For the purposes of the Dublin Convention, the third country would be the first EU state entered, yes (though I'd have to double-check to see if passing through an international airport would constitute "entering" - top of my head, I don't think it does). However, as a multilateral treaty between governments, it doesn't impose any obligation on asylum-seekers themselves -rather, it governs decisions as to which state should process their application.Originally Posted by sandar
Nothing will motivate the lazy / apathetic / Americanised / west-British types to embrace their culture and the Irish language.
but a country can deport them to the third country without their consent? Or does it mean that if they fail with their application in one country they can be sent to the third country for another try? That wouldnt make sense though because surely the rules are broadly similar about what constitutwes a legit claim among the countries of the Dublin convention.
Do you think it somehow requires all asylum-seekers to apply for asylum in the first signatory state in which they land?
Nothing will motivate the lazy / apathetic / Americanised / west-British types to embrace their culture and the Irish language.
Sometimes, yes. The convention details the circumstances in which they can do this.
No. One shot only among signatory states, far as I can see.
Nothing will motivate the lazy / apathetic / Americanised / west-British types to embrace their culture and the Irish language.
It most certainly does not, as you pointed out.
To be clear ALL the Dublin Convention provides for is an agreement between signatory States in HOW to handle asylum applicants. It does not REQUIRE applicants to present themselves in any particular order in any particular State.
From the link provided by Conor:
Which of these applies in this case? Also is her husband still in the UK?1. Where the applicant for asylum is in possession of a valid residence permit, the Member State which issued the permit shall be responsible for examining the application for asylum.
2. Where the applicant for asylum is in possession of a valid visa, the Member State which issued the visa shall be responsible for examining the application for asylum, except in the following situations:
(a) if the visa was issued on the written authorization of another Member State, that State shall be responsible for examining the application for asylum. Where a Member State first consults the central authority of another Member State, inter alia for security reasons, the agreement of the latter shall not constitute written authorization within the meaning of this provision.
(b) where the applicant for asylum is in possession of a transit visa and lodges his application in another Member State in which he is not subject to a visa requirement, that State shall be responsible for examining the application for asylum.
(c) where the applicant for asylum is in possession of a transit visa and lodges his application in the State which issued him or her with the visa and which has received written confirmation from the diplomatic or consular authorities of the Member State of destination that the alien for whom the visa requirement was waived fulfilled the conditions for entry into that State, the latter shall be responsible for examining the application for asylum.
3. Where the applicant for asylum is in possession of more than one valid residence permit or visa issued by different Member States, the responsibility for examining the application for asylum shall be assumed by the Member States in the following order:
(a) the State which issued the residence permit conferring the right to the longest period of residency or, where the periods of validity of all the permits are identical, the State which issued the residence permit having the latest expiry date;
(b) the State which issued the visa having the latest expiry date where the various visas are of the same type;
(c) where visas are of different kinds, the State which issued the visa having the longest period of validity, or, where the periods of validity are identical, the State which issued the visa having the latest expiry date. This provision shall not apply where the applicant is in possession of one or more transit visas, issued on presentation of an entry visa for another Member State. In that case, that Member State shall be responsible.
Where the applicant for asylum has a member of his family who has been recognized as having refugee status within the meaning of the Geneva Convention, as amended by the New York Protocol, in a Member State and is legally resident there, that State shall be responsible for examining the application, provided that the persons concerned so desire.
The family member in question may not be other than the spouse of the applicant for asylum or his or her unmarried child who is a minor of under eighteen years, or his or her father or mother where the applicant for asylum is himself or herself an unmarried child who is a minor of under eighteen years.
"What all the wise men promised has not happened and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass". Lord Melborne, on Catholic emancipation in Ireland
Under Section 20 the Refugee Act there is provision for the arrest (without warrant) and prosecution of a person who knowingly submits false documentation in support of an asylum claim. For those of you who are unsure whether this story is true, there is a copy of the Irish High Court affidavit in the Mirror. This affidavit was sworn by the doctor whom Ms Izbehakai had impersonated to 'prove' her case. This was a fraud which was perpetrated against the well-intentioned people of Sligo and Ireland. This case has cost the taxpayer tens of thousands of euro on legal bills and was premised on manifestly false evidence.
I see some people on the thread are also wondering about the possibility of FGM for her two daughters. FGM is banned in at least five states within Nigeria. Pamela and her daughters can move to one of those states to avoid any future (and highly improbable) likelihood of being exposed to FGM. This approach is endorsed not only by the high court in Ireland but in all common law jurisdictions where persecution is not at the hands of the state (i.e. the Nigerian Government). This is a case of an abuse of humanitarian law in order to attain immigration status. Regardless of a person's opinion on immigration policy, it needs to be borne in mind that this woman has attempted committed a fraud against the Irish state and has involved many well-meaning people in the execution of that attempted fraud. The Oireactas put Section 20 of the Act there for a reason. It should be implemented in this case.
It seems to imply an onus on the member state controlling the access of the individual to the territory of the member states to determine the status of the "alien". In other words, if the individual is not entering legally but as an asylum-seeker, then that state is required to process such an application, ensuring that the application is made.
If that's not the case, this is a piece of useless and unworkable legislation which requires amending.
Fianna Fail - The Loss of Sovereignty Party.
Ok and what does the genea convention say about the first safe country.
It's a credibility issue that may be taken into account in determining their claim. You cannot, simpliciter, refuse someone's application on the SINGLE basis that they did not apply in the nearest safe country. It's something you can take account of but not determinate in itself.
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks