If she goes to jail the tax-payer will have to foot the bill again.

article in the tribune about this

http://www.tribune.ie/news/article/2009/apr/05/the-curious-case-of-pamela-izevbekhai/

MIN2511

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Female...

I rang my ma and asked her... And she said "How the hell do you come up with such stories?" So i gave her brief details of the Pamela details and she laughed so hard and said no i wasn't

Thank God!!!!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

jmcc

These few paragraphs seem to show that the knives are out for Boucher-Hayes - especially the last line of the article.

Philip Boucher-Hayes is the RTÉ broadcaster who conducted the radio interview. Boucher-Hayes has sworn an affidavit supporting Izevbekhai's claims for her legal case. He said through a spokeswoman last week: "In 2005, I rang international directory enquiries and got a number for the hospital in which Dr Unokanjo works. I rang the hospital and was put through to the person whose interview was aired." A phone number for Isioma hospital in Lagos was not available from international directory enquiries when contacted on several occasions this week. The address on the fake document gives a fake address and phone number for the hospital. The hospital's actual address is 11 James Robertson Street, Surulere, Lagos.

In his sworn affidavit, Boucher Hayes said that when he telephoned Dr Unokanjo back some time later, he alleged to have been visited by a Nigerian army captain who threatened him for speaking publicly in support of Pamela Izevbekhai. Boucher Hayes was unavailable for comment.

Regards...jmcc

marcsignal

jmcc wrote: »

These few paragraphs seem to show that the knives are out for Boucher-Hayes - especially the last line of the article.

hardly surprising, in the persuit of self publicity, he made the kind of mistakes a first year journalism wouldn't make. I don't believe his position now is tenable, and he should resign.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I think Perjury charges would be justified in this case, considering the very expensive merry-go-round Pamela Izevbekhai has lead the Irish tax payer on. I also think it would send out the right message to anyone down the road, who may have similar ideas. imo it's the only way to help seperate chancers form genuine cases.

The Raven.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It is indeed. A bit of sensible reporting at last.

Interestingly, it seems the "Dr Unokanjo" interviewed by RTÉ in 2005, and the "Dr Unokanjo" interviewed by Ocean FM in 2007 were different men, and that neither is the real Dr Unokanjo, whom Garda detectives interviewed recently in Lagos.

Three Unokanjos - one real and two fakes :rolleyes::rolleyes:!!!

There is also the possibility that her 'son' is not her son. If this is the case it would explain why she left him behind.

'Pamela has spoken about leaving her son behind when she fled to Ireland. But as far as we can tell, that son is her husband's child, but she helped to bring him up.'

It would seem that Izevbekhai will be lucky to get out of the country without facing charges.

They could of course offer to drop the charges of perjury in return for a quick exit on her part - not that they would need to, but it would save more taxpayers' money.

Don't miss RTÉ's Would You Believe: Pamela's Story tonight at 10:20 p.m.

I wouldn't miss it for the world !

It looks like someone else is 'gone into hiding' also !

Boucher Hayes was unavailable for comment.

marcsignal

The Raven. wrote: »

It looks like someone else is 'gone into hiding' also !

Boucher Hayes was unavailable for comment

if he's out on sick leave, I hope he has a reliable cert to prove it

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

tfitzgerald

she has being here long enough i'd say we should give her a break and let her stay besides i hear that the have named a new capital of nigeria its called Tallaght

MIN2511

tfitzgerald wrote: »

she has beind here long enough i'd say we should give her a break and let her stay besides i hear that the have named a new capital of nigeria its called Tallaght

NFW, it's called Abuja!!!!

HollyB

tfitzgerald wrote: »

she has beind here long enough i'd say we should give her a break and let her stay besides i hear that the have named a new capital of nigeria its called Tallaght

Had she been here since January 2005 through no fault of her own, ie. due to a failure on the part of the authorities to process her case and make a decision then I would agree that, after so long, granting her leave to remain would be the right thing to do. However, that is not the case here. Ms Izevbekhai has caused the delay through her multiple appeals, even absconding when she was issued with an order for her deportation so, if she has put down roots in Ireland after being here for so long, if she wants to stay here - tough.

She has not stayed here so long with the blessing of the Irish government. She was issued with a deportation order in November of 2005 and refused to comply.

If she is found to merit asylum or subsidiary protection, then of course she should stay. However, that is looking increasingly unlikely, especially with the recent revelations about forged documents and Dr Unokanjo's testimony, which casts a serious doubt over her whole story. If the Supreme Court finds against her and should the ECHR either decline to hear her case or find against her, she should be deported immediately.

Under no circumstances should she be rewarded for her persistence, not when that persistence has already cost the taxpayers of Ireland half a million euros, and she certainly shouldn't be rewarded if she is guilty of fraud.

LostinBlanch

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I know I mentioned it earlier. :mad:

donegalfella wrote: »

It would seem that Izevbekhai will be lucky to get out of the country without facing charges.

Damn right, whether she's allowed stay or not I think she should be charged (if the info quoted in the article stands up of course).

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I can't wait :rolleyes:

tfitzgerald

MIN2511 wrote: »

NFW, it's called Abuja!!!!

i was joking tallaght is in dublin but it seems that many of the locals look like the are from nigeria

The Raven.

There are a number of questions that need to be answered, this one in particular. The beautiful little baby in the picture is from the documentary on the Let Them Stay website: http://www.letthemstay.org/

From what I can make out, it appears to have the name Elizabeth Izevbekhai and a date printed on it, although I could be mistaken. If there is no Elizabeth, then who is this child?

This picture and Chopin's Prelude in E minor, in the background, really pull at the heart strings.

HollyB

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

"Yes, I love this woman very much and nothing she could do or say would take my love away"

A completely objective journalist, I'm sure. :rolleyes:

HollyB

The Raven. wrote: »

There are a number of questions that need to be answered, this one in particular. The beautiful little baby in the picture is from the documentary on the Let Them Stay website: http://www.letthemstay.org/

From what I can make out, it appears to have the name Elizabeth Izevbekhai and a date printed on it, although I could be mistaken. If there is no Elizabeth, then who is this child?

Who knows? For all we know, it could be a picture of Pamela herself as a baby, given that the picture looks old, and the dress the baby is wearing could have been made any time.