CAT/C/63/D/621/2014 Division and pre-removal risk assessment decisions, and by failing to make an application for permanent residence on the basis of humanitarian and compassionate grounds. Both are effective remedies that the author should have availed himself of in order for his communication to be found admissible. The State party argues that, although the preremoval risk assessment decision may be subject to judicial review, with leave, by the Federal Court, and a judicial stay of removal pending the final decision may also be available, the complainant has failed to apply for leave to seek such review. It also argues that judicial review in such cases assesses, inter alia, whether a factual error has been made, that such review is effective and substantive and that, in practice, cases are sent back for reconsideration on this basis. 4.7 Second, the State party asserts that the complainant’s allegations are incompatible with the provisions of the Convention. The mistreatment that the author claims he had suffered does not amount to “torture” for the purposes of the Convention. Furthermore, it submits that the acts in question were not carried out by the State authorities or with their acquiescence, as required by the definition of torture in article 1 of the Convention. 4.8 Third, the State party argues that the complainant’s communication has not been substantiated on even a prima facie basis. The complainant has not provided sufficient evidence to substantiate any past incidents of torture or a future risk of torture upon return, either from the State party’s authorities or from non-State actors, such as Boko Haram, with the acquiescence of the State. There is no evidence to suggest that the complainant has suffered serious mistreatment at the hands of the police, the local authorities where the alleged attempts took place, or the national authorities in Nigeria, or with their acquiescence. There is no evidence that the State party’s authorities are seeking the complainant at the present time, or indeed that the complainant has ever been sought by them in the past. The State party claims that the complainant has not provided any evidence to substantiate his claims that the police or any other State actors acquiesced, or would acquiesce, in any mistreatment to which the complainant alleges he was, or will be, subjected by Boko Haram. Moreover, the State party indicates that the complainant has an internal flight alternative in Nigeria. It adds that the complaint’s communication is based on an alleged risk from Boko Haram, which is a localized risk that is restricted to northern Nigeria. No evidence has been provided to the Committee, or to domestic decision makers, to indicate that, were the complainant to be returned to an area in southern Nigeria, particularly Lagos, he would be sought, either by the police or by Boko Haram, with the intention of harming him. 4.9 If the Committee considers that the complainant’s communication is admissible, the State party requests that it should be considered to be without merit. The State party requests the Committee to lift its request for interim measures in respect of the complainant. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations 5. On 5 March 2018, the complainant confirmed that he still resides in Canada and that there were no further applications or processes pending as at 30 May 2016, when he shared his updated contact details. He asserted that he did not have anything to add to his initial communication to the Committee. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any complaint submitted in a communication, the Committee must decide whether it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention, that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 6.2 The Committee recalls that, in accordance with article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention, it shall not consider any communication unless it has ascertained that the individual has exhausted all available domestic remedies. This rule does not apply where it has been 5