CAT/C/57/D/583/2014 2.6 The complainant has been repeatedly advised by family members and others in his village in India that, for his own protection, he should not return to India. The Indian police and security forces are actively searching for him and have been harassing and threatening his parents since he left India. Police agents have gone to his family’s home and have mentally and physically tortured his family members in order to obtain information on his whereabouts. The police took his family members to the police station on numerous occasions and also interrogated his parents for this purpose. His parents were able to escape because an influential and respectable person paid a substantial bribe. The complaint 3. The complainant asserts that the State party would violate his rights under article 3 of the Convention by forcibly removing him to India, where he would risk being subjected to torture and cruel treatment due to his imputed affiliation with Sikh terrorism in Punjab. The complainant was twice arrested and subjected to brutal torture by agents of the Indian police force, which continues to actively search for him and harass and torture his family members. The State party’s domestic authorities erred in their assessment of the risk faced by the complainant in India. The complainant maintains that according to credible reports, India faces serious human rights problems, including abuse by police, extrajudicial killings and torture.3 State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 In its submissions dated 5 June 2014, 11 July 2014 and 8 July 2015, the State party highlights that the complainant arrived in Canada on a student visa and did not file a refugee claim in Canada until after he had completed a diploma in Management and Health Care Technology, over two years after his arrival. This indicates a lack of subjective fear of returning to India. 4.2 The State party indicates that the complainant’s application for a pre-removal risk assessment was denied and that his application for leave and for judicial review of the negative risk assessment decision was also denied. Nevertheless, the State party considers that the complainant had not exhausted all domestic remedies because he did not file an application for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) grounds. 4.3 The State party further considers that the communication is inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded. The complainant did not provide any evidence to the Committee or to the Canadian decision makers indicating that he was perceived as being a high-profile militant or a terrorist suspect and therefore failed to establish any prospect of irreparable harm if returned to India. The determinations of the Refugee Protection Division and the pre-removal risk assessment officer were based on a full and impartial consideration of both the complainant’s allegations and the situation in India, as described in objective reports. The Refugee Protection Division rejected the complainant’s claims on the basis that they were not credible. The Division found that the complainant did not provide a reasonable explanation as to why he did not leave Phagwara soon after being tortured by the police for four days and narrowly escaping death. When asked why he waited until June 2009 to leave, the complainant responded that his parents felt that the situation had become more serious in 2009. The Division referred to a judgment of the Federal Court of Canada, in which it is stated that the Division may draw negative inferences about subjective fear in cases where a person alleging fear of persecution by local agents remains in the same location. 4 The Division also found the complainant’s claims with respect to the alleged arrest and torture 3 4 GE.16-09779 The complainant cites United States, Department of State, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2012, India; and International Religious Freedom Report for 2012: India. The State party cites Singh Mathon v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 230. 3