BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!

1. The Applicant is a Nigerian national whose date of birth has been given in the documentation as of 14th August 1965. The following chronology of events is indicative of the course of the application made for asylum in this country.

2. All the foregoing documentation is in the name of Olagbenro D. It appears that a further application was made for asylum in the name of Olaniji D. on the 15th September 1999 when an application form was given to him on his arrival in Dublin via Paris and this form was completed on the 23rd September 1999 and contained a number of discrepancies even on a range of historical data from the other application forms signed.

3. Letter of notification of the 10th November 2000 is defective because it refers to -

4. I am satisfied and find as a fact and as a matter of law that -

5. A. The expression representations in the Letter of Notice is not used as a term of art and while often or indeed nearly always referable to representations made under Section 3 of the Act of 1999 seeking “leave to remain on humanitarian grounds” but is not so limited. The expression is sufficiently wide to include the information given in the questionnaire and at interview. The application form for refugee status which faces the questionnaire expressly states:-

6. I hold that the use of the expression “ including the representations received on your behalf” does not invalidate the Letter of Notice because there was no other representations other than in the questionnaire and interview notes.

7. B. Section 3(1) of the Act of 1999 enables or empowers the Minister, subject to the provisions of Section 5 of the Act of 1999 and the subsequent provisions of Section 3 thereof to make a Deportation Order to require a non-national, specified in the order, to leave the State within such period (not on a specific day or date) as may be specified in the order and to remain thereafter (i.e. after such period) out of the State. The amendment by extension by S. 10 (a) (i) of the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act 2000 does not displace this provision.

8. Sub-section 9(a) of Section 3 is amended by substitution by S. 10 (a) (ii) of the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act, 2000 and provides that the notice (under sub-section (3)(b)(ii)) may require the person concerned to do any one or more of the things specified in the subsection notice for the purpose of his or her deportation from the State.

9. The decision of the Supreme Court in P. L. and B. is to the effect that the documents must be taken in conjunction. The person to be deported must be treated like a human being and arrangements invariably require to be made - unless the concerned person leaves voluntarily - the presentation at a particular place and at a particular time is to make arrangements for the purposes of his or her deportation. The period within which the Applicant is to leave the State is provided for in Section 3(1) in the instant case is the period 12th November 2000 to 7th December 2000.

10. There being no substantial grounds for contending that the decision challenged is invalid and for the reasons set out in my decision the application is dismissed.