Pamela Izevbekhai - Should She Be Deported?

The Corinthian

jimmmy wrote: »

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 ?

The only reasons it cannot are poor integration and incompetent economic management. I believe the former is eminently possible, as long as we ignore the equally disastrous strategies of the xenophobic right and bleeding heart left, the latter I'm not so sure about. After all, Ireland - since independence - has only managed to sustain the existing population for a handful of years. We've been a basket-case the rest of the time.

All of which, of course, is off topic though.

opo

blueythebear wrote: »

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.

Care to comment on the following?

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/false-claims-help-bill-for-asylum-seekers-to-hit-8364300m-1366632.html

The cost of dealing with asylum seekers will reach €300m this year, with Irish lawyers making a killing from an estimated 1,200 judicial reviews of deportation cases by people who have entered the country illegally.

Each of the reviews is likely to cost the State at least €30,000 to €50,000 and some €20m is being set aside to cover legal costs to the Exchequer, as all are on legal aid.

It has also emerged that of the 3,985 applications for asylum made last year 502 applications for asylum were made in the name of children under the age of three. These are nearly all children born to asylum seekers living here and who have already been turned down for asylum. In some of these cases it is the second or third child in the same family to make the application.

Documents seen by the Sunday Independent also show how a large number of asylum applicants are arriving here by air but then claiming they have no passport or travel documents.

More than 3,400, or 85 per cent of those who claimed asylum here last year, appeared in the country and then made their application for asylum directly at the Office of Refugee Application Commissioner in Mount Street, Dublin.

The Government currently has legislation before the Dail seeking to reduce the time in which asylum seekers can use the judicial review system to stay in Ireland, which usually extends their stay here for a year or a year and a half, often while receiving benefits.

The documents also give details of social welfare and other scams being operated by illegal immigrants.

Last year gardai with the Garda National Bureau of Investigation, working with UK Immigration, detected a large number of frauds being perpetrated on the social welfare system here, many by illegal immigrants who were also claiming benefits in Britain and Northern Ireland.

Some were travelling back and forward to countries, particularly Nigeria, while keeping up benefit frauds here and in Britain.

I don't accept your arguement that this all the fault of ORAC or the RAT.

What we have seen and what you clearly support is the hijacking of these processes from their stated tasks of processing asylum claims under the guidance and direction of the UNHCR to one of contesting court cases. It's called judicial activism and it always thrives when laid on for free.

I congratulate your learned friend for extracting €20,000 for his case although the article suggests he is on the low end. I would love to know what his hourly rate works out at and compare it to a few trades or professions to see what they have to do to generate such a fee - or even the tax to pay such a fee.

walrusgumble

opo wrote: »

Care to comment on the following?

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/false-claims-help-bill-for-asylum-seekers-to-hit-8364300m-1366632.html



I don't accept your arguement that this all the fault of ORAC or the RAT.

What we have seen and what you clearly support is the hijacking of these processes from their stated tasks of processing asylum claims under the guidance and direction of the UNHCR to one of contesting court cases. It's called judicial activism and it always thrives when laid on for free.

I congratulate your learned friend for extracting €20,000 for his case although the article suggests he is on the low end. I would love to know what his hourly rate works out at and compare it to a few trades or professions to see what they have to do to generate such a fee - or even the tax to pay such a fee.

i take it you are aware of a certain member of the RAT who was brought to public attention for his failure, bar one or two, to refuse refugee status in most cases he dealt with, this tribunal member cost the State a couple of million in successful judicial reviews brought against them and the Minister.


the reality is this.
1- the tribunal members, are not fully trained or is the post full time
2 - there is NO public published guideline, unlike the UK, that seta out the Tribunals remit in deciding cases
3 - previous decisions, are difficult to find, unlike the UK who have theirs on public website, in ireland its available, in limit form to practicioners.

so were's the transparency?

the triunal have an obligation, like any other body, for example a planning board, to not only make a decision, but to provide adequate, reasonable and proportionate reasons for said decision. its not much to ask for considering the nice pay packet they get for hearing each case.

ParkRunner

walrusgumble wrote: »

the triunal have an obligation, like any other body, for example a planning board, to not only make a decision, but to provide adequate, reasonable and proportionate reasons for said decision. its not much to ask for considering the nice pay packet they get for hearing each case.

