CCPR/C/115/D/2284/2013 archdiocese, underlines the risks that the author would run if he returned to Chad. Mr. McDonough says that he personally spoke with Marie Larlem, General Coordinator of the Association pour la promotion des libertés fondamentales au Tchad, in whose name the author had provided assistance to prisoners of conscience and victims of ill treatment. Ms. Larlem unequivocally confirmed that F.M. would be in danger if he were forced to return to Chad because of the control exercised by members of the military and the attacks committed against human rights defenders, which go unpunished. 2.5 In his letter Mr. McDonough also indicates that he spoke with Father Diondoh, who had taken over the care of F.M.’s children after his departure from Chad. Father Diondoh confirmed that persons working to defend human rights were under threat. 2.6 On 29 November 2010, the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada rejected the author’s asylum application. The Board found that the author’s application suffered from “serious credibility problems” and considered his account to be implausible and lacking in believability. The Board found it particularly doubtful that the author’s home had been destroyed by government authorities because they bore him ill will. It pointed out that government authorities had destroyed nearly 1,000 houses in various parts of the city in an attempt to drive out the rebels and that there was nothing to indicate that the author had been targeted in particular. 2.7 The Board also found the author’s claim that he belonged to an association for the promotion of fundamental freedoms in Chad to be implausible after determining that his membership card was fraudulent. The fact that the author had not applied for protection in the United States, his port of arrival, but had preferred to head towards the Canadian border, was deemed incompatible with his claim that he feared for his life. Lastly, the Board found that the author had not proved he was in need of protection and therefore rejected his asylum application. 2.8 An application for judicial review was submitted to the Federal Court of Canada, but, after a hearing, the Court rejected it on 20 December 2011 on the grounds that the Immigration and Refugee Board had made a reasona ble decision. Meanwhile, on 22 November 2011, the author submitted an application for permanent residency on humanitarian and compassionate grounds, in which he put forward arguments relating to the general situation in Chad and his integration into Canadi an society. The application was rejected on 25 July 2012, the authorities responsible for the residency procedure having found that, although the overall human rights situation in Chad was a matter for concern in many respects, the author had not shown how he would personally be at risk. In addition, it was determined that the author had not become so well-established in Canada that this could be considered sufficient grounds for approving the application. On 26 October 2012, the author applied for judicial review of the rejection of his residency application and for leave to appeal under section 72 (1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. The Federal Court of Canada rejected this application on 21 March 2013. 2.9 On 23 December 2011, the author submitted a first application for pre-removal risk assessment under section 112 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, in which he cited the same risks as in his asylum application. His application was rejected on 31 May 2012 on the grounds that the evidence that had been submitted merely constituted a repetition of the author’s initial arguments or had little probative weight. The officer conducting the assessment had determined that activity on the part of rebel groups in Chad had lessened and that there had been a corresponding reduction in the number of arbitrary arrests. It was accordingly concluded that the author was not at risk of persecution. On 26 October 2012, the author applied for, and was granted, a judicial review of this decision by the Federal Court. On 17 December 4/13 GE.15-21665