Pamela Izevbekhai - Should She Be Deported?

seancoistine

Just pointing to the fact that supporters of asylum seekers are fulfilling their own needs and agenda's.
The behaviour of the legal profession and judiciary is probably the real scandal here. In this and other cases they have conducted an legal circus. The public interest and public policy mean nothing in their endless debates which are carried on a the expense of the taxpayer. These individuals should be subject to public scrutiny

blueythebear

seancoistine wrote: »

Just pointing to the fact that supporters of asylum seekers are fulfilling their own needs and agenda's.
The behaviour of the legal profession and judiciary is probably the real scandal here. In this and other cases they have conducted an legal circus. The public interest and public policy mean nothing in their endless debates which are carried on a the expense of the taxpayer. These individuals should be subject to public scrutiny

I think that's really unfair. Think about it. A refugee will have fled their home country with little or nothing and then live in this country on €19 per week for years not being allowed to work. i.e. a refugee client cannot afford to pay the lawyer. For a lawyer to make any money from an asylum case, he'd have to win a judicial review court case as an order for his costs would be made. The only way to win a judicial review case is if there was something inherently wrong in the decision being contested, ie.the lawer had a valid legal point so he was right to take the case in the first place.

The Public actually do have an interest here as lawyers should be able to challenge decisions in court if they are unfair or arbitrary. It's not just decisions in relation to asylum seekers that can be challenged. ANY decision by a State body can be judicially reviewed, e.g. planning decisions, etc. The point is, if you curtail the right to judicial review in the asylum area too much, you can do so in other areas and thus have negative effect on the right of access to courts and the right to fair procedures.

I agree that Solicitors should be subject to scrutiny but isn't that what the solicitors' disciplinary Tribunal was set up to do?

PapaQuebec

Blueythebear wrote:

"A refugee will have fled their home country with little or nothing and then live in this country on €19 per week for years not being allowed to work. i.e. a refugee client cannot afford to pay the lawyer."

Firstly virtually ALL agencies involved in the "asylum business" whether pro or anti have faced the bald and pretty-much accepted fact that only a tiny minority of applicants for refugee status have anything approaching a "genuine fear of xxxxxxxxxx etc" The overwhelming majority are economic migrants attemping to use the the 1951 act to sidestep immigration law, the need for visas or work permits etc

So while "the APPLICANT" may have "LEFT their home country with little or nothing" if you'll excuse my paraphrasing you - it should be remembered that there is world of difference betweeen a "refugee", an "asylum seeker" and an "economic migrant"

My information is that very, very few "applicants" are subject to direct provision and living on €19 per week!

Drummerboy08

Is she still here? I'd have thought Michael O Leary would have had the priviledge of meeting Pamela by now.

blueythebear

PapaQuebec wrote: »

Blueythebear wrote:

"A refugee will have fled their home country with little or nothing and then live in this country on €19 per week for years not being allowed to work. i.e. a refugee client cannot afford to pay the lawyer."

Firstly virtually ALL agencies involved in the "asylum business" whether pro or anti have faced the bald and pretty-much accepted fact that only a tiny minority of applicants for refugee status have anything approaching a "genuine fear of xxxxxxxxxx etc" The overwhelming majority are economic migrants attemping to use the the 1951 act to sidestep immigration law, the need for visas or work permits etc

So while "the APPLICANT" may have "LEFT their home country with little or nothing" if you'll excuse my paraphrasing you - it should be remembered that there is world of difference betweeen a "refugee", an "asylum seeker" and an "economic migrant"

My information is that very, very few "applicants" are subject to direct provision and living on €19 per week!

I wasn't talking about economic migrants and didn't address the issue. I was talking about Seancoistine who seems to be suggesting that the lawyers involved in immigration are all taking judicial review cases for s**ts & giggles. That's wrong. What's the point of taking a case on for a client who can't / won't pay you and there's no hope of winning costs as the case is frivolous to begin with? PI is the exception in this case as her lawyers are/were working pro bono. I don't know why they are/were doing so, I guess they were taken in by her story too.

