CAT/C/57/D/529/2012 4.16 On 6 April 2010, the complainant applied for a pre-removal risk assessment, as provided for under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. She was represented by the same legal counsel who had represented her during most of the refugee proceedings, including the Refugee Protection Division hearing. 4.17 A foreign national who is awaiting removal and who alleges a risk of harm in his or her country of origin may apply for protection prior to removal. An applicant who is eligible for a pre-removal risk assessment will not be removed prior to the conduct of the risk assessment. As in the case of a determination of risk by the Refugee Protection Division, the pre-removal risk assessment mechanism is founded on the State party’s domestic and international commitments regarding the principle of non-refoulement, in accordance with which a person should not be removed to a country where he or she would be at risk of persecution, torture, risk to life or risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. For persons who have already received a decision by the Division, a preremoval risk assessment is largely based on new facts or evidence demonstrating that the person is now at risk of persecution, torture, risk to life or risk of cruel or unusual treatment or punishment. Its purpose is to assess whether there have been any new developments since the Division’s determination that could affect or change the risk assessment. For this reason, section 113 (a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act establishes that evidence submitted for the purpose of a pre-removal risk assessment must be “new evidence that arose after the rejection [by the Division] or was not reasonably available, or that the applicant could not reasonably have been expected in the circumstances to have presented, at the time of the rejection”. 4.18 Applications for pre-removal risk assessment are considered by officers who are specifically trained to assess risk and to take into consideration the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and international human rights obligations relating to refugee and other protection. The officers would have also received training on administrative law and jurisprudence. They keep up to date with new developments in these areas and have access to the most recent and authoritative information on human rights developments around the world. 4.19 In her pre-removal risk assessment application, the complainant submitted the same claims that she had submitted in support of her initial protection claim. The only new evidence submitted were legal documents from Pakistan relating to her divorce from B.A., including the certificate of divorce effective 2 February 2010. On 26 May 2011 the complainant’s pre-removal risk assessment application was rejected. The officer had reassessed the three risks identified by the Refugee Protection Division (see para. 4.12 above) in the light of the new evidence submitted by the complainant and evidence relating to general country conditions in Pakistan. He concluded that the complainant had clearly not submitted adequate new evidence, as defined in section 113 (a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, that she would be likely to face a risk of torture, risk to her life or risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment in Pakistan. The officer also concluded that the documentary evidence supported the finding that, despite its acknowledged human rights problems, country conditions in Pakistan were relatively stable and showed minor improvement on some fronts. The pre-removal risk assessment decision was delivered to the complainant on 21 June 2011. 4.20 With the assistance of legal counsel, the complainant applied to the Federal Court for leave to commence judicial review of the negative pre-removal risk assessment decision. The materials submitted to the Court by the complainant’s legal counsel included a memorandum of legal argument and an affidavit by the complainant. The complainant’s application was dismissed by court order on 21 October 2011, without any reasons. Although the court did not provide reasons, the State party observed that the materials that 8