CAT/C/55/D/512/2012 rejected and he did not have sufficient funds to pay the legal fee). The complainant then decided to pursue his claim without assistance from counsel, but never received a call or mail from the Immigration and Refugee Board, because the correspondence sent by the Board went to the wrong address. 5.2 In response to the State party’s observation that he did not try to have his refugee claim reopened, the complainant states that he contacted “some consultants”, who told him that it had been over a year and the Immigration and Refugee Board might not reopen his case, so he should wait for the immigration department to call him for a PRRA application. The complainant states that he had “no choice but to wait for their call”. He also maintains that when he found out that his refugee claim had been abandoned, he called the Board and his call was taken by a rude agent “who became very angry at him for abandoning the claim”. The complainant further argues that when he informed the agent that he had not received any mail from the Board, she replied: “Don’t lie to me, I can send you back.” The agent then advised the complainant that his lawyer should file an application for a reopening of the claim. As he did not have a lawyer and was unable to procure one because he could not afford the required $2,000-$5,000 upfront fee, he asked “some consultants” about reopening the claim, but they told him that only lawyers were able to file such applications. 5.3 In response to the State party’s observation that he has not filed an application for humanitarian and compassionate consideration, the complainant states that he asked some consultants about the application process and determined that there were three reasons it was not an effective remedy for him: the application would take more than two years to be decided, and the complainant has seen several individuals be deported while their applications for humanitarian and compassionate consideration were pending; the application “requires a lot of things to get approved”, according to the immigration consultants the complainant spoke with, for example, the complainant would have to get a full-time job and establish himself in Canada financially and socially; and the application would require a lot of money to pay processing and legal fees, and the complainant does not have the necessary means. 5.4 In response to the State party’s observation that he did not provide enough evidence to support his claim, the complainant asserts that he had only 14 days to submit a list of evidence, and another 14 days to submit the evidence itself (or 10 days, taking into account the 4 days of mail transmission time). That was not sufficient time to obtain documentation from Pakistan, and his relatives could send him only the two police reports that they had. Although he requested an oral interview in his PRRA application, this was not considered by the PRRA officer, although it is allowed by law. The complainant further asserts that the immigration officer confused the targeted killings with general sectarian violence. The complainant reiterates that he will be targeted if he returns to Pakistan. He submits documentation and affidavits from friends and relatives who assert that he would be at risk if he returns to Pakistan.5 5 Specifically, the complainant submits the following documentation: (a) An affidavit from his cousin, who states that the complainant’s ex-in-laws spread hatred towards the complainant due to his conversion to the Shia faith, and had his then-wife divorce him. The complainant’s cousin also states that his son was killed by a gunshot wound in 2005 “as a consequence of supporting” the complainant; that he filed a police report about the incident, which led to the arrest of K., who was a friend of the deceased; that S.A., a fanatical Sunni cleric who had wanted the complainant’s ex-wife to obtain a divorce, provided bail for K. to be released from jail; and that S.A. then said to the cousin, “See, I did what I said to you.”; (b) An affidavit from another cousin, D., who states that S.A. told D. that he would kill the complainant and his relatives because the complainant had committed a sin by converting to the Shia 7