Also, unless you work for the ORAC/RAT or one of the so called "agencies involved in the asylum business" I would suggest you retract sweeping statements like "only a tiny minority of applicants for refugee status have anything approaching a "genuine fear of xxxxxxxxxx etc". Not only is it groundless, it also detracts from your arguments by making you out to be hysterical about the subject.

Finally, you altered (although you say paraphrased) my post so as to argue about economic migrants when it wasn't a point I was making. I was standing up for the lawyers out there, nothing more.

O'Coonassa

PapaQuebec wrote: »

it should be remembered that there is world of difference betweeen a "refugee", an "asylum seeker" and an "economic migrant"

Yes, in the heads and the laws of the Europeans

http://www.irr.org.uk/2004/december/ak000003.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/britain-must-stop-deportations-to-congo-457037.html

Anybody comin from a place where the average life expectancy is less than 40 isn't really ever just an 'economic migrant' IMO.

opo

blueythebear wrote: »

I think that's really unfair. Think about it. A refugee will have fled their home country with little or nothing and then live in this country on €19 per week for years not being allowed to work. i.e. a refugee client cannot afford to pay the lawyer. For a lawyer to make any money from an asylum case, he'd have to win a judicial review court case as an order for his costs would be made. The only way to win a judicial review case is if there was something inherently wrong in the decision being contested, ie.the lawer had a valid legal point so he was right to take the case in the first place.

The Public actually do have an interest here as lawyers should be able to challenge decisions in court if they are unfair or arbitrary. It's not just decisions in relation to asylum seekers that can be challenged. ANY decision by a State body can be judicially reviewed, e.g. planning decisions, etc. The point is, if you curtail the right to judicial review in the asylum area too much, you can do so in other areas and thus have negative effect on the right of access to courts and the right to fair procedures.

I agree that Solicitors should be subject to scrutiny but isn't that what the solicitors' disciplinary Tribunal was set up to do?

Would you care to mention how much a losing solicitor looses?

Also, who pays the States cost in defending unsuccessfull reviews?

And, I am still waiting for you to give an example where a vexatious claim led to the solicitor being hit with the costs.

seancoistine

I was at an information meeting recently for asylum seekers addressed by people from the various state agencies and NGO's
Therre must have been 200 hundred peole there, 75% male, 90% in 20 - 40 age group. Looking at the handful of older people, I could believe that something forced them on the road at this time of life.

The most active section of the audience would not conform to any ideas of poor asylum seekers down to their last €19. These were well dressed with personal jewellery and quite an attitude, it is fair to say. They demanded the right to residence under the Geneva Convention and that the UN should determine asylum applications here.

We are as naïve as the Red Indians who sold Long Island for glass beads in the way we deal this threat, becasue that is what it is. South of Europe there are lands filled with millions who want to get into Europe. If we allow it to happen we will throw away the heritage which our fathers fought for and which we are obliged to pass on to future generations and for what - to satisfy the liberal idiots?

However my view did'nt arise there. I worked in the Gulf and saw how they manage a migrant workforce there . No trips to the High Court there, a quick trip to the airport in shackles if they overstayed their visa.

The situation created by greed and stupidity with the East European migrants is an example of how easy it is to slip into a problem and how difficult it is to reverse out of it.

blueythebear

opo wrote: »

Would you care to mention how much a losing solicitor looses?

Also, who pays the States cost in defending unsuccessfull reviews?

And, I am still waiting for you to give an example where a vexatious claim led to the solicitor being hit with the costs.

A losing solicitor will mainly lose money for the time spent on the case which would involve several appearances in the High Court and time spent reviewing the case and taking statements. It's difficult to put a figure on this but as far as I am aware the going rate where an applicant is successful is €20,000+ including barristers fees so it would stand that the same figure applies the other way round.

The State has to pay for barristers (State's solicitors are in salaried positions and will be paid regardless) and the costs usually follow the event, i.e. the losing party will foot the bill for both sides. In these cases the State don't bother pursuing the costs. Why don't they? Probably because they won't be successful as these people don't have any money...Before anyone goes there, this does not mean that they are economic migrants. Groups who are persecuted are often the poorest groups in their particular country as they would be discriminated against in terms of employment anyway (as well as in other areas which would form the basis for their asylum claim).

