CAT/C/36/D/273/2005 Page 5 January 2006. If his application is successful, the complainant will be entitled to a new PRRA assessment. If the application is not successful, the decision of the Federal Court can be appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal if the Federal Court judge certifies that the case raises a serious question of general importance, under section 74(d) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). A decision of the Federal Court of Appeal can be appealed, with leave, to the Supreme Court of Canada. Further, if the judicial review is not successful, the complainant could also apply for a further PRRA on the basis of any new evidence that may have arisen since the last determination, although in that case he would not have the benefit of a statutory stay of removal. However, he could apply for a judicial stay of removal pending the disposition of that application. The State party refers to the jurisprudence of the Committee to find that judicial review is widely and consistently accepted to be an effective remedy 2. 4.2 In the view of the State party, the PRRA procedure is an effective remedy which should be exhausted, contrary to the Committee’s jurisprudence3. The State party notes that during its examination the complainant would not be removed. If successful, the complainant will become a protected person and barring serious securit y concerns will be eligible to apply for permanent resident status, and ultimately citizenship. It also considers that the PRRA is more comprehensive than the ‘post-determination refugee claimants in Canada’ risk assessment, which had been considered as an effective remedy by the Human Rights Committee4. In the view of the State party, the Committee’s decision in Falcon Ríos was based on the erroneous finding of fact that in the PRRA application in that case “it would only be any fresh evidence that would be taken into consideration, and otherwise the application would be rejected” 5. It is correct that pursuant to section 113 (a) of the IRPA “an application whose claim to refugee protection has been rejected may present only new evidence that arose after the rejection or was not reasonably available, or that the applicant could not reasonably have been expected in the circumstances to have presented, at the time of the rejection”. However, the State party highlights that an exception has been read in by the Federal Court for those applicants whose claims for refugee protection had been rejected prior to the coming into force of the IRPA6. PRRA applications are considered by specially trained officers, trained to consider provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as well as of international human rights treaties. Further, the State party submits, contrary to the Committee’s jurisprudence7, that PRRA officers are independent and impartial, referring to the jurisprudence of the Federal Court of Canada 8. Further, PRRA is said to be a remedy governed by statutory criteria for protection, conducted pursuant to a highly regulated process and in accordance with 2 The State party refers to, inter alia, Communication No. 183/2001 B.S.S. v. Canada, Views adopted on 12 May 2004, paragraph 11.6. 3 The State party refers to Communications No. 133/1999, Falcon Ríos v. Canada, Views adopted on 23 November 2004, paragraph 7.4 and No. 232/2003, M.M. v. Canada, admissibility decision of 7 November 2005, paragraph 6.4. 4 The State party refers to Communication No. 604/1994, Nartey v. Canada, inadmissibility decision of 18 July 1997, paragraph 6.2; Communication No. 603/1994, Badu v. Canada, inadmissibility decision of 18 July 1997, paragraph 6.2; Communication 654/1995, Adu v. Canada , inadmissibility decision of 18 July 1997, paragraph 6.2. 5 Communication No. 133/1999, Falcon Ríos v. Canada, Views adopted on 23 November 2004, paragraph 7.5. 6 The State party refers to Nikolayeva v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2003] 3 F.C. 708; Cortez v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2003 FCT 725. 7 The State party refers to Communication No. 232/2003, M.M. v. Canada, admissibility decision of 7 November 2005, paragrap h 6.4. 8 Say v. Canada (Solicitor General), 2005, FC 739. The State party also refers to numerous Canadian Federal Court cases.