THE GOVERNMENT should introduce tighter safeguards to immigration law to make it fully compliant with the State’s legal obligations, the Human Rights Commission has said.
The watchdog’s call followed its publication yesterday of an inquiry report that examined the treatment of a visitor from Pakistan who was arrested on arrival at Dublin airport and refused permission to enter the State.
In its report, the commission recommends a review of immigration law and practice, including the provisions of the Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill, which is making its way through the Oireachtas. This would bring Ireland into line with its international human rights commitments and assist the State in reducing the likelihood of having to deal with these issues through costly litigation. The inquiry concluded that international human rights standards were not wholly respected by the State in the way in which it dealt with a Pakistani businessman who travelled here with a valid visitor visa in 2003 but was refused “leave to land” by an immigration officer at Dublin airport.
He was then arrested and brought to Mountjoy Prison, where he was kept overnight in a holding cell before being forcibly removed from the State.
The individual, whose case was referred to the commission by the Irish Penal Reform Trust, said that because his passport was stamped with the refusal order, he was detained and interrogated by the respective authorities in the UK, Kuwait and Pakistan. He also said he was badly treated as a suspect in Pakistan, and since the incident he had not travelled abroad.
According to the commission’s report, the man said he had suffered tension and “mental torture” during and since the incident.
He had been unable to contact his family at the time, he suffered financial loss as a result of paying more than €1,500 to cover the cost of tickets, visas and other travel expenses, and he felt he may in future face unnecessary difficulties in travelling abroad due to his passport being marked.
Documents supplied by the complainant to the Human Rights Commission included a notice stating that “leave to land” was refused to him by an immigration officer who had reason to believe he had, with “intent to deceive”, sought to enter the State for purposes other than those expressed.
On foot of its inquiry, the commission recommended that vague criteria on which immigration officers base their decisions to refuse “leave to land” be removed from the statute books and that the practice of “marking” passports – which had an “unclear legal basis” – should cease.
It called for the introduction of a system of review and independent oversight of decisions such as these, and recommended the State’s procedures for collecting information concerning visa decisions and immigration detentions be improved.
The report also said that those refused entry to the State should not be detained in prisons and effective remedies should be ensured where the human rights of individuals are not respected.
“The report’s findings deserve careful scrutiny, particularly concerning those practices that the [commission] considers to be not fully in compliance with international standards but which are included in the current draft legislation,” said Des Hogan, the body’s deputy chief executive.
Since the incident that gave rise to the inquiry, the Pakistani national has made representations to the Irish authorities seeking an explanation for his treatment.
He is also seeking financial redress from the State, but to date none has been offered.