Jesuit Refugee Service Ireland

Submission to Universal Periodic Review

June 2011

Executive Summary:
JRS recalls that human rights apply to every person, regardless of nationality or legal status. These
rights include: right to dignity, right to claim asylum, right to health care, right to adequate
housing, right to a minimum subsistence, right to fair working conditions, and the right to
education. The main issues JRS wishes to address are around: system of Direct Provision,
detention of asylum seekers, quality of decision-making at all stages of the asylum procedure,
destitution, and working and housing conditions for migrants.

About JRS Worldwide
The Jesuit Refugee Service (JRS) is an international non-governmental organisation, founded in
1980. The mission of JRS is to accompany, to advocate and to serve the cause of refugees and
forcibly displaced persons worldwide.
JRS programmes are found in over 50 countries, providing assistance to refugees in camps, to
people displaced within their own country, to asylum seekers in cities and those held in detention.
The main areas of work are Education, Advocacy, Emergency Assistance, Health and Nutrition,
Income Generating Activities and Social Services. It is estimated that more than 450,000
individuals are direct beneficiaries of JRS projects worldwide.

JRS Ireland Aims
• To promote improvements in the reception and integration of asylum seekers, refugees and
migrants.
• To support non-Irish nationals who are in detention under immigration legislation.
• To advocate for a more just immigration system and asylum process.
• To foster a more positive public image of asylum seekers and migrants in Ireland and deepen
public understanding of asylum and migration issues.
• To support the work of JRS Europe, the JRS International Office and JRS projects on the
ground worldwide

JRS Ireland works principally in the areas of asylum seeker support, integration, detention and
advocacy.

1. Immigration Related Detention
JRS Ireland participated in the Detention in Europe of Vulnerable Asylum Seekers (DEVAS). In
partnership with NGOs in 23 EU Member States, JRS-Europe oversaw the collection of 685 oneon-
one interviews with detainees, including 9 from women detained under immigration legislation
in the Dochas Centre. In addition to detainees, the researcher interviewed detention centre staff and
other operating within the centres, and conducted a survey of Irish asylum and immigration laws in
compiling the national report. The following paragraphs summarise the main concerns and
recommendations in respect of Ireland contained in the research.
Generally, the conditions of detention in the Dochas Centre are satisfactory and do not violate any
international human rights standards which govern the detention of immigration detainees.
Procedural safeguards relating to the detention of asylum seekers are satisfactory. Detention of
asylum seekers must be ordered by a District Judge and ongoing detention is reviewed every 21
days. In practice, most asylum seekers are released within a short period of time. Detention of
non-asylum seekers is limited to eight weeks with some exceptions and challenges to such detention
can be take in habeas proceedings. Most non-asylum seekers are either released or deported prior to
the eight week deadline.
The primary issue of concern identified during the research was the lack of information experienced
by all of the women interviewed, relating to: 1) the operating rules of the prison; 2) asylum
procedures and access to legal representation; 3) the final outcome of their detention; and 4) the
deportation process. This lack of information contributed in great part to the sense of vulnerability,
anxiety and isolation felt by the women.

Operating rules
The failure of the centre to provide information on its operating rules to all detainees in a language
they understand was somewhat tempered by the access that the women had to the guards, to the
governor and to the chaplain.

Recommendation: Prison staff should ensure that each detainee upon arrival is informed
of the rules of the centre in a language that they understand.

Asylum procedures and access to legal representation
As per its obligations under international refugee law and its own national legislation, the Irish
government has an obligation to identify persons in need of international protection and provide
them access to counsel to assist them in preparing and presenting their claim for protection. Despite
laws and regulations requiring that asylum seekers be informed of their rights, detainees expressed
confusion regarding the asylum process itself and were unaware of their right to have a solicitor
work with them to prepare the application.

As noted above, the application – a 22-page document – is given to a detainee if she indicates a
desire to apply for asylum. It appears that the governor or staff do ask detainees shortly after arrival
if they want to apply for asylum. However, there is no protocol in place which does the following:
1) provides written and/or oral information on asylum procedures to a detainee upon her arrival in
the centre; 2) provides clear information on her right to a solicitor to assist her in preparing the
application and her interview with the asylum authorities; and, 3) provides information on what will
happen to her if and when she is released.

Under Irish law, an asylum seeker who does not have the financial resources to pay for a solicitor is
entitled to one from the Refugee Legal Services (RLS) free of charge. RLS solicitors provide
advice and representation to asylum seekers who are detained under Section 9(8) of the 1996
Refugee Act. Visits and assistance by RLS solicitors to detained asylum seekers in the period of the
research seemed inconsistent.

The failure on the part of the authorities to provide information on procedures in a language they
understand and create a system in the facility whereby solicitors meet with each detainee seeking
asylum runs the risk of failing to identify and support legitimate asylum seekers. All of the asylum
seekers with which the researcher spoke seemed to have a basis for seeking protection. However,
none understood exactly what she was required to do to establish the claim. Thus, there is a
potential for denial of legitimate claims and the return of persons who are in need of protection.
Since in addition to the experience of the researcher a number of stakeholders raised concerns about
the effectiveness of the RLS in providing legal assistance to immigration detainees, consideration
should be given to an independent evaluation of the operation of the scheme for this category of
beneficiary.

Recommendation: The Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner (ORAC), the
office responsible for adjudicating asylum claims in Ireland, should meet with the prison
authorities and with RLS solicitors to develop a protocol for asylum seekers in detention.
This protocol should include instructions on the type of information given to all detainees
upon arrival in the facility. Any information must be provided in a language and manner
which the detainees can understand.

