CCPR/C/117/D/2387/2014 claims of a violation of his right to family life were not duly assessed, submitting that the State party has breached its obligation to provide for an effective remedy to contest his expulsion under article 2 (3) of the Covenant, read together with articles 6 (1), 7, 17 and 23 (1). 5.7 Regarding the alleged violation of articles 6 (1) and 7, the author claims that the State party failed to take into account the current country conditions, noting that civilians continued to suffer from conflict-related abuses, including killings, displacement and the diversion or confiscation of humanitarian assistance by armed groups, principally AlShabaab. The author submits that he is at risk as a returnee from the West, which would exclude him from the domestic system of protection, and he reiterates that his family profile puts him at risk of persecution from Al-Shabaab and from the Federal Government or proGovernment forces. In that context, he claims that he fits into several of the risk categories identified by UNHCR:12 (a) his brother; Individuals perceived as being critical of Al-Shabaab, based on the actions of (b) Individuals perceived as supportive of the Federal Government and the international community, because he is westernized. 5.8 Regarding the alleged violation of articles 17 and 23 (1) of the Covenant, the author argues that his deportation would result in permanent severance of his family life; he would no longer be able to support his ailing mother,13 which would have a disproportionate effect to the aims pursued by the State party, in violation of those articles. 5.9 The author reiterates that he has exhausted all available effective domestic remedies. He submits that there was no prospect of success in applying for leave for judicial review of the Immigration Appeal Division’s decision as there was not a “fairly arguable case” or a “serious question to be determined”.14 He refers to the Committee’s jurisprudence to the effect that “article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol does not require resort to remedies which objectively have no prospect of success”. 15 Moreover, even if leave for judicial review had been granted, it would still have been necessary to prove that the Immigration Appeal Division had made an error in law or of jurisdiction. The author claims that an application for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds was not an effective remedy because it would not have stayed or prevented his deportation to Somalia. He argues that such an application would have been assessed by the same office that had assessed the humanitarian and compassionate considerations in the decision issued by the Minister’s delegate, pursuant to section 115 (2). He submits that the Minister’s delegate found the humanitarian and compassionate considerations insufficiently compelling, and he therefore does not consider the humanitarian and compassionate process to represent an effective domestic remedy, as it is entirely discretionary. 16 5.10 The author also submits that his request that the danger opinion be reconsidered is not a domestic remedy that must be exhausted, as it would be evaluated by the same Minister’s delegate. Such a request for reconsideration would not have resulted in preventing his removal to Somalia either, as only new evidence can be considered in that context. 5.11 The author requests the Committee to: (a) hold his communication admissible; (b) reject the State party’s request to lift interim measures; (c) conclude that his deportation to Somalia would amount to a violation of articles 2 (3), 6 (1), 7, 17 and 23 (1) of the Covenant; (d) request the State party not to remove him to Somalia; and (e) allow him to remain in the State party. 12 13 14 15 16 GE.17-03930 See UNHCR, “International protection considerations with regard to people fleeing southern and central Somalia”, p. 10. The author’s mother claimed to be dependent on his support in the context of the danger opinion issued by the Minister’s delegate. See Warsame v. Canada, para. 7.5. See communications No. 1134/2002, Gorji-Dinka v. Cameroon, Views adopted on 17 March 2005, para. 4.11; and No. 210/1986 and No. 225/1987, Pratt and Morgan v. Jamaica, para. 12.3. See Warsame v. Canada, para. 7.4. 7