Pamela Izevbekhai - Should She Be Deported?

Tweeter

mealone43 wrote: »

Very few "genuine asylum seekers" nowadays. 95% 100% economic refugees

Fixed that for you.
The poor fcukers who really need asylum haven't got the means to pursue it!

blueythebear

Regardless of the merits or lack of merit in Pamela Izevhbeki's case, I think it's important to mention a more general point on asylum seekers in Ireland.

This case does not affect the status of FGM in terms of whether it's a ground for asylum. It's accepted that FGM constitutes persecution and this will stay the case, regardless of the outcome here.

Also, this particular case is most certainly not the first one whereby a person has told lies in order to obtain refugee status. People are often found out in their ORAC interview as having made absurd or apparently ungrounded claims. In such a case a finding is made by the ORAC under Section 13 (6) of the Refugee Act. In that case your appeal is accelarated and it is based on documentary evidence, you don't get another interview.

This is a well publicised case but it will not affect the asylum system over here as all of the issues that have arisen in it have come up countless times before and have also been perfectly adequately dealt with then. Fair enough, she should have been caught out earlier and I'd suggest that credibility issues should have been sorted out at ORAC and RAT stage. Obviously someine f***ed up there...

rkeane

blackiebest wrote: »

This I what I fear the most, while you may be entitled to your opinion, I think it is shameful to post such sentiments.

I agree, that was a rediculous thing to say.....you (congo_90) need to take a few chill pills. Blackiebest I find myself feeling somewhat sorry that you were taken in by this....I can see you are a very decent person. Ultimately the children will have to suffer (by that I mean relocating to Nigeria) for what their parents did, there can be no waiver in this situation, there can only be deportation.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

opo

blueythebear wrote: »

Fair enough, she should have been caught out earlier and I'd suggest that credibility issues should have been sorted out at ORAC and RAT stage. Obviously someine f***ed up there...

Did they not reject the claim? What more do you want from them?

Izevbekhai was also presented with the reasons why her claim was rejected.

Because the media approached this issue with their heads in the the sand we are still waiting for those reasons. Instead we got forged death certs.

I would be quite sure that credibility was a defining factor in rejecting her claim.

Just because the media was duped so easily, don't assume everyone else was.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

The Raven.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

They might not have to look very far if this is the same fellow on Facebook:

http://ja-jp.facebook.com/people/Tony-Izevbekhai/745693850

There may be lots of Tony Izevbekhais though, but this one looks quite similar in shape !

TequilaMockingBird

blackiebest wrote: »

If you go back a few pages you will read why. It is insane that it was never checked out before.

As a long time supporter of Pamela I am sickened by the revelations over the past 9 days. The programme by RTE was pointless IMO and I find it amazing that Pamela was not asked the obvious hard questions that still linger.

My sympathies lie with Jemima, Naomi and the many Sligo people who believed and supported her in what they believed was a very valid case.

Contrary to how they are potrayed here, all of the people I know involved in the LTS campaign are normal caring individuals and I feel the 'hidden adgenda' allegations are unwarranted. I can only speak for myself but suspect many of them feel as I do tonight, pretty sickened and very sad.

I dread what this case will ultimately do to promote divisions amongst communities and fuel racist thinking. Damage to genuine asylum will be incalculable.:(

I'm sorry you feel let down. I would love to hear more of your views on this now. I'm not sorry I backed her, I would hope to always feel compassion in such circumstances.

Poor kids.

The Orb

blueythebear wrote: »

Also, this particular case is most certainly not the first one whereby a person has told lies in order to obtain refugee status. People are often found out in their ORAC interview as having made absurd or apparently ungrounded claims. In such a case a finding is made by the ORAC under Section 13 (6) of the Refugee Act. In that case your appeal is accelarated and it is based on documentary evidence, you don't get another interview.