Have you ever read a RAT decision report? They are generally lengthy documents giving a detailed explanation why the member came to the decision that they did.
Cases against RAC are all generally being struck out because the courts have decided that it is too early in the process to be taking a legal challenge, as an appeal to RAT exists. The courts were being overwhelmed by challenges of RAC decisions.

blueythebear

opo wrote: »

Care to comment on the following?

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/false-claims-help-bill-for-asylum-seekers-to-hit-8364300m-1366632.html



I don't accept your arguement that this all the fault of ORAC or the RAT.

What we have seen and what you clearly support is the hijacking of these processes from their stated tasks of processing asylum claims under the guidance and direction of the UNHCR to one of contesting court cases. It's called judicial activism and it always thrives when laid on for free.

I congratulate your learned friend for extracting €20,000 for his case although the article suggests he is on the low end. I would love to know what his hourly rate works out at and compare it to a few trades or professions to see what they have to do to generate such a fee - or even the tax to pay such a fee.

It makes for shocking reading alright. Especially, in terms of the number of people defrauding the Welfare. I haven’t addressed the issue of bogus asylum seekers really so I’m limiting my comments to the asylum/immigration system here.

I’d disagree with the phrase “making a killing”. As a solicitor, you don’t get any money unless you win in a judicial review and you only win if you have a good case so I stand by my original point there.

Asylum applicants who go to the High Court are in the majority, with private solicitors firms and not on legal aid. The article is incorrect there. A very low percentage of them are represented by the Refugee Legal Services. I acknowledge that the State is obliged to pay its’ own legal costs but in practical terms there’s no point in awarding costs against a failed applicant where the applicant (in general) hasn’t got a penny to their name.

I agree that there is an issue with people having children here and then claiming asylum on behalf of the children. This means that the RAC and RAT will hear the same application / circumstances several times which is a waste of money and time. I would be of the opinion that an application should be made for permission for the child to apply for asylum when you are a child born in Ireland of asylum seeking parents. If refused, your application should form part of your parents’ application.


The reason that judicial review extends the time to stay is due to the sheer size of the court lists. You join the queue and await your turn like everybody else. However, I would point out that this article is from last year and that the lists have reduced in their numbers since then. There is also a set of cases soon to be heard which will decide the outcome for hundreds of cases in the lists so it will be a thing of the past that JR will extend your stay.

I would like to say that it’s not all the fault of the RAC and RAT, etc. There is a degree of fault with the legal profession who do take up cases that do not have great prospects for success and essentially take a punt on a case. This isn’t a simple issue and blame can’t be laid entirely at any one door.

I do believe that the RAC and RAT have a difficult job to do but I also believe that they need to do their job better. If it can be shown that a conclusion was come to by using flawed logic or if there is a fundamental unfairness in a decision, then it’s your right to request that a judge review that decision and decide if the conclusions were fairly come to or not.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

oscarBravo

jimmmy wrote: »

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 ?

This is not a thread about immigration. Don't even think about going there.

The Raven.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I think you misunderstand what I was saying. I wasn't suggesting that it was Elizabeth. I was merely curious as to the identity of the child in the photo.

I think that if it was a genuine photo of Elizabeth, it would have been publicised a lot more than it has been. It didn't even get a mention on the LTS documentary, other than its appearance. Now, all of a sudden it is being publicly 'identified' as Elizabeth.

JonathanAnon

This case is making me more angry by the day. A load of my friends are losing their jobs and this woman is making a mockery of the state. Everything for free, legal aid, housing, food the whole lot. And she says last nite that she agreed to the FGM on her first daughter, that she was "pressured into doing it". And that's even if her daughter existed in the first place.

The only people the courts bend over backwards to help are criminals and asylum seekers.... people who contribute nothing positive to Irish society.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

The Raven.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yes, I was surprised by it. However, they would have had to update it in light of recent revelations. Antonia Leslie seems to have pulled back somewhat from her previous stance.

