CCPR/C/133/D/2623/2015 Advance unedited version 4.4 On 19 June 2015, the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) found the author to be inadmissible to Canada pursuant to section 36 (2) (c) of the ‘Immigration and Refugee Protection Act’. This section provides that an applicant is inadmissible if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant is a foreign national who is inadmissible on grounds of criminality for committing an act outside of Canada that is an offence in the place where it was committed and that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an indictable offence under an Act of Parliament. The author was convicted by a judge in Denmark for the crime of using a fraudulent passport and was sentenced to 70 days imprisonment. This crime, if committed in Canada, would constitute a crime under section 403 of the Criminal Code of Canada and is punishable as an indictable offence. The CBSA’s finding of inadmissibility was not referred to the Immigration Division of the IRB for determination because the author’s claim was already determined to be abandoned by the RPD. 4.5 The author was scheduled to be removed on 23 June 2015. On 22 June 2015, the author applied for an administrative deferral of removal, which was denied on that same date. A foreign national who is subject to an enforceable removal order may apply to the CBSA to have his or her removal deferred to allow for a full assessment of risk prior to removal. Although CBSA enforcement officers have limited discretion as to the timing of a removal, the Federal Court of Appeal has repeatedly stated that enforcement officers must defer removal if proceeding with the removal would expose the person to “the risk of death, extreme sanction or inhumane treatment.” When an applicant makes a request for a deferral of removal, the enforcement officer does not conduct a full assessment of the alleged risks, but rather considers and assesses whether there is new risk-related evidence. If so, removal will be deferred to allow for a full pre-removal risk assessment (PRRA). A decision denying a request for a deferral of removal may be judicially reviewed by the Federal Court, with leave. A judicial stay of removal pending the outcome of an application for leave and for judicial review of a negative deferral decision may also be available. 4.6 The CBSA enforcement officer in the author’s case considered all of the documents submitted by him in the deferral request, and the submissions of counsel both separately and cumulatively. The officer determined that removal to Iran would not expose the author to risk of death, extreme sanction or inhumane treatment. The officer noted the fact that the author had submitted refugee claims in Greece and Norway, and that there was no evidence to show that any of those claims were positive. The officer also noted that the author had resided in Europe for many years. Given the conclusion that the author would not be exposed to risk if removed to Iran, the officer denied the author’s request for an administrative deferral of removal. The author applied for judicial review of the refusal to grant an administrative deferral of removal, which was dismissed by the Federal Court on 2 November 2015 4.7 The author made an application for a PRRA assessment in February 2016, after he became eligible. The PRRA officer considered the author’s 2013 Basis of Claim form, claiming that he was in Iran up to 2012. The author did not provide his 2014 Basis of Claim form to the PRRA officer, and therefore it was not considered. The author’s PRRA was rejected on 17 February 2017. The PRRA officer noted that the author had not provided corroborating evidence in regards to his narrative. The officer noted that there were no affidavits from family members, no police or medical reports demonstrating that the author or his family had been arrested, detained, threatened, beaten or tortured in Iran. The officer noted that the author had submitted a burial certificate indicating that his brother was executed by hanging in 2006. The officer however noted that the documents submitted by the author did not indicate the reason for the hanging and he found that the author had not indicated on what objective evidence he based his belief that he would suffer the same faith if returned to Iran. The PRRA officer afforded low weight to the author’s assertion that he faced risk in Iran for his past political or religious activities. 4.8 The PRRA officer also considered that the author was able to freely enter and exit Iran during his travels. The author resided in Greece from July 2005 until August 2012. In August 2012, the author returned to Iran from Greece. He left Iran again in September 2012 and travelled to Norway. The officer concluded that it was reasonable to find that the Iranian authorities had little interest in the author. The officer accepted that the author had converted to Christianity, but noted that objective country reports on Iran indicate that many converts to Christianity can return to Iran quietly and not encounter any problems. If the person is 4