This is a well publicised case but it will not affect the asylum system over here as all of the issues that have arisen in it have come up countless times before and have also been perfectly adequately dealt with then. Fair enough, she should have been caught out earlier and I'd suggest that credibility issues should have been sorted out at ORAC and RAT stage. Obviously someine f***ed up there...

As she was rejected in both is it not transparently obvious that they did not mess up, your knowledge of the asylum process is patchy. She has failed throughout the whole process, there have never been any doubts about her lack of credibility. She has used high court applications to delay the inevitable time and time again, a common tactic to delay the deportation process, now every option has been exhausted, she will be deported. The only thing that will stop her deportation is if her production of forged documents before the court is investigated by the state. Personally I hope she does time for her deception before being deported, although it is unlikely, it will be quicker and cheaper to get rid of her straight away.

The Corinthian

blackiebest wrote: »

I dread what this case will ultimately do to promote divisions amongst communities and fuel racist thinking. Damage to genuine asylum will be incalculable.:(

Ireland was a strongly anti-abortion nation prior to the X Case in 1992. Regardless of one's position on the topic, it cannot be denied that the mobilization in public sentiment that this case created caused not only for the constitution to be altered, but also attitudes towards abortion to soften in the Republic.

The Izevbekhai case is likely to have similar effects, although how far they'll go is open to debate. The effects are obvious to all - where a few weeks ago, some of the more militant anti-immigration voices heard would have belonged to the far-right, many of those we here now were, up until recently, apolitical and are simply venting their anger at what almost certainly now appears to have been an extraordinary attempt at deception.

At the very least, the popular belief that Nigerian asylum seekers are predominantly scam artists looking to con their way into living in Ireland will be re-enforced. Additionally, it is not outside the realm of possibility that the present backlash will also result in the introduction of legislation meant to reform the asylum process - and by doing so will make it much harder for genuine asylum seekers to get it.

This is regrettable for those genuine asylum seekers, but in fairness the Izevbekhai supporters share culpability for this. I do believe that blinded by a humanitarian agenda, they foolishly took her story at face value and considered her photogenic children before the consequences of supporting a potential fraud on this scale. After all, being closest to the source, they should have been able to detect such inconsistencies in her story long before the rest of us. Some appear, even at this stage, to still be blotting out the reality of the situation; whether because they are too invested in the case, or out of pride that refuses to allow them to admit that they were played.

Either way, I feel sorry for both genuine asylum seekers and Nigerians in Ireland (of whom many, if not most, are not asylum seekers, but skilled workers with valid work visas). Ultimately, the road to ruin, as the cliché goes, is paved with good intentions.

silverharp

The Corinthian wrote: »

Ireland was a strongly anti-abortion nation prior to the X Case in 1992. Regardless of one's position on the topic, it cannot be denied that the mobilization in public sentiment that this case created caused not only for the constitution to be altered, but also attitudes towards abortion to soften in the Republic.

The Izevbekhai case is likely to have similar effects, although how far they'll go is open to debate.

nice linkage , the change in social mood will amplify this as well.


BTW - Just wanted to say this is an excellent thread , I wouldnt normally be interested in the circumstances of an individual case , but you guys have given a superior coverage and analysis then the media is doing

walrusgumble

jeepski wrote: »

I agree! This woman should be deported. Her own government said that she will not be harmed. It seems that when someone doesn't want to be deported they say that their daughters will be subject to FGM and 'hey presto' they are viewed as victims and not as the illegals that they clearly are! As said elsewhere in these posts, Ireland has become a soft touch. Other countries have copped on - It's time we did also!

what i find a tad bot intersting is that from the top of my head, no other asylum seeker currently in Ireland claiming on the basis of FGM has come out to support Ms Izevbekhai with their claims of FGM. Moreover, i understand (but stand to be corrected) claims from Nigeria have gone down in the past 2-3 years. Nigeria must not be that bad as far as political human rights are concerned (conventional groudns for asylum)