They focused heavily on the Nigerian ambassador, whom they clearly intended to symbolize the corrupt, reality-denying aspects of "Official Nigeria." Waving aside reports by the UN, Amnesty International, and the Nigerian government itself, the ambassador insisted on film that Nigerian women have no reason to fear FGM. She dismissed her own government's FGM reports as lies, saying that those who wrote them only did so to get their hands on UN funding. She also dismissed the Elizabeth Izevbekhai death certificate as a forgery—even though the RTÉ journalist went to great lengths to point out the "official seal" of the Nigerian government upon it. The ambassador at least gets the last laugh there.

The Nigerian Ambassador certainly wasn’t taken in by the death certificate, but her strong reaction to the UN, Amnesty International, and the Nigerian government reports was quite startling. She had an interesting theory about the UN funding, although it seems somewhat contradictory since it is the UN who are giving the funding. I don’t know what to make of that. The Nigerian government aren’t going to be too pleased.

In view of all that has come to light on this case, while I'm not suggesting a fear of FGM, I think there is a possibility that the motivation for fleeing Nigeria may turn out to be something totally different than economic reasons. After all, she did live in much more affluent circumstances than her conditions here in Ireland.

opo

blueythebear wrote: »

It makes for shocking reading alright. Especially, in terms of the number of people defrauding the Welfare. I haven’t addressed the issue of bogus asylum seekers really so I’m limiting my comments to the asylum/immigration system here.

I’d disagree with the phrase “making a killing”. As a solicitor, you don’t get any money unless you win in a judicial review and you only win if you have a good case so I stand by my original point there.

Asylum applicants who go to the High Court are in the majority, with private solicitors firms and not on legal aid. The article is incorrect there. A very low percentage of them are represented by the Refugee Legal Services. I acknowledge that the State is obliged to pay its’ own legal costs but in practical terms there’s no point in awarding costs against a failed applicant where the applicant (in general) hasn’t got a penny to their name.

I agree that there is an issue with people having children here and then claiming asylum on behalf of the children. This means that the RAC and RAT will hear the same application / circumstances several times which is a waste of money and time. I would be of the opinion that an application should be made for permission for the child to apply for asylum when you are a child born in Ireland of asylum seeking parents. If refused, your application should form part of your parents’ application.


The reason that judicial review extends the time to stay is due to the sheer size of the court lists. You join the queue and await your turn like everybody else. However, I would point out that this article is from last year and that the lists have reduced in their numbers since then. There is also a set of cases soon to be heard which will decide the outcome for hundreds of cases in the lists so it will be a thing of the past that JR will extend your stay.

I would like to say that it’s not all the fault of the RAC and RAT, etc. There is a degree of fault with the legal profession who do take up cases that do not have great prospects for success and essentially take a punt on a case. This isn’t a simple issue and blame can’t be laid entirely at any one door.

I do believe that the RAC and RAT have a difficult job to do but I also believe that they need to do their job better. If it can be shown that a conclusion was come to by using flawed logic or if there is a fundamental unfairness in a decision, then it’s your right to request that a judge review that decision and decide if the conclusions were fairly come to or not.

I dont't intend to be particularily argumentative here but the article refers to a €20 million provision to cover legal costs.

Either the state expected most of these cases to win or they are bankrolling the costs vis a vis free legal aid.

As you aware, most of these cases are hopeless so where do you think the money is going?

The Corinthian

The Raven. wrote: »

In view of all that has come to light on this case, while I'm not suggesting a fear of FGM, I think there is a possibility that the motivation for fleeing Nigeria may turn out to be something totally different than economic reasons. After all, she did live in much more affluent circumstances than her conditions here in Ireland.

We don't know. There are numerous reasons for someone to leave such a lavish lifestyle, of which the most obvious two are for the safety of her daughters (as she claims) or that the money, or credit, simply ran out (it could be nothing more complex than her husband losing his job there).

Whatever the reason, I don't think it is a good idea to speculate too much as we will simply end up with some fantastic conspiracy theory by the end of it. The truth, whatever that may be at this stage, is probably far more mundane.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

blueythebear

opo wrote: »

I dont't intend to be particularily argumentative here but the article refers to a €20 million provision to cover legal costs.

Either the state expected most of these cases to win or they are bankrolling the costs vis a vis free legal aid.

As you aware, most of these cases are hopeless so where do you think the money is going?

I'll apologise in advance and admit I am being a little argumentative but sure here goes.....

The article says that €20m is being set by for legal costs. Alot of this will go to the Barristers for the State as they are independent contractors essentially. The Chief State solicitors would have salaried positions so I don't think they'd be included in the €20 million.

