THE MILLIONS of euro being spent by the Government making out of court settlements of immigration and asylum cases clearly shows the need for the establishment of an independent appeals tribunal for immigration decisions, according to the Immigrant Council of Ireland (ICI).
Its senior solicitor, Hilkka Becker, said yesterday that the council has been calling on the Government to establish an independent immigration appeals tribunal, which would create a fairer and more timely system for migrants and save Irish taxpayers a significant amount of money.
Yesterday it submitted such an amendment to the Oireachtas Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights, which will debate the Bill after the Easter break.
"Currently, Ireland's immigration system can result in undue delays and inconsistent decision-making, which a properly established appeals tribunal could overcome," Ms Becker said.
"The current system leaves no alternative to relying on the courts to sort out issues which, in addition to being costly and an inefficient use of the courts' time, creates a great deal of stress for migrants.
"Given that so many cases are settled by the Government out of court, often at the last moment, and given the high cost of this process to taxpayers, the ICI calls on the Government to honour its commitment in its Programme for Government to establish an independent appeals tribunal for immigration decisions through the Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill currently before the Dáil," she said.
Ms Becker said the council had initiated 13 High Court actions on behalf of migrants last year and the Government has now settled 11 of those cases.
The terms of the settlements were in most cases covered by confidentiality clauses. However, the types of cases settled were, in the majority, judicial reviews of decisions taken to refuse residence permits or family reunification, she said. The Irish Refugee Council expressed surprise at the large number of judicial reviews being taken by asylum-seekers and then settled by the State. "It makes you question the quality of decision-making at first instance and appeal stage," said Maureen Kirkpatrick, its legal officer.