THat author, jesus. god help her if she went on tv using the COI which she used as support. She would be torn apart on that COI as if read in full, she would note that FGM is NOT tolerated in a least the southern parts of nigeria. THe fool even stated in her own words that nigeria is huge. Had she bothered to look up the basic prinicples of refugee law she would have noted the nonsense she spout out. I wonder will she keep in touch with her when she goes back? will she even offer to adopt the children?? not likely

opo

The Raven. wrote: »

I don't doubt it. You are obviously more informed on that aspect than I am. However, out of curiosity as regards statistics and any other available information, I did check the legal diary. I don't know if I was looking in the right place because I'm still none the wiser. All I could see on the asylum seekers were long lists with capital letters. The only clear information was for other types of cases. Do you have a link?

http://www.courts.ie/legaldiary.nsf/a29e83d32296b62f80256c590060acda?OpenView

Pick any date and feast your eyes on the lawyer driven gravy train in action.


An example might be O vs MJELR.

This is in theory preserving the anonymity of "O" for example in a case against the minister for justice, equality and law reform.

opo

walrusgumble wrote: »

what i find a tad bot intersting is that from the top of my head, no other asylum seeker currently in Ireland claiming on the basis of FGM has come out to support Ms Izevbekhai with their claims of FGM. Moreover, i understand (but stand to be corrected) claims from Nigeria have gone down in the past 2-3 years. Nigeria must not be that bad as far as political human rights are concerned (conventional groudns for asylum)

Nor is there a single organisation of Nigerian refugees or asylum seekers that is focused on bringing any kind of attention to any type of continuing persecution that I am aware of. This is the only time I ever saw the Nigerian embassy taken on by its citizens:

http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/2005/03/17/story260971800.asp

Big_Mac

I missed the WYB programme last night, and RTE have not put the video online for viewing yet. Can anyone let me know a review of how it went please? Also, if anyone knows if its online somewhere. Was it just sensationalist nonsense or did RTE show any balance at all?

Just reading this article, fascinating. So we now conclusively know that the Dr on the radio interview with Philip Boucher-Hayes was a fake, and so too was the one on Ocean FM. How is it that no one who is dealing with this case didn't listen to both of these interviews and notice that they were clearly two different people? I'm astonished. I wonder would the LTS brigade comment on this.

"If he's asking for money from newspapers for his story, how can we believe anything he says?" said Rosanna Flynn of Residents Against Racism.

Easy Really. The affadavit he gave was for free, and thats whats important as it goes to the courts. He has done his duty and if anyone else wants to discuss it futher why shouldn't he be compensated for it? After all he would have other things that he could be doing instead of rehashing the same thing over and over again. Is this the best arguement that anyone can make to cast light on his credibility? How are the Residents Against Racism involved in this, what has this got to do with them?

Other sources dismissed the request for payment for his story as another cultural misunderstanding. "He never asked for money when we visited him at his hospital. He seems to believe that western media will pay for his story – that's how he believes the media works over here," said a garda source. "We accept the version of events he gave us completely. He was annoyed that someone had forged documents and put his name on them. He was more than happy to provide us with an affidavit outlining his position. In fact, he insisted on it."

Well, I guess that answers that then.

AlekSmart

Crikey opo,That is SOME list....Phew !!!

Am I correct in thinking that costs in a high/supreme court appearance are running at in excess of €15,000 per day...?

Any input from the laywers on here..???

blueythebear

The Orb wrote: »

As she was rejected in both is it not transparently obvious that they did not mess up, your knowledge of the asylum process is patchy. She has failed throughout the whole process, there have never been any doubts about her lack of credibility. She has used high court applications to delay the inevitable time and time again, a common tactic to delay the deportation process, now every option has been exhausted, she will be deported. The only thing that will stop her deportation is if her production of forged documents before the court is investigated by the state. Personally I hope she does time for her deception before being deported, although it is unlikely, it will be quicker and cheaper to get rid of her straight away.

