CAT/C/53/D/520/2012 beyond its jurisdiction or refused to exercise its jurisdiction; (b) failed to observe a principle of natural justice, procedural fairness or other procedure that it was required by law to observe; (c) erred in law in making a decision or an order, whether or not the error appears on the face of the record; (d) based its decision or order on an erroneous finding of fact that it made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it; (e) acted, or failed to act, by reason of fraud or perjured evidence; or, (f) acted in any other way that was contrary to law. 4.7 Consequently, the State party submits that, had the complainant made an application for leave to apply for judicial review, and, if there had been an error of law or an unreasonable finding of fact made in the PRRA decision, the Federal Court would have granted leave to apply for judicial review and could have set the decision aside and sent the application back for re-determination by a different PRRA Officer. The State party provides a number of examples of applications sent back by the Court for re-evaluation.7 In addition, as to the complainant’s argument that judicial review of her PRRA decision would not stop her deportation, the State party submits that, while it is true that there is no automatic stay of removal, a judicial stay is available on application to the Federal Court. The State party notes that a stay of removal until a PRRA application has been decided is granted by the Federal Court on a regular basis. 4.8 With regard to the statistics on leave applications and judicial review applications, the State party notes that judges of the Federal Court consider each leave application on the basis of the written submissions made by the parties, without an oral hearing. A hearing does not have to be an oral hearing to be fair and to comply with the rules of justice. If leave is granted, the case is assigned to a different judge for an oral hearing on the merits of the judicial review application. For example, in 2011, out of 6,273 applications for leave to appeal in the refugee context, 894 were granted, a grant rate of 14 per cent. The State party submits that the acceptance rate for leave applications is not low, in view of the quality of the decision-making at the first instance. 4.9 As to the costs for filing an application for judicial review, the State party notes that it costs only CAD50 to file a leave application in the Federal Court. Moreover, an applicant does not have to be represented by a lawyer to file a leave application but can be assisted by a consultant or a friend or relative. The State party observes that the complainant had representation throughout her legal proceedings in Canada. In addition, legal aid is generally available throughout Canada and the complainant has not established that she had applied for legal aid but that her application was rejected. Accordingly, her assertion that she cannot afford to file a leave application is insufficient to excuse her failure to exhaust domestic remedies. 4.10 Furthermore, the State party maintains that the complainant could also have made an application to be allowed to apply for permanent resident status in Canada on the basis of 7 6 The State party also refers to the Human Rights Committee’s jurisprudence considering judicial review by the Federal Court to be an effective remedy for the purpose of admissibility. See for example, Human Rights Committee communications No. 1872/2009, D.J.D.G. v. Canada, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 26 July 2010, para. 7.4 ; No. 1580/2007, F.M. v. Canada, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 30 October 2008, para. 6.3; No. 1578/2007, Dastgir v. Canada, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 30 October 2008, para. 6.2; No. 939/2000, Dupuy v. Canada, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 18 March 2005, para. 7.3. See also Human Rights Committee communications No. 654/1995, Adu v. Canada, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 18 July 1997, para. 6.2; No. 603/1994, Badu v. Canada, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 18 July 1997, para. 6.2 ; No. 604/1994, Nartey v. Canada, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 18 July 1997, para. 6.2; see also ECHR judgment, Vilvarajah and Others v. United Kingdom (see footnote 3), para. 126.