Say if there's 1200 judicial reviews heard (that figure's from the Article) and lets say 150 (one in eight, this is a purely arbitrary figure) are successful and get costs for the applicant, at €30,000 for the applicants costs only, this constitutes €4.5 million. Now in every case, the State needs a barrister (or two) so we'll put the cost of the barrister at a (very) conservative estimate of €10,000 per case heard. At 1200 cases heard, that's €12 million. So we're up to €16.5 million already using conservative estimates and not counting the amounts claimed by barristers for the state for cases that are not heard but are withdrawn/settled by the applicant, of which there are many. The costs rack up very quickly. We're also not including the amounts for Supreme Court Appeals ( i don't know how many of these there would be but the cost for such a hearing would be huge) and there was an Irish asylum case heard in Europe last year (Metock et al) whose costs would probably exceed €1 million in and of itself!

I'm just using the above to illustrate that if all (or even a large minority) were on legal aid the figure of €20 million couldn't possibly cover it as the State would have to pay for barristers for and against the state in each and every case regardless of the outcome! That in and of itself would exceed the €20 million!

The article is wholly incorrect to say that they are all on legal aid. Most of these cases are taken on by private solicitors (alot on a no win no fee basis admittedly) and the vast minority are taken on by the Refugee Legal Services.

opo

blueythebear wrote: »

I'll apologise in advance and admit I am being a little argumentative but sure here goes.....

The article says that €20m is being set by for legal costs. Alot of this will go to the Barristers for the State as they are independent contractors essentially. The Chief State solicitors would have salaried positions so I don't think they'd be included in the €20 million.

Say if there's 1200 judicial reviews heard (that figure's from the Article) and lets say 150 (one in eight, this is a purely arbitrary figure) are successful and get costs for the applicant, at €30,000 for the applicants costs only, this constitutes €4.5 million. Now in every case, the State needs a barrister (or two) so we'll put the cost of the barrister at a (very) conservative estimate of €10,000 per case heard. At 1200 cases heard, that's €12 million. So we're up to €16.5 million already using conservative estimates and not counting the amounts claimed by barristers for the state for cases that are not heard but are withdrawn/settled by the applicant, of which there are many. The costs rack up very quickly. We're also not including the amounts for Supreme Court Appeals ( i don't know how many of these there would be but the cost for such a hearing would be huge) and there was an Irish asylum case heard in Europe last year (Metock et al) whose costs would probably exceed €1 million in and of itself!

I'm just using the above to illustrate that if all (or even a large minority) were on legal aid the figure of €20 million couldn't possibly cover it as the State would have to pay for barristers for and against the state in each and every case regardless of the outcome! That in and of itself would exceed the €20 million!

The article is wholly incorrect to say that they are all on legal aid. Most of these cases are taken on by private solicitors (alot on a no win no fee basis admittedly) and the vast minority are taken on by the Refugee Legal Services.

I'm not going to contradict you as I am in the dark too. I would have seriously doubted that the 1200 individuals had the cash to fund these cases.

I would appreciate the input of anyone who knows for a fact what the situation is.

Whatever the cost, my core point is that it is the legal end that drags the process into years instead of months and that is in dire need of reform

If an asylum application and the legal end could be tied up in months instead of years, I would suspect the wholesale abuse would be stemmed.

walshb

I missed the documentary but was told that Pamela didn't come across all that well and semed like a liar and a cheat.

I also heard the journalist interviewing the Nigerian ambassador was truly disrespectful and constantly interrupting the ambassadoer?

The ambassador put her in her place, not that the journalist even
knew her place!

kathy2

I sat in and watched it

Pamela said very little was very vague and did come across as a big Liar.

The female journalist god love her looked like she should be out hugging a tree some where or at least in front of a digger.

i wanted to hug her, in fairness she did little wrong just her job and i can see her career in tatters and her confidence shattered. Her objectivity questioned. No matter what way you look at it we have all been suckers from time to time, and she will get over it and bounce back in time, but if I was her I would just go to business or some other area of journalism for a while till this all dies down.

The ambassador was very dismissive of the whole fgm story and made us sound like the Americans believing in leprechauns.

