CAT/C/70/D/888/2018 5.3 The Committee recalls that, in accordance with article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention, it cannot consider any communication from an individual unless it has ascertained that the individual has exhausted all available domestic remedies. 5.4 The Committee notes that the State party challenged the admissibility of the communication on the basis of non-exhaustion of the available domestic remedies. It takes note of the State party’s argument that: (a) the complainant submitted a second asylum application in 2018; (b) the State Secretariat for Migration heard her reasons before rejecting the application; (c) the Federal Administrative Tribunal overturned the State Secretariat’s decision and returned the case to the lower authority for a new decision; and (d) the State Secretariat conducted a new hearing with the complainant, in the presence of her legal representative, and again rejected the application for asylum. The complainant, represented by her legal counsel, again lodged an appeal with the Federal Administrative Tribunal; the investigating judge dismissed the application for free legal aid, taking the view that the action had no chance of success, and set the complainant a time limit for payment of the advance on the costs of the proceedings. The Committee notes that, since the complainant did not pay the advance on costs as requested, the Tribunal did not proceed with her appeal. 5.5 The State party asserts that, if the complainant had paid the fee for the procedure, the judge could have ruled on her application for review and that, in the absence of such a payment, the application must be considered inadmissible. The Committee notes that, having failed to pay the review application fees, the complainant showed a lack of due diligence in her efforts to see the extraordinary review process through to its conclusion. It also notes that she has never claimed to be unable to afford to pay the required fees within the prescribed time limit and finds that she has not provided a satisfactory explanation as to why she did not pay them. The Committee recalls that the opening of a new asylum application gives the applicant the right to stay in Switzerland until the procedure is completed 9 and that the complainant has not provided any information to the contrary. The Committee is therefore of the view that domestic remedies have not been exhausted in accordance with article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention. 6. The Committee therefore decides: (a) That the communication is inadmissible under article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention; (b) 9 GE.21-00516 That this decision shall be transmitted to the State party and to the complainant. Ibid. 5