CAT/C/65/D/784/2016
worked as journalist for the Sunday Times, the Division considered that the complainant
was not credible, that her behaviour was inconsistent with her alleged fear, and that she had
not sought protection from the local authorities. The Division indicated that the
complainant subsequently changed her initial version of facts, which she had provided on
18 September 2012.9 It also indicated that her explanation for not bringing those elements
to the attention of the authorities earlier, which was that she felt she was under pressure,
was not perceived as credible, as she had written her initial statement in Canada when she
was free from further threats. The Division considered that her behaviour was not
consistent, as she reportedly took the decision to leave Pakistan at the end of 2009, but she
left only in June 2010. Regarding the evidence submitted, the Division stated that the
affidavits from her former colleagues, which confirmed the problems she allegedly faced,
were identical,10 and as the complainant was not able to explain why, it refused to attach
any probative value to those documents. The Division also considered that it was not
plausible that her parents were still receiving threats, as she had left Pakistan several years
earlier. Finally, the Division considered that she lacked credibility since she had never
sought protection from the authorities in her country, and her allegation that her “highranking boss” was in a better position to protect her than the police could not be considered
sufficient.
2.7
The complainant applied to the Federal Court for a judicial review of the Refugee
Protection Division decision, which was rejected on 25 August 2016. She claims that all the
available domestic remedies have been exhausted, as the stay of deportation that can be
granted by the Federal Court does not constitute an effective remedy. 11
The complaint
3.1
The complainant claims that by deporting her to Pakistan, Canada would violate her
rights under article 3 of the Convention. She fears being at risk of being subjected to torture
or cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment by the Taliban, as a result of her work as a
journalist and of her being an emancipated woman. While in Pakistan, she was threatened
with being subjected to an acid attack or eventually killed.
3.2
She emphasizes that she faced various forms of threats, that she had to be under the
protection of the newspaper’s guards on all her travels, and that her parents still receive
threats directed at her.
State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits
4.1
On 18 May 2017, the State party submitted observations on admissibility and the
merits of the communication, including the request for lifting interim measures.
4.2
The State party submits that the communication is inadmissible on two grounds.
First, it considers that the complainant failed to exhaust domestic remedies, as she did not
apply for permanent residence on the basis of humanitarian and compassionate grounds.
The State party submits that, had she applied for a permanent residence from outside of
Canada, the complainant could have been allowed to remain in Canada as a permanent
resident according to the assessment12 by Citizenship and Immigration Canada. The State
party recalls that the Ministry’s Department of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship
Canada, received the complainant’s application for permanent residence on compassionate
grounds on 27 January 2017. However, her application was rejected on 13 February 2017,
pursuant to article 25 (1.2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, as a person
9
10
11
12
GE.19-05767
According to the Refugee Protection Division decision, she notably mentioned, in addition, some
political elements, which she described as relevant to explain the danger for journalists, especially
women, in Pakistan.
The affidavits in question have not been provided to the Committee.
Since the Refugee Protection Division stated that her claim had no credible basis, the Federal Court
took no decision on staying her deportation.
Following legislative changes to Canada’s refugee system in 2010, humanitarian and compassionate
applications are no longer based on risk to life or risk of torture but may be relevant insofar as they
are related to whether a complainant would directly and personally experience unusual and
undeserved or disproportionate hardship in his or her country of origin.
3