As for whether a solicitor has been hit with costs for a vexatious claim, I didn't realise you were awaiting an example...I wouldn't have that info not being a solicitor. It would hardly be front page news if it has happened anyway so it could be that we haven't heard about it. Then again it may not have happened at all. There's not really any point in arguing about something we don't know.

blueythebear

seancoistine wrote: »

I was at an information meeting recently for asylum seekers addressed by people from the various state agencies and NGO's
Therre must have been 200 hundred peole there, 75% male, 90% in 20 - 40 age group. Looking at the handful of older people, I could believe that something forced them on the road at this time of life.

The most active section of the audience would not conform to any ideas of poor asylum seekers down to their last €19. These were well dressed with personal jewellery and quite an attitude, it is fair to say. They demanded the right to residence under the Geneva Convention and that the UN should determine asylum applications here.

We are as naïve as the Red Indians who sold Long Island for glass beads in the way we deal this threat, becasue that is what it is. South of Europe there are lands filled with millions who want to get into Europe. If we allow it to happen we will throw away the heritage which our fathers fought for and which we are obliged to pass on to future generations and for what - to satisfy the liberal idiots?

However my view did'nt arise there. I worked in the Gulf and saw how they manage a migrant workforce there . No trips to the High Court there, a quick trip to the airport in shackles if they overstayed their visa.

The situation created by greed and stupidity with the East European migrants is an example of how easy it is to slip into a problem and how difficult it is to reverse out of it.

Please don't roll out the "our forefathers" fought for this country bit. It's tiresome. I am aware of the history of Ireland and even have "forefathers" who died for this country.

To get back on topic...This particular case involves a woman who clearly was not truthful in her application. It should fail and she should be deported. Other asylum seekers should still be given the opportunity to have their applications heard despite what has happened in this case. Should we have some kind of open door immigration policy ? No. Should people at risk of persecution if returned to their native countries be given an opportunity to apply for international protection and have these applications reviewed in a fair and impartial manner? I'd say yes.

The PI case is one of many untruthful applicants that unfortunately come through the system. Why did this one get through this far? Because she courted and hoodwinked the media and others who fought for her to stay. I'd like to say well done to the Minister and staff at the Dept of Justice as they cottoned on to the irregularities a long time ago when they refused to even give her permission to make an application for subsidiary protection, never mind refuse an actual application.

Wheely

seancoistine wrote: »

Just pointing to the fact that supporters of asylum seekers are fulfilling their own needs and agenda's.
The behaviour of the legal profession and judiciary is probably the real scandal here. In this and other cases they have conducted an legal circus. The public interest and public policy mean nothing in their endless debates which are carried on a the expense of the taxpayer. These individuals should be subject to public scrutiny

Well that wasn't how your post read, I'm sorry. Some questions:

Re: needs and agendas of those supporting asylum seekers. There is NOTHING wrong or illegal about the right to seek asylum, its mandated by international law. If you've a problem with abuse of the process then make THAT clear.

What exactly are you referring to when you say the behavior of the legal profession and the judiciary?

Whose endless debates? Those supporting asylum seekers or those of the judiciary and the legal profession?

And which individuals exactly should be and are not subject to public scrutiny. Professionally? By a public regulatory body? Your scrutinising them right now and your a member of the public?

Be a little clearer please!!!!

seancoistine

Please don't roll out the "our forefathers" fought for this country bit. It's tiresome. I am aware of the history of Ireland and even have "forefathers" who died for this country.

To get back on topic...This particular case involves a woman who clearly was not truthful in her application. It should fail and she should be deported. Other asylum seekers should still be given the opportunity to have their applications heard despite what has happened in this case. Should we have some kind of open door immigration policy ? No. Should people at risk of persecution if returned to their native countries be given an opportunity to apply for international protection and have these applications reviewed in a fair and impartial manner? I'd say yes.

