CAT/C/33/D/163/2000 Page 6 had an obligation to observe the time limits, and cites a European Court of Human Rights case 6 in which the Court found that, even in cases of removal to a country where there might be a risk of treatment contrary to article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the formalities and time limits established in domestic law must be observed. That complaint had been rejected on grounds of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. 4.9 The State party notes that in R.K. v. Canada7 the Committee found that the complainant had not exhausted domestic remedies if he had not pursued a request for judicial review of a negative decision by the Re fugee Determination Division and had not lodged a request for a ministerial waiver. In P.S. v. Canada8 the Committee had found the communication inadmissible on the grounds that the complainant had not applied for judicial review of a decision denying his request for a ministerial waiver. 4.10 According to the State party, Mr. Saut Villamar will not be deported from Canada without having had an opportunity to request an assessment of the risks involved in returning to his country. The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act provides that persons in Canada may apply for protection if they are subject to a removal order and fear that their removal would expose them to the risk of persecution on one of the grounds established in the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees or to the risk of being subjected to torture within the meaning of article 1 of the Convention against Torture, or would put their life at risk or expose them to the risk of cruel treatment. In the event of a negative decision regarding the pre-removal risk assessment, an application for judicial review may be made to the Federal Court. 4.11 Lastly, the State party argues that the complainant may apply for permanent residence on humanitarian grounds. 4.12 As to the complainant Ms. Osorio Cancino, the State party emphasizes that she had temporary worker status in Canada until 8 December 2003. After that date she could apply for refugee status if she was afraid to return to Mexico, and if a removal order was issued against her she could apply for pre-removal risk assessment. She could also apply for permanent residence under the Live- in Caregiver Programme. Lastly, she could apply for permanent residence in Canada on the basis of humanitarian considerations. In each case, the decision wo uld be subject to judicial review. 4.13 The State party maintains that the complainants have not exhausted the domestic remedies available to them and have not demonstrated that such remedies would be unreasonably prolonged or unlikely to bring effective relief. The complaint should therefore be found inadmissible. 6 Bahaddar v. Netherlands, communication No. 145/1996/764/965. 7 R.K. v. Canada, communication No. 47/1996. 8 P.S. v. Canada, communication No. 86/1997. ------