The final outcome of detention and the deportation process
As noted, all of the detainees expressed frustration over the fact that they did not know if and/or
when they would be released. Those awaiting deportation were especially anxious because they did
not know the date or time when they would be returned home and thus could not make any short or
long-term plans. The authorities stated that they could not advise the women of the precise time of
their deportation for security purposes but they understood the women’s anxiety.

Recommendation: The authorities should make sure to provide detailed information on
how long a non-Irish national can be detained for immigration-related reasons. The more
information the women have about their situation, the better they will be able to manage
their emotions during detention and plan for their futures. The authorities should also work
closely with those detainees awaiting deportation to give them an approximate idea –
consistent with security concerns – of when they will be deported.

Alternatives to detention
Given the small numbers of persons who are detained for immigration-related reasons combined
with the downturn in the number of persons seeking asylum, the government should seriously
consider instituting alternatives to detention. Not all asylum seekers are detained at time of entry.
Since all asylum seekers are eventually housed in government-run hostels which impose no
restrictions on freedom of movement, it seems more practical and effective – with the exception of
persons who may pose security concerns – to transfer asylum seekers identified at ports of entry to
the hostels instead of detaining them in prison. Additionally, permitting a greater number of
persons awaiting deportation to remain in the community until the actual date of deportation would
save the government time and money and would permit the non-national greater freedom to plan for
his or her future.

Recommendation: Unless persons seeking entry to Ireland pose a security concern, the
government should consider alternatives to detention, such as regular reporting or the
posting of a bond, for non-nationals refused permission to land and, especially, for all
asylum seekers. Given that GNIB already permits some persons awaiting deportation to
remain free pending their removal subject to adherence to specified conditions, the creation
of a pilot program to formalize this practice should be put in place.

2. ‘Direct Provision’ *
While the system of direct provision effects all those living within it JRS Ireland have particular
concerns about specific groups, those being i) children and families and ii) people with mental
health issues. The following areas of concern have been identified in the course of JRS Ireland’s
accompaniment and services for people and families seeking asylum: parenting challenges; poverty
and social exclusion; education and life skills; accommodation; child services and support; and
mental health.

Recommendations:
• The Direct Provision System should be radically reformed or replaced by a scheme that
ensures any person awaiting a decision on their application for protection can be allowed to
do so with dignity and full respect for their fundamental rights. This is especially urgent in
the case of children and families living and growing up in direct provision.
• Ireland should adopt and implement the relevant European law, including the Council
Directive 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003 laying down minimum standards for the reception
of asylum seekers.

In the light of current budgetary constraints it is likely Direct Provision will remain in place for the
foreseeable future. Speedier decision times and falling applicant numbers will lead to savings. A
revenue neutral approach would allow these savings to be directed to measures which could greatly
improve the conditions for residents living in direct provision, including:
• Shorter decision times: Introducing the Single Procedure and Front Loading of Legal
Assistance, achieved by a more effective use and configuration of existing Refugee Legal
Service (RLS) resources, would hopefully lead to speedier and better quality adjudication of
protection claims.
• Additional family space: Provide larger and more rooms for families with children.
• Increased family supports: Consider an increase in the provision of childcare, supports and
services for families seeking asylum.
• Appropriate training: Ensure direct provision centre staff and management receive training
that will ensure high standards of child protection and welfare are implemented.
• Expanded self-catering options: Providing all residents even a limited opportunity to prepare
some of their own meals, would make life in direct provision more bearable. Utilise existing
self-catering facilities to maximum capacity.
• Independent complaints mechanism: Introduce an independent complaints procedure in all
centres, which would ensure that residents concerns can be voiced without fear of summary
transfer.
• Parliamentary oversight: In assessing the effectiveness of direct provision policies oversight
by parliamentary committees has an important role in ensuring the rights are vindicated.
• Asylum seekers should be enabled to access language, vocational and FAS training as well
as FETAC courses. NGOs providing education to asylum seekers should be eligible to
receive adequate State funding.

3. Decision Making in the Asylum Process
The quality of decision-making at all stages of the asylum procedure.** In recent years, for
example, questions have been asked about the fairness of decisions reached by the Refugee Appeals
Tribunal.

Recommendations:
• The ‘frontloading’ of legal services within the asylum application process i.e. the provision
of increased legal services to asylum applicants at the very early stage of the process.
• All persons applying for asylum in Ireland would be informed in a language they understand
of their right to legal advice and representation and how this can be accessed.
• All asylum applicants would have access to a legal representative before filling out the
questionnaire and would receive legal advice in completing the questionnaire.
• A legal representative would attend the substantive interview and play an active role within
it.
• Appropriate training for legal representatives would be provided in order to ensure that they
are in a position to adequately represent protection applicants. Such training would be
particularly important in the context of the expanded protection framework provided for in
the Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill 2008.

4. Habitual Residency Clause
The implementation of the Habitually Residence Condition (HRC) can block access to shelters even
for asylum seekers who are forced to leave the Direct Provision System, as well as undocumented
migrants. Migrants who, in the view of the responsible officers, do not meet the HRC, do not
receive any social assistance at all.

Recommendation:
• Access to basic social assistance including housing should be provided for everybody who
cannot afford the costs of living on his or her own. Insofar, the HRC should not apply.

5. Access to Citizenship and Naturalisation
There is currently no clear pathway to attain citizenship in Ireland and the granting of naturalisation
is at the discretion of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Defence.

Recommendations:
• All procedures and decision-making processes should be transparent, based on a clear set of
criteria, and fair and ministerial discretion should be more clearly bounded.
• There are excessive waiting times for citizenship decisions, on average 30 months but in
many cases much longer, causing unnecessary hardship and anxiety for applicants.
• A right to appeal citizenship should be introduced.