6.4 In the present case, the State party argues that the author did not apply
for a stay of his removal before the Federal Court and failed to apply for a
ministerial exemption on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.
6.5 The author does not dispute that he did not apply for a stay of his
removal and did not apply for a ministerial waiver on humanitarian and
compassionate grounds. In this regard, the Committee first notes that an
application for a ministerial waiver on humanitarian and compassionate
grounds is a statutory remedy. Moreover, it notes that in case of refusal of
the waiver by the minister, a judicial review is open to the author with the
possibility of applying for a stay of removal. Finally, even if the author
claims that those remedies were illusory, he has furnished no evidence that
they would be unlikely to succeed. The Committee therefore considers that
the conditions laid down in article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention
have not been met.
7. The Committee consequently decides:
(a) That the communication is inadmissible;
(b) That this decision may be reviewed under rule 109 of the Committee's
rules of procedure upon receipt of a request by or on behalf of the author
containing information to the effect that the reasons for inadmissibility no
longer apply;
(c) That this decision shall be communicated to the State party, the author
and his representative.
[Done in English, French, Russian and Spanish, the English text being the
original version.]