CAT/C/57/D/529/2012 6.8 On 3 October 2014, the State party submitted that on 10 September 2014, the complainant received written notice that her removal to Pakistan was scheduled for 16 September 2014. Upon receipt of the removal order, the complainant could have requested that her removal be deferred, but she did not take any steps to pursue this available domestic remedy. Claimants who allege new evidence of personal risk may request the enforcement officer to defer their removal. Although enforcement officers have limited discretion as to the timing of a removal, the Federal Court of Appeal has repeatedly held that an enforcement officer must defer removal if there is compelling evidence that the removal would expose the person to “a risk of death, extreme sanction or inhumane treatment”.20 6.9 On 15 September 2014, the complainant applied to the Federal Court for leave to apply for a judicial review of the decision to enforce her removal order. The complainant also sought a judicial stay of her removal pending consideration of this application. That afternoon, the Court heard arguments pertaining to the stay of removal application. The complainant was represented by legal counsel at the hearing. The Court rejected the complainant’s stay of removal application on the grounds that she had not met the legal test for a stay of removal because she had not demonstrated that she would suffer irreparable harm if removed to Pakistan. The State party therefore enforced the removal order against the complainant on 16 September 2014. Complainant’s further comments 7.1 On 1 October 2014, the complainant’s counsel submitted that she had been deported on 16 September 2014 and that the Canadian media had reported that she had arrived in Pakistan and was in hiding. He provided a summary of the proceedings that took place on 15 September 2014 before the Federal Court and reiterated that, according to the Committee’s jurisprudence, judicial review of a negative finding in a pre-removal risk assessment and application for residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds did not constitute effective remedies. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 8.1 Before considering any complaint submitted in a communication, the Committee must decide whether it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention, that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 8.2 In accordance with article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention, the Committee shall not consider any communication, unless it has ascertained that the complainant has exhausted all available domestic remedies. This rule does not apply where it is established that the application of those remedies has been or would be unreasonably prolonged or would be unlikely, after a fair trial, to bring effective relief. 20 See Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) v. Shpati, 2011 FCA 286, paras. 41-45 and 52, available at www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2011/2011fca286/2011fca286.html; and Baron v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2009 FCA 81, para. 51, available at www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2009/2009fca81/2009fca81.html. Aside from these circumstances, “other personal exigencies have been held to warrant a deferral because removal at that time would not be reasonably practicable” in Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) v. Shpati, para. 44. 15