CCPR/C/117/D/2387/2014 Additionally, there is no evidence that other family members were at risk in 2007 because of the brother’s activities against Al-Shabaab, and the 2014 UNHCR international protection considerations did not identify the profiles cited by the author as recognized risk profiles. The State party refers to the findings of the Upper Tribunal of the United Kingdom in the country guidance in the case of MOJ & Others (Return to Mogadishu),20 which did not recognize any of the profiles relied on by the author as factors of risk and did not consider ordinary civilians to be at risk of persecution or harm upon return to Mogadishu. 6.6 The State party submits that the author has failed to substantiate his claims under articles 17 and 23, and it urges the Committee to find that the communication is inadmissible in its totality pursuant to article 2 of the Optional Protocol. It considers that the author’s deportation cannot be considered to amount to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his family life. The decision to remove the author was made in compliance with Canadian law. The author was given the opportunity at each stage of the proceedings to make submissions, and he did so with the assistance of a lawyer. In her decision, the Minister’s delegate considered the following circumstances and their impact on the author’s family: the limited degree of establishment of the author in Canada; the fact that he is a single adult male; the frequent and prolonged interruptions of his family relations owing to his continuous periods of incarceration and detention since the age of 19; the availability of independent support for his mother; his limited contact with his siblings; the lack of involvement of his family in his rehabilitation; and the fact that the family ties and support did not prevent the author from committing criminal offences. The Federal Court declined to interfere with the decision of the Minister’s delegate. While the author tries to give the impression that he has maintained a close relationship with his mother and sisters, he was not close to his family in Canada prior to 4 December 2009; his family could have helped to facilitate his rehabilitation, but was unable to exert a positive influence on his lifestyle, as demonstrated by his criminal records. 6.7 The State party underlines the fact that its goal is not just to prevent the commission of future criminal offences, but to protect the Canadian public from a dangerous individual. Although the author claims that his criminal records resulted in large part from alcohol abuse, which is now allegedly resolved, the State party finds it difficult to rely on his promises. It underscores that it did not take steps to deport the author when he was first made subject to an inadmissibility report in January 2002, but gave him another six years to stop committing criminal offences. Detention has been the only effective mechanism to date to prevent the author from committing future criminal offences and to protect the public. 6.8 The State party concludes that, under international law, States have a right to control the entry, residence and expulsion of non-nationals and to remove those who have been determined not to be in need of protection. Recognition of that principle is particularly important where such individuals pose a significant risk to the safety and security of a State’s citizens. It recalls that, as of January 1998 and his detention in July 2011, the author engaged in criminal conduct, which escalated in frequency and severity. When he was released on court orders, he continually demonstrated a flagrant disregard for those orders and for the national justice system in general. The State party concludes that the author presents a serious danger to the Canadian public, does not face a real danger in Somalia, and can therefore be deported. 6.9 The State party requests that the Committee review its request for interim measures as the author failed to present even a prima facie and personal or individualized risk of irreparable harm in case of return to Somalia. 20 GE.17-03930 See United Kingdom, Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), “Country guidance” in the case of MOJ & Others (Return to Mogadishu). 9