Somebody messed up as a person with a manifestly unfounded claim is still here after all this time. Some very simple due diligence (e.g. check the death cert for Elizabeth) by the RAC or RAT would have exposed the falsity of her claims for certain. Then she could have been questioned about her claims, caught out and sound decisions given for her refusal as a refugee, preventing the multitude of judicial reviews. The Minister could then have cited her falsehoods as reasons for not giving leave for subsid protection and humanitarian leave and thus, we would not be in this position now.

You can’t judicially review a decision if the decision is sound and fair. i.e. the RAC and RAT (and the Minister) are giving applicants ammunition for judicial reviews (and hence delay their cases) to use against them by supplying applicants with poorly drafted and rushed decisions. So, in this case, somebody (more likely, several people) messed up.

blueythebear

AlekSmart wrote: »

Crikey opo,That is SOME list....Phew !!!

Am I correct in thinking that costs in a high/supreme court appearance are running at in excess of €15,000 per day...?

Any input from the laywers on here..???

I would have said that for the judicial reviews, the costs aren't as high as for othere types of trial as they don't last as long and there's no witnesses to be called.

I am informed by a legal friend that the going rate would be in the region of €20,000 (that's just costs for the applicant, and doesn't include the costs for the State) per judicial review. That's certainly around what he has gotten for costs after successful judicial reviews when they had to go to taxation.

johnnyskeleton

blueythebear wrote: »

That's certainly around what he has gotten for costs after successful judicial reviews when they had to go to taxation.

The crucial word being successful, because if the claim fails the lawyers usually don't get paid. As such, there is incentive for them to only take cases that have merit.

walrusgumble

blueythebear wrote: »

Somebody messed up as a person with a manifestly unfounded claim is still here after all this time. Some very simple due diligence (e.g. check the death cert for Elizabeth) by the RAC or RAT would have exposed the falsity of her claims for certain. Then she could have been questioned about her claims, caught out and sound decisions given for her refusal as a refugee, preventing the multitude of judicial reviews. The Minister could then have cited her falsehoods as reasons for not giving leave for subsid protection and humanitarian leave and thus, we would not be in this position now.

You can’t judicially review a decision if the decision is sound and fair. i.e. the RAC and RAT (and the Minister) are giving applicants ammunition for judicial reviews (and hence delay their cases) to use against them by supplying applicants with poorly drafted and rushed decisions. So, in this case, somebody (more likely, several people) messed up.

have you actually read teh Section 13 report or the appeal transcript??????
How do you know if the said bodies you referred to have not actually made commment or made comment as to whether the document could assist the case, assuming the death certificate was put to them during the asylum process. Normally, where said authorites have such documents they express that they are unable to verify whether they are real or not, and may not hugely form part of the decision ,particularily if teh rest of the case is riddled with credibility issues.

the matter that this lady is in the courts, is NOT because her claim for asylum was refused, but because her applications for leave to remain and subsidiary protection were refused and a deportation order was granted. so, RAC and RAT may have being of the opinion that the document was fake.

do people even know what where the precise reasons for refusal and what the statement of opposition states?

yo are spot on though in the second paragraph your comment. she may have tried to review the case any way though

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ParkRunner

blueythebear wrote: »

Somebody messed up as a person with a manifestly unfounded claim is still here after all this time. Some very simple due diligence (e.g. check the death cert for Elizabeth) by the RAC or RAT would have exposed the falsity of her claims for certain. Then she could have been questioned about her claims, caught out and sound decisions given for her refusal as a refugee, preventing the multitude of judicial reviews. The Minister could then have cited her falsehoods as reasons for not giving leave for subsid protection and humanitarian leave and thus, we would not be in this position now.

You can’t judicially review a decision if the decision is sound and fair. i.e. the RAC and RAT (and the Minister) are giving applicants ammunition for judicial reviews (and hence delay their cases) to use against them by supplying applicants with poorly drafted and rushed decisions. So, in this case, somebody (more likely, several people) messed up.

