CAT/C/53/D/520/2012 4.4 On 1 June 2012, it was determined that the complainant was not at risk of persecution or torture if returned to Ethiopia. The PRRA Officer first noted that some of the evidence, including the two letters from Ethiopia, was not new but had already been put before the RPD. Pursuant to section 113 (a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, a PRRA applicant whose claim to refugee protection has been rejected by the RPD may present only new evidence that arose after the rejection or was not reasonably available at the time of the rejection. The PRRA Officer took the submitted reports of human rights organizations and media articles into consideration, but concluded that the articles were general in nature. The complainant’s application for protection was therefore rejected. 4.5 The State party maintains that the complainant could have made an application for leave and for judicial review of the PRRA Officer’s decision to the Federal court. She could also have filed a motion seeking a judicial stay of removal pending the decision of the Court. The State party notes that that judicial review has consistently been recognized by the Committee as a procedure that must be exhausted for the purposes of admissibility. 3 For example, in its decision in Yassin v. Canada, the Committee stated that a judicial review of the complainant’s negative PRRA decision was an effective remedy, and found his communication inadmissible on grounds of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. 4 In several other communications involving Canada, the Committee has noted that “applications for leave and judicial review are not mere formalities, but that the Federal Court may, in appropriate cases, look at the substance of a case”. 5 4.6 The State party refers to the Committee’s recent decision in Nirmal Singh v. Canada.6 In that communication, the Committee accepted the complainant’s argument that judicial review of his negative RPD and PRRA decisions did not provide him with an effective remedy. The State party argues that the Committee’s decision in Nirmal Singh is limited to the specific facts of that particular case, and does not indicate a more general condemnation of the effectiveness of judicial review as a remedy. The State party further notes that the current system of judicial review by the Federal Court provides for “judicial review of the merits”. It explains that, in a judicial review, whether asked to review a decision of the RPD or of a PRRA Officer, the Federal Court reviews factual errors or errors involving both facts and law, generally on a “reasonableness standard”. However, the Court may also review questions of law on a “correctness standard”. In addition, on judicial review pursuant to section 18.1(4) of the Federal Courts Act, the Federal Court can issue an appropriate remedy if it determines that a tribunal (a) acted without jurisdiction, acted 3 4 5 6 See for example, Committee against Torture communications No. 307/2006, Yassin v. Canada, decision adopted on 4 November 2009, paras. 9.3–9.4; No. 304/2006, L.Z.B. v. Canada, decision adopted on 8 November 2007, para. 6.6; European Court of Human Rights judgment of 30 October 1991, Vilvarajah and Others v. United Kingdom, Application no. 13163/87; 13164/87; 13165/87; 13447/87; 13448/87, judgment of 30 October 1991, para. 126; Committee against Torture communications No. 66/1997, P.S.S. v. Canada, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 13 November 1998, para. 6.2; No. 86/1997, P.S. v. Canada, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 18 November 1999, para. 6.2; No. 42/1996, R.K. v. Canada, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 20 November 1997, para. 7.2; No. 95/1997, L.O. v. Canada, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 19 May 2000, para. 6.5; No. 22/1995, M.A. v. Canada, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 3 May 1995, para. 3; No. 183/2001, B.S.S. v. Canada, decision on admissibility adopted on 12 May 2004, para. 11.6; No. 273/2005, T.A. v. Canada, decision of inadmissibility adopted 15 May 2006, para. 6.3. Communication No. 307/2006, Yassin v. Canada (see footnote 3), paras. 9.3–9.5. Note that Mr. Yassin failed to apply for judicial review of either his negative PRRA decision or his negative H&C decision. Communication No. 273/2005, T.A. v. Canada (see footnote 3), para. 6.3; No. 304/2006, L.Z.B. v. Canada (see footnote 3), para. 6.6. Communication No. 319/2007, Nirmal Singh v. Canada, decision adopted on 30 May 2011. 5