CAT/C/53/D/520/2012 observations that only 14 per cent of the cases “were listened in a hearing at the Federal Court”. The complainant notes the Committee’s findings in the case Nirmal Singh v. Canada that the judicial review of a negative refugee protection decision or a pre-removal risk assessment does not constitute an effective remedy.17 5.2 As to the State party’s arguments concerning recourse to the H&C application procedure as an effective remedy, the complainant notes that a lawyer had told her that it took 24 to 28 months to process such applications and that the examination of her H&C application would not stop her deportation. The lawyer also informed her that she would not have a good chance of success, as her fear of danger and persecution in Ethiopia was not one of the permitted grounds within the H&C application procedure. In addition, the lawyer noted that the complainant’s ties with her daughter and grandchildren in Canada would be only one of the factors in the H&C application process and that it would not “determine the application” in her favour. The complainant also states that she could not afford to pay the fee to initiate the application process, nor could she afford a lawyer. 5.3 The complainant further submits that the motion for “Stay of Removal” is not an effective mechanism as in most cases it does not stop or delay the deportation and that the State party cannot guarantee that lodging such a motion would stop her deportation. The State party’s further observations 6.1 By Note Verbale of 24 September 2013, the State party submitted its further observations. It reiterates its previous observations on the author’s failure to exhaust domestic remedies, for failing to apply for judicial review of the PPRA decision and for failure to file an H&C application. It also reiterates that an application to judicially review a negative PRRA decision can be combined with an application for a judicial stay of removal. 6.2 As to the opinion of a lawyer concerning her chances of success within the H&C application procedure, the State party submits that the complainant’s lawyer’s statements or opinions are not evidence and cannot in and of themselves support a view that the H&C application process is not an effective remedy. 18 6.3 In the light of the above, the State party reiterates its request that the complainant’s communication be considered by the Committee to be inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. 6.4 The State party submits that, to the extent that any of the complainant’s allegations about the deficiencies in the judicial review system may have had a direct bearing on the assessment of her claim for protection, those claims could and should have been raised first before the Federal Court itself and, on appeal with leave, to the Supreme Court of Canada. 19 To raise new issues, whether general or specific, before the Committee is a clear example of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, as the State party’s domestic authorities have not been given an opportunity to address allegations of specific or systematic defects and correct them if they are found to exist. 6.5 The State party further reiterates that the complainant’s failure to address the doubts about her story strongly supports the conclusion that the communication is insufficiently substantiated. 17 18 19 10 See para. 4.6 above. The State party refers to the Human Rights Committee’s Views in communication No. 1959/2010, Warsame v. Canada, Views adopted on 21 July 2011, para. 7.6, that “doubts about the effectiveness of domestic remedies do not absolve complainants from exhausting them”. The State party refers to the Views of the Human Rights Committee for example in communication No. 1494/2006, Chadzjian v. Netherlands, decision adopted on 22 July 2008, para. 8.3.