All well and good checking a death certificate, but to prove that it is a forgery and provide evidence of same which would survive a judicial review challenge in every case would be impossible. At RAC and RAT stage Pamela was treated like every other manifestly unfounded case. How would you have checked the death cert and proved that it is false..bearing in mind you may have to swear an affidavit detailing how you came to the conclusion that the certificate was false?

blueythebear

walrusgumble wrote: »

have you actually read teh Section 13 report or the appeal transcript??????
How do you know if the said bodies you referred to have not actually made commment or made comment as to whether the document could assist the case, assuming the death certificate was put to them during the asylum process. Normally, where said authorites have such documents they express that they are unable to verify whether they are real or not, and may not hugely form part of the decision ,particularily if teh rest of the case is riddled with credibility issues.

the matter that this lady is in the courts, is NOT because her claim for asylum was refused, but because her applications for leave to remain and subsidiary protection were refused and a deportation order was granted. so, RAC and RAT may have being of the opinion that the document was fake.

do people even know what where the precise reasons for refusal and what the statement of opposition states?

yo are spot on though in the second paragraph your comment. she may have tried to review the case any way though

Admittedly, I'm making assumptions about this case. I know nothing more than anybody else in relation to this case. I'm presuming that the death cert was submitted from the beginning (or at least from the RAT stage) seeing as it's so fundamental to the case.

My point is that somebody in RAT or RAC could have found out about the fake cert from the beginning (unofficially or offically). Being forearmed with that knowledge, they could have questioned her about it at interview. If they knew it was fake, appropriate questioning would have clearly revealed it at interview.

That being the case the decision could be based on these credibility findings and the subsequent decisions (from the Minister) could have been made on that basis as well. i.e. all of the applications rejected on the one solid basis which would possibly have prevented many of the judicial reviews from arising.

I realise that's presuming an awful lot especially when I haven't seen any of the documents in relation to the case. Either way, my point is that I think that this fiasco could have been prevented with a bit of careful drafting / reporting at the earlier stages. Hopefully, it will put the decisionmakers on notice for future applications...

jmcc

The Corinthian wrote: »

The Izevbekhai case is likely to have similar effects, although how far they'll go is open to debate. The effects are obvious to all - where a few weeks ago, some of the more militant anti-immigration voices heard would have belonged to the far-right, many of those we here now were, up until recently, apolitical and are simply venting their anger at what almost certainly now appears to have been an extraordinary attempt at deception.

The danger is that such abuses tend to bring in far more stringent and restrictive legislation. This is probably what will happen now. The disconnect between the "media" and reality is also a factor in this. In Ireland the media has always been a dumping ground for the mediocre. One only has to look at the tripe in Sundays to see this. The way that some people in the Irish media latched on to this cause celebre is going to backfire. Boucher-Hayes' credibility as an "investigative" journalist, or indeed as a journalist, is now in tatters and he may have some questions to answer about the details of his affidavit. That Sunday Tribune article really went for the kill, especially with the last line. Antonia Leslie seems to be more a Sindo columnist than a journalist concerned with facts and details so this kind of gushing gullibility is to be expected. Her article seemed to be more about herself and her reactions than PI.

There is a different mood in Ireland today. No longer is the tyranny of the Politically Correct accepted as doctrine. Some politicians and those in RTE do not seem to understand this and continue with their simpleton ways. All asylum seekers will now be looked upon as scammers regardless of whether they are genuine or not. That is one of the worst outcomes of this case.

FF, being a populist party might be more attuned to this shift in mood. They may realise that a lurch to the right may be necessary to maintain their votes in areas most affected by immigration. Nobody knows how far this shift will go yet. It could end up with everything being reconsidered from eligibility for asylum to the IBC scheme. While this case became a cause celebre for some on the Left and extremist groupings like RAR, it may well end up destroying them. The fallout from this case hasn't even begun to settle.

