CAT/C/64/D/615/2014 1.2 On 30 June 2014, pursuant to rule 114 of its rules of procedure, the Committee, acting through its Rapporteur on new communications and interim measures, requested the State party not to expel the author while the complaint was being considered. 1.3 On 2 September 2014, the Federal Court of Canada granted the complainant leave to apply for judicial review of the second pre-removal risk assessment decision. The hearing, originally scheduled for 1 December 2014, was subsequently postponed to 20 January 2015 at the request of the complainant’s counsel. A positive decision would mean that the author would be entitled to a new pre-removal risk assessment, and would be subject to a statutory stay of removal pending a decision on the assessment. If, in a new pre-removal risk assessment, the complainant were determined to be in need of protection, she would not be subject to removal and would have an opportunity to apply for permanent resident status. On 21 November 2014, therefore, the State party requested that the examination of the communication be suspended, given the pending judicial review. On 10 March 2015, the Committee decided to suspend the consideration of the complaint, until all domestic proceedings were concluded, and also to suspend the interim measures, given the information before it. On 17 April 2015, the State party advised the Committee that on 13 March 2015 the Federal Court had dismissed the complainant’s application. At the same time, the State party requested that the suspension of the communication be lifted and an extension granted for it to present observations on the admissibility and merits of the communication. On 7 August 2015, the State party requested that the Committee lift its request for interim measures. On 19 August 2015, the Committee decided to lift the suspension of the case. On 19 April 2018,2 the Committee, acting through its Rapporteur on new complaints and interim measures, denied the request of the State party to lift the interim measures. The facts as presented by the complainant 2.1 The complainant first came to Canada on 25 December 1999 on a student visa. She applied for a Canadian work visa upon completion of her bachelor’s degree, but her application was returned to her with a request for additional information. When she resubmitted her application, she was told that she had narrowly missed the deadline to apply for that immigration visa category and that she had to return to Uganda. The complainant remained in Canada illegally from October 2006 to June 2011. 2.2 The complainant always felt strongly attracted to women rather than men. While in Uganda, where homosexual activity is illegal, she buried her feelings and remained single. In 2001, at the University of Winnipeg, the complainant developed a friendship with a Kenyan woman, Ann, who was openly lesbian. In 2007, the complainant admitted to being a lesbian. Ann introduced the complainant to a Canadian woman, Lynne Martin, with whom the complainant had a relationship for about two years. The complainant became an active member of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community in Winnipeg and started to attend community events. During her relationship with Ms. Martin, the complainant decided to tell her family in Uganda about her sexual orientation. While some of her family members supported her, she was rejected by others. Her father said that she brought shame on the family and decided to disown her. An active member of the Catholic Church, he informed all the members of his congregation about the complainant’s sexual orientation during a church meeting. Since the complainant’s family lives in a small community, many people have come to know about her sexual orientation. 2.3 The father of the complainant’s daughter allegedly called an immigration office in Winnipeg to report that the complainant was living and working in Canada illegally. Starting in March 2011, the complainant faced difficulties with the immigration authorities, 2 2 On 28 October 2015, the State party’s request for lifting interim measures was transmitted to the complainant for comments by 28 December 2015. The complainant sent a response to the State party’s observations dated 27 December 2015, but her reply was never received by the Committee. The Committee therefore sent a reminder to the complainant on 10 April 2018. On 12 April 2018, the complainant resubmitted her comments dated 27 December 2015 on the State party’s observations and informed the Committee that she was still in Canada, benefiting from the Committee’s interim measures request.