Pamela would need to produce an in-law in a tent in a jungle with a knife at this point and it sounds like she doesn't know any.

The two different men giving radio interviews pretending to be the doctor definitely had no explanation.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

kathy2

I don't think Antonia Leslie's career will suffer. If Izevbekhai's story turns out to be a hoax, Leslie will respond defiantly with an article entitled "How I was completely duped by my friend Pamela, but why I was right to try to protect two innocent little girls from the horrors of FGM."[/quote]

You could be right, I think the FGM story if you are to believe the Ambassador was all a hoax, the girls need protecting from their delusional mother. I think Antonia's career will suffer, its a very small circle in Ireland.

HollyB

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I could see an attempt (if not be Antonia Leslie, by somebody) to spin it as even if it turns out that Pamela was lying and the people who were sceptical about her story and did not believe in her claims of asylum were technically justified, the people who supported Pamela are still right because they cared more about the fate of her daughters than about the pesky facts.

kathy2

It is a pesky fact that life in Nigeria for the working educated people is really good.
Africa is a big continent, its not all black babies, witch doctors and poverty.

AlekSmart

It is a pesky fact that life in Nigeria for the working educated people is really good.
Africa is a big continent, its not all black babies, witch doctors and poverty.

I`m with you on this Kathy2.

There is an odd self-serving kind of undercurrent at play here which is dependant upon us being allowed to display our concern for these poor downtrodden "blacks" and thence our ability to actually do things for them,such as give them asylumor build them houses on our holliers.

Therefore it is little surprise to me that Pamela Izevbekhai`s repetoire of "reasons" so neatly dovetailed into those which any self respecting Irish support group would closely identify with.

Sadly,those people of African countries where Witch Doctors,Oppressive Regiemes and Starving Black Babies ARE realities remain so very absent from our entire asylum process,stuffed as it is with suspiciously well fed and equally well spoken persons from a certain large democracy elsewhere in Africa......:rolleyes:

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

The Raven.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yes, that is what I gathered also. Unfortunately, she interrupted Mick Peelo, the reporter, as he was adding the UN to his list of organisations reporting on the numbers of women who suffered FGM in Nigeria, so she appeared to be dismissing them also. What I would like to know is how the UN get their statistics on this. Where do they get their information?

I was struck by how many times in recent weeks she has hinted at marital problems between herself and her husband. She spoke several times in last night's documentary about her marriage reaching the verge of breakdown due to his bullying family. She has also spoken openly to the media about feeling betrayed by his lies about the documents. And the Tribune published an article over the weekend indicating that Tony "loves Nigeria" and has no plans to move to Ireland to join her. The couple now have not seen each other for four years.

That had occurred to me also. Very little has been said as regards her missing her husband, or even caring about him. That struck me as being rather odd from the start.

Isn't it possible that they decided years ago to go their separate ways? And that as part of the "settlement," he offered to provide her and the two girls with the documents they would need to gain asylum in a then-thriving western European country?

That is possible. However, Ireland is no longer thriving and Izevbekhai seems more determined than ever to try and stay. I wouldn’t like to guess what her situation was when she left Nigeria, or what it might be if she returns. It is difficult to know what the truth of the matter is at this stage.

HollyB

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Except that if she is lying and her story about the in-laws lacks a basis in fact, Naomi and Jemima aren't going to be mutilated unless their parents change their minds and decide to go through with the procedure.

kathy2

Naomi and Jemima aren't going to be mutilated at all not here not in Nigeria, not by the 3 servants, not by the 4 wheel drive in laws. Seriously ask a Nigerian anywhere in Dublin there are millions, I did he laughed out loud.

This is a fairy story gotten way out of hand

Naomi and Jemima are in the middle of this terrible mess due to their loony parents trying to pull a fast one.

DK man

If what has been reported is true then yes she will have to be deported. This was an utter waste of resources and it was based on fraud and deceit. This must also raise issues for the courts as fraud is a criminal offence.

Is Nigeria such a dangerous place that so many have to flee to Ireland? I doubt it. We have many Nigerians living in our estate and most go home for long summer holidays.

I think Ireland is seen by many as a soft touch with excellent welfare. I don't blame anyone for wanting to make a better life for them and their children however, our welfare system can no longer afford to take people who are here for the free ride.

It also undermines very notion of asylum.