Lenihan attempts to set handicaps on immigration solicitors.

[archigabe]

Though this is apparently against asylum seekers, on the whole it might place restraints on solicitors taking up other sorts of immigration cases when they(DOJ) want to make the solicitors personally responsible for costs and not just the plaintiffs involving failed immigration cases. This might force solicitors to limit the types of cases they take up including the E.U1 cases in the future.

Lenihan blames barristers for delays in asylum appeals


http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/frontp ... 19896.html

Ruadhán Mac Cormaic, Migration Correspondent.
Minister of State for Integration Conor Lenihan has blamed cases taken by a "voracious group of barristers" for the "grief and difficulty" surrounding the asylum process.

Comparing the "industry" around asylum appeals to the long-running controversy over Army deafness claims, he said: "Something is going to have to be done about this - in the same way that we had to act and do something to protect taxpayers' money and time with regard to Army deafness."

Arguing that a strong asylum regime is essential to maintain public confidence in migration policy, Mr Lenihan said the Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill would tighten the system and shorten the initial waiting times for decisions. Applications for asylum have been falling steadily for years, from more than 11,500 in 2002 to fewer than 4,500 last year.

"If you don't control the flow of people and if our own population sense that the system is open to abuse . . . it really does wreck the whole perception of migration for everyone else. That's not a good thing," he said in an interview with The Irish Times .

Immigrant advocacy groups are critical of the State's "direct provision" system, where asylum seekers are given accommodation, meals and a weekly allowance of €19.10 but are precluded from seeking paid work. Mr Lenihan insisted the "grief and difficulty" around the system was due to delays caused by the volume of appeals.

"The major delays in settling and dealing with asylum applications at the moment is principally focused on the legal challenges that are being taken by a very active and voracious group of barristers down in the Bar library who are representing clients virtually on a 'no foal, no fee' basis," he said.

Vulnerable asylum seekers were being given unrealistic hopes by some lawyers when in most cases their chances of a successful appeal were limited, he continued.

"We'll have to persuade the Bar library and the legal profession to perhaps ease off and stop throwing cases into the High Court automatically. We had similar experiences with the legal profession with regard to Army deafness, and people had to talk to them and say: 'Look, this isn't on."

Mr Lenihan credited the policy of dispersing asylum seekers around the country, which he said was initially opposed by most rural Fianna Fáil TDs, with averting hostility towards immigrants in Dublin and other cities. "I think I'd have a much more difficult job as Minister for Integration if we didn't do dispersal of the asylum accommodation."

[runie80]

Good Post.


This shows that Brian Lenihan is not much different from the Vicious Mc Dowell <whom me and my wife call micheal MC Fool>

I think immigration bill 2008 will reveal the direction in which things will be moving in future.

News like these are warning shots to those who hoping for some "miracle" in Ireland.

Also worth reading this

http://www.irishecho.com/newspaper/story.cfm?id=18590

[archigabe]

thanks runie for that link...apparently nothing works in Ireland unless you 'name and shame' the government through lawsuits and public pressure.

[walrusgumble]

would not worry about it. under the new bill it will only pernalise solicitors and barrister where they have brought judicial review cases (ie appeals) where they bring EXTREMELY WEAK cases to court. this will be done via ordering costs against them. under no circumstances do the lawyers want to loose cases as a lot of time and effort are put into them, so if they loose they are out of pocket. ok it will make lawyers more cautious but in the end it is better for all concerned. whilst one is entitled to be given very oppurtunity etc its another to give false hope to someone when you no that they really have no grounds to succeed.

it is a joke that the government have come out like this. if the people in the Refugee Appeals Tribunal were doing there jobs correctly by applying the appropriate tests and determining the correct facts at appeal hearing then many of these appeals would not see the light of day in the high court. i do not believe that the majority of lawyers (i know there are a few) would carelessly give people hope and "chance their arms" via the high court if there were no grounds to provide a reasonable case.

what i find annoying iss that he failed to acknowledge that at least a quarter of these judical reviews is where one is challenging the department in their failure to access citizen applications, leave to remain applications etc in a fair and reasonable time frame. What has the huge backlog in the department got to do with the huge backlog in court?

furthermore, if mr lenihan is so concerned about this, well its up to the department to spell it clearly via their web site, legislation etc their policies in areas where one attempts to apply for items such as stamp 4 etc as oppose to their unfair methods of only informing the applicant of such policies as grounds for refusal AFTER the making of the application.

its a two way street here, lawyers still have to ensure that their clients, whom instruct them, avail of natural justice and fairness etc

[archigabe]

To me, the timing of this rant against solicitors sounds suspicious...I was told each settlement in the E.U1 cases can go upto 50,000euros in costs for the government. If there have been atleast 20 settlements in the 600 odd E.U1 refusals, that's almost 1million euros in tax payer money the government has wasted unnecessarily. This sounds like a warning to immigration solicitors from the minister that if they got too greedy on the E.U1 settlements they might find it more difficult to do business.

[walrusgumble]

To me, the timing of this rant against solicitors sounds suspicious...I was told each settlement in the E.U1 cases can go upto 50,000euros in costs for the government. If there have been atleast 20 settlements in the 600 odd E.U1 refusals, that's almost 1million euros in tax payer money the government has wasted unnecessarily. This sounds like a warning to immigration solicitors from the minister that if they got too greedy on the E.U1 settlements they might find it more difficult to do business.

ye that is true. a lot of people who are challenging the eu 1 refusals in the high court have two stages to go through in the high court. ie. pre leave (where to succeed just have to show there is an arguable case for substantial matter to be heard) and post leave (substantial hearing) both that a long time to be heard due to backloge and lack of available judges and court rooms (hearing are now been relocated to places like kings inn and not all judges have immigration experience) expectingly this raises costs.

however, all of this could have been avoided. many of the cases have successfully distinguish itself from the kumar case. reading the facts make this clear. however, the doj instructed the chief state to challenge all cases in pre leave. now after such stupidity has been clear the state are now conceeding leave in efforts to reduce costs. good for applicant as it quickens things up.

the other problem is that the state when refusing applicants on the grounds of regulation 3.2 of the 2006 regulations (ie evidence of residence in other eu state) with a standard letter. all this despite the fact that all they need to do is pop over to the gnib dept and get a summary of the applicant's immigration history. in many many cases, it will show many appliants had legal staus not only prior to the time of making the application,marriage and even before the enactment of the 2006 regulations.

in latter case, there is nothing in the application form or regulations that say that the rules contained in the regulation act or do not act retrospectively. how can that be fair procedures? ye now yourselves that in criminal law an act commited at a certain time can only be an offence if legislation says so at that time.

furthermore, the department have never ever published policeis on their stances on whether or not student holders can change their status (eg if they marry) whilst in this country; as oppose to their current policy of informing the refused applicant of its supposed "policy" in the refusal letter. fair?

in light of inconsistent jurisprudence in the european courts eg jia and the conlicting case of alkrich, who can blame an applicant from challenging this refusal.

will the state whing if a majority of cases succeed in the high court? (note all it would do is rule that the ministers were wrong in law, its up to ministers to resolve the errors)

[archigabe]

thanks for the insider's commentary on the legal process on the E.U1 cases...According to yesterday's Irish times, Asylum applications have been at their lowest last year so the minister's rant against immigration solicitors sounds like sour grapes because of the E.U1 costs to the Department.But anyways, what a horrible horrible waste of time,money and to people's lives!

[microlab]

Great post WALRUS!