The PI case is one of many untruthful applicants that unfortunately come through the system. Why did this one get through this far? Because she courted and hoodwinked the media and others who fought for her to stay. I'd like to say well done to the Minister and staff at the Dept of Justice as they cottoned on to the irregularities a long time ago when they refused to even give her permission to make an application for subsidiary protection, never mind refuse an actual application.[/quote]


Nice little put down at the start ..... I'd say that your forfathers were good at weilding the pen rather than wielding the sword.

seancoistine

Wheely wrote: »

Well that wasn't how your post read, I'm sorry. Some questions:

Re: needs and agendas of those supporting asylum seekers. There is NOTHING wrong or illegal about the right to seek asylum, its mandated by international law. If you've a problem with abuse of the process then make THAT clear.

What exactly are you referring to when you say the behavior of the legal profession and the judiciary?

Whose endless debates? Those supporting asylum seekers or those of the judiciary and the legal profession?

And which individuals exactly should be and are not subject to public scrutiny. Professionally? By a public regulatory body? Your scrutinising them right now and your a member of the public?

Be a little clearer please!!!!

Let's do this by numbers:
1) International Law. The Geneva Convention convention was written from the bad conscience of the countries which refused to admit Jews from Hitler's Reich ... unfortunatly 10-years too late for the intended beneficiaries. It was a piece of political flannell which made everybody feel good at the time. . No country still, is going to accept the displacement of large numbers into it's territory even when the are compatible in ethnicity and religion. For example the Arabs states hav'nt allowed Palestinians permanent settlelment rights. Ask any Palestinian living in the Gulf or Saudi.

The Geneva Convention is used primarily by economic migrants. This would not happen if the Courts upheld the will of the people. Instead, Courts have set themselves above democracy in this and many other areas. They decide what the law should be, mandated by the approval of the liberal media.

2) The legal profession has found that being the facilitators of criminals, asylum seekers, fraudulent insurance claims and every other assault on the state is a most profitable line of business.
The victims of these legal criminals are the bona fide dependants on state support, such as schools, hospitals and welfare.

3) Endless. I would call the PI case endless. It must be a good earner for a lot of people.

4) Public Scrutiny. perhaps our Dail, with all it's committees might take an interest in the systematic behavious of the legal system. Having failed so spectacularly in detecting the systematic behaviour of the banks, this is an opportunity to do what they are supposed to do.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

blueythebear

seancoistine wrote: »

Nice little put down at the start ..... I'd say that your forfathers were good at weilding the pen rather than wielding the sword.[/quote]

Sorry but I gotta call you out on the irony of the above. I have no doubt that my "forfathers" were good at "weilding" the pen as I imagine they were capable of spelling correctly....

Anyhoo, I'm not arguing with you anymore. You're clearly more interested in talking about general immigration rather than this particular case, which is what the thread is about.

seancoistine

blueythebear wrote: »

Nice little put down at the start ..... I'd say that your forfathers were good at weilding the pen rather than wielding the sword.

Sorry but I gotta call you out on the irony of the above. I have no doubt that my "forfathers" were good at "weilding" the pen as I imagine they were capable of spelling correctly....

Anyhoo, I'm not arguing with you anymore. You're clearly more interested in talking about general immigration rather than this particular case, which is what the thread is about.[/quote]

If overcome your urges to put-downs and nit-picks you will make a better impression

oscarBravo

oscarBravo wrote: »

This thread isn't about immigration, so no more discussion of it, please. Also, stop the bickering or I'll start banging heads together.

*ahem*

seancoistine

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Let's not linger too long on the fact that she story was a cod and that the finest (?) brains in the country were happy to buy into it. (plus a lot of idiots as well)

I should think that the debate has moved on to how the PI case became a scandalous waste of money. It's similar to the planning tribunals in showing the public the character of the legal profession . Self-serving, greedy and indifferent to the public interest will do for openers.

