CCPR/C/125/D/2948/2017 5.5 In cases of imminent deportation, the material point in time for assessing whether the family’s rights have been violated must be that of the Committee’s own consideration of the case. The deportation by a State of the parents of a minor child who holds the nationality of that State must be justified by additional factors that go beyond the mere enforcement of immigration law, if it is not to be considered arbitrary. 15 The only reason given by the State party is the proper application of the law, without any attempt to show or explain why removal is justified in this case. In view of the above, the Committee should not, according to the authors, simply dismiss the communication at this stage or decide that the interim measures ought to be lifted. If the family were to be returned to India, the harm caused would be irreparable. The authors therefore assert that the interim measures should remain in place. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 6.2 As required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, the Committee has ascertained that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 6.3 The Committee recalls its jurisprudence to the effect that authors must avail themselves of all domestic remedies in order to fulfil the requirement of article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol, insofar as such remedies appear to be effective in the given case and are de facto available to the authors. 16 6.4 The Committee notes that the authors were heard by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, which rejected their asylum application. They also submitted an application for a pre-removal risk assessment, which was rejected on 4 August 2016. On 13 October 2016, the authors applied for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds, especially the best interests of their children, who are both Canadian citizens; that application was denied on 8 March 2017. That decision by the State party led the authors to submit an application for a judicial review by the Federal Court of Canada (see paras. 4.3 and 5.3). However, the authors have admitted that, although they were entitled to apply to the Federal Court of Canada for a judicial review of the decisions to reject their asylum application, their counsel at the time had advised them not to, on the grounds that the authorities might initiate deportation proceedings because they had entered Canada illegally. In this context, the Committee notes that the State party considers that the adult authors did not exhaust all available domestic remedies, for they did not apply for leave for a judicial review of the negative decision of the Refugee Protection Division or of the decision to reject their pre-removal risk assessment application, even though these options were available to them. According to the State party, this is a remedy that ought to be considered effective in the circumstances of this case. 17 As the Committee has repeatedly acknowledged, a State party generally cannot be held accountable for the errors or omissions of an independent legal adviser. 18 Accordingly, the Committee considers that it is precluded by article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol from examining the present communication. 15 16 17 18 GE.19-08918 Winata et al. v. Australia, para. 7.3. Warsame v. Canada (CCPR/C/102/D/1959/2010), para. 7.4, and P.L. v. Germany (CCPR/C/79/D/1003/2001), para. 6.5. Choudhary et al. v. Canada (CCPR/C/109/D/1898/2009), para. 8.3, and Warsame v. Canada, para. 7.4. See also Shodeinde v. Canada (CAT/C/63/D/621/2014), paras. 6.5 to 7, and Nakawunde v. Canada (CAT/C/64/D/615/2014), paras. 6.6 to 6.9. Edwards v. Jamaica, para. 5.2, and Henry v. Jamaica, para. 7.4. 7