and on 1 June 2011 she was issued with a removal order. The Government allowed the
complainant to apply for pre-removal risk assessment against the removal order.3
In the context of her application for a pre-removal risk assessment of 15 June 2011,
the complainant claimed that her daughter’s father wanted Sanyu to undergo female genital
mutilation and wanted to kill the complainant for refusing to allow her daughter to undergo
that procedure. The complainant feared being arrested by the Ugandan police and
eventually killed by an anti-gay mob in Uganda, and was in particular afraid of Sanyu’s
father, who threatened to harm her for being a lesbian and for refusing to subject her
daughter to female genital mutilation. The complainant’s pre-removal risk assessment
application was rejected on 11 June 2012, as she was not perceived to face a risk of
persecution, a risk to her life, or a risk of torture or cruel or inhuman treatment or
punishment, if returned to Uganda. The complainant was also informed that the initial
removal order of 1 June 2011 against her would be enforced. She received an initial
notification of removal on 24 December 2012, requesting her to report to the airport on 22
January 2013.4
On 31 December 2012, the complainant applied to the Federal Court for a judicial
review of the pre-removal risk assessment decision of 11 June 2012. By its decision dated
22 February 2013, the Court granted her leave to appeal, while it quashed the negative preremoval risk assessment decision because the officer in charge had failed to consider all the
evidence submitted by the complainant. The Court ordered the reconsideration of her preremoval risk assessment application by a different officer. Citizenship and Immigration
Canada consented to the relief sought, including a stay of her removal.
The complainant’s second pre-removal risk assessment application was rejected on
19 March 2014 on the same grounds as the pre-removal risk assessment decision of 11 June
2012. On 4 May 2014, she applied to the Federal Court for leave to seek judicial review of
the second negative pre-removal risk assessment decision, while requesting a stay of
removal. On 14 June 2014, the complainant made a complementary submission, in reply to
the observations made by Citizenship and Immigration Canada. On 13 March 2015, the
Federal Court dismissed the complainant’s application for leave to seek judicial review on
the ground that there was insufficient evidence to establish the risk to life or risk of cruel or
inhuman treatment or punishment if returned to Uganda.
The complaint
The complainant submits that Canada, by forcibly returning her to Uganda, would
violate her rights under articles 1 and 3 of the Convention. She claims that her removal
would put her at a serious risk of being arrested, sentenced, tortured or killed due to her
sexual orientation. She submits that Uganda does not protect lesbians, and that they are
criminalized, sent to jail and sentenced to death. In that regard, she refers to the Ugandan
Anti-Homosexuality Act, 2014, which the complainant states is aimed at killing gays and
lesbians. The complainant also fears being harassed by people who know about her sexual
orientation and that she may be investigated, as there is an obligation to report anyone who
is gay within 24 hours in Uganda. She describes her fears and anxiety extensively and
attaches statements from friends in the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community in
Winnipeg, her physicians and family members both in Canada and Uganda that describe the
risk of harm that the complainant would face upon return to Uganda.
She also claims to fear in particular the father of her daughter, who resents her for
being lesbian and who believes that she should not be near his child, as she is “evil and
dirty”. She alleges that the father has threatened to kill her on several occasions,5 and to
submit her daughter to female genital mutilation. The complainant explained that she did


The removal order concerns only the complainant, not her daughter who is a Canadian. In the preremoval risk assessment it was noted that the complainant came as a student in 1999, briefly left
Canada on 31 January 2004 and was then granted a student visa from 3 December 2004 to 30 October
Both the removal order and the notification thereof are attached to the complaint.
The complainant reports that he mentioned to family members that it would cost him 5 Canadian
dollars to have her killed in Uganda.

Select target paragraph3