HollyB

seancoistine wrote: »

Let's not linger too long on the fact that she story was a cod and that the finest (?) brains in the country were happy to buy into it. (plus a lot of idiots as well)

I should think that the debate has moved on to how the PI case became a scandalous waste of money. It's similar to the planning tribunals in showing the public the character of the legal profession . Self-serving, greedy and indifferent to the public interest will do for openers.

At least it will have done one good thing in the public interest; this case has become a virtual farce at this point, and it has dragged on for years, at considerable expense for the public, thereby highlighting the flaws in the asylum system as it stands. A deportation order was first issued in 2005, yet here we are in 2009, I don't know how many legal challenges later, and the Izevbekhai family are still here, and the answer is still "no" - and it still isn't over!

There has to be a way to balance a fair application and decision-making process without people being able to drag cases out like this.

rkeane

HollyB wrote: »

At least it will have done one good thing in the public interest; this case has become a virtual farce at this point, and it has dragged on for years, at considerable expense for the public, thereby highlighting the flaws in the asylum system as it stands. A deportation order was first issued in 2005, yet here we are in 2009, I don't know how many legal challenges later, and the Izevbekhai family are still here, and the answer is still "no" - and it still isn't over!

There has to be a way to balance a fair application and decision-making process without people being able to drag cases out like this.

This is why we need the Immigration Residence & Protection Bill, it needs to be enacted....there has been enough debate. Pamela Izevbekhai would be gone long ago had this been in place way back when her scam first started.

rkeane

Some interesting comments from the Nigerian Ambassador to Ireland:

http://www.vanguardngr.com/content/view/35482/42/

It seems that Pamela Izevbekhai has really bothered the minister with her bull**** story, I'm beginning to admire Kema Chikwe...she calls a spade a spade when its blatantly obvious that this case is bogus. She also mentions that there are many decent Nigerians in Ireland.....I agree, but Pamela Izevbekhai is not one of those.

ste88m

All in all, she produced false documents in order to gain asylum. That's fraud & in my books she should be deported for that. This bulls**t has went on for long enough and in each court she's went to they have denied her the right to asylum, why drag it out any longer?! Just deport her and get it over and done with!

rkeane

She will be removed as soon as she looses her latest supreme court appeal, its only a matter of when she gets deported. A bogus case based on forged docs is not going to get her asylum or leave to remain.

O'Coonassa

rkeane wrote: »

She They will be removed as soon as she looses her latest supreme court appeal, its only a matter of when she they get deported. A bogus case based on forged docs is not going to get her them asylum or leave to remain.

FYP. Don't forget the little children.

rkeane

O'Coonassa wrote: »

FYP. Don't forget the little children.

No I haven't forgotten "the little children", they will be going home with their dishonest mother. I know its not nice to rip the children away from their lives in Sligo, but hard cases make bad law. Pamela Izevbekhai has strung a lot of people along for a long time, she absolutely deserves to be made an example of.

IIMII

rkeane wrote: »

No I haven't forgotten "the little children", they will be going home with their dishonest mother. I know its not nice to rip the children away from their lives in Sligo

.. but you can't rip them away from their mother. I hope she takes the RAR crowd with her too

rkeane

IIMII wrote: »

.. but you can't rip them away from their mother. I hope she takes the RAR crowd with her too

It certainly would be nice if they took Rosanna Flynn of RAR ( Residents Against Reality) with them, she would be no loss to Ireland.

O'Coonassa

rkeane wrote: »

I know its not nice to rip the children away from their lives in Sligo

As long as you have a heart, that's the main thing.

Female life expectancy is a whopping 47 years old.

Irish people spend more on their pets than the average Nigerian earns.

rkeane

O'Coonassa wrote: »

As long as you have a heart, that's the main thing.

Female life expectancy is a whopping 47 years old.

Irish people spend more on their pets than the average Nigerian earns.

Silly arguements like that are not going to give Pamela Izevbekhai any credibility, they smack of desperation tactics often tried by her very reduced pool of supporters. I'm sorry for the kids but the family must be and will be deported. I repeat ...hard cases make bad law. The deportation order is signed and ready, the minister has already turned down her leave to remain application.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.