Regards...jmcc

opo

blueythebear wrote: »

You can’t judicially review a decision if the decision is sound and fair. i.e. the RAC and RAT (and the Minister) are giving applicants ammunition for judicial reviews (and hence delay their cases) to use against them by supplying applicants with poorly drafted and rushed decisions. So, in this case, somebody (more likely, several people) messed up.

What percentage of judicial review cases are successfull?

Are most of them successfull?

Or are a tiny percentage successfull??

.

The Corinthian

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Bugger...

We are sorry but this programme is only available in Ireland.

Anyone want to lend me an open proxy with an Irish IP address?

opo

blueythebear wrote: »

I would have said that for the judicial reviews, the costs aren't as high as for othere types of trial as they don't last as long and there's no witnesses to be called.

I am informed by a legal friend that the going rate would be in the region of €20,000 (that's just costs for the applicant, and doesn't include the costs for the State) per judicial review. That's certainly around what he has gotten for costs after successful judicial reviews when they had to go to taxation.

I don't expect you to read the entire thread, but the issue here is not just the cost of the legal process, it is also the almost incalculable cost (to the taxpayer) of sustaining the "client" and possibly entire families, for years on end whilst these cases drag on interminably.

Therefore, it is also about the process of determining claims for asylum alongside an uncontrolled legal circus acting as a magnet for abusive claims.

A magnet so strong that claimants travel from all over the world in great numbers - bypassing many other countries to exploit. Even to the point of travelling to our neighbouring countries and "fleeing" from there.

blueythebear

opo wrote: »

What percentage of judicial review cases are successfull?

Are most of the successfull?

Or are a tiny percentage successfull??

.

That information would not be available as many of these cases are settled before hearing. Settlements happen where either side will obviously win and so this would skew the figures. However, i think it would be safe to say that most judicial reviews are failures for the applicants. I think you're saying that the level of failed judicial reviews shows that the decisions made are not poorly though out but i'd disagree.

The fact that the judicial review fails does not say that the RAT or whatever made a good decision. You have to obtain leave from the High Court to have a matter judicially reviewed and the question here is if there is an issue worthy of hearing.

If you obtain leave to apply for judicial review it would suggest that the decision is suspect. Therefore, the level of high court cases can be put down to poorly drafted decisions from the RAC, RAT and the Minister. Solicitors won't take on a HC Judicial Review unless they feel they can win it too as they won't get paid by the average asylum seeker. The same goes for barristers who won't just take a punt on a flimsy case unless they feel that there is a legal point to be made.

jimmmy

To stand back , see the bigger picture, and answer the original question - yes she should be deported instead of wasting our time and resources.

In 20 years time, and apologies if I am calling a spade a spade....do you want Ireland to be like parts of England are now, half immigrants ? Could our country sustain that ?

blueythebear

opo wrote: »

I don't expect you to read the entire thread, but the issue here is not just the cost of the legal process, it is also the almost incalculable cost (to the taxpayer) of sustaining the "client" and possibly entire families, for years on end whilst these cases drag on interminably.

Therefore, it is also about the process of determining claims for asylum alongside an uncontrolled legal circus acting as a magnet for abusive claims.

A magnet so strong that claimants travel from all over the world in great numbers - bypassing many other countries to exploit. Even to the point of travelling to our neighbouring countries and "fleeing" from there.

Obviously the cost of asylum seekers is not just limited to their legal costs. I was just responding to someone asking what the going rate for a judicial review is...

I don't think that it is an "uncontrolled legal circus" though. If there is a point of unfairness in a decision made by any tribunal / decisionmaking body, you can judicially review it. This is not just confined to the asylum process. For example, the criminal injuries compensation tribunal can have its' decisions reviewed. The point is that the decisions need to be clear and thought out so as to prevent others from finding flaws with them and hence taking out HC Cases.