CAT/C/63/D/621/2014 context of which he would be able to submit new evidence. 9 He affirms that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 On 23 April 2015, the State party submitted its observations on admissibility and the merits of the complaint. It argues that the complainant’s allegations are inadmissible as they are manifestly unfounded, since he did not establish a prima facie case. Should the Committee consider any of the complainant’s allegations to be admissible, they should be dismissed for lack of merit. 4.2 According to the State party, there are two related bases for the complainant’s claim in his communication. First, the author fears an unnamed Islamic fundamentalist group that made three attempts on his life between May 2000 and July 2001 due to his involvement with and support of the Christian church in Nigeria. The complainant claims that, if returned to Nigeria, he would face the same fate as his parents, who were killed because of their Christian faith and evangelism. The second basis for the complainant’s claim is prospective only. He claims that, upon return, he would be at risk of being tortured and/or killed by the Muslim fundamentalist group Boko Haram. He claims to be an evangelical Christian who openly preaches in Canada, and has previously done so in Nigeria, and who intends to continue his father’s work with the church upon his return. He alleges that Boko Haram is actively seeking and pursuing him, despite him having left Nigeria over 13 years ago, before the fundamentalist group was founded. 4.3. The State party also submits that the complainant lived for 36 years in the city of Ibadan, located in southern Nigeria, until he left the country for the United States in April 2002. He lived and worked illegally in the United States for approximately 10 years, during which time he never made a claim for refugee protection. During that time, the author married Sabrina Walker. He entered Canada illegally on 26 December 2011 by crossing the Canada-United States land border on foot. On 5 January 2012, the complainant made a claim for refugee protection in Canada. 4.4 On 27 September 2013, the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada determined that the complainant was neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. After hearing his testimony and examining his evidence, the Division concluded that the complainant was personally not credible in his claims, and had provided insufficient objective evidence to support his allegations of future risk. The Refugee Protection Division found that either the author was not telling the truth about having engaged in similar work to his father in Nigeria or once he had left the country, or he was simply speculating that the attackers continued, or would continue, to have an interest in harming him. Moreover, the Refugee Protection Division concluded that the complainant had an internal flight alternative in Lagos, Benin City or Port Harcourt, all cities located in southern Nigeria, given that the religious violence is concentrated in northern Nigeria, and found that there was a lack of evidence to suggest that non-State actors would have any interest in pursuing him in any city in southern Nigeria. 4.5 On 19 December 2014, the complainant’s pre-removal risk assessment application was rejected. As the complainant’s allegations of risk had already been given full consideration by the Refugee Protection Division, the emphasis in the pre-removal risk assessment was on evidence with respect to any changes to the complainant’s situation. After evaluating all the evidence, the specialized risk-assessment officer determined that the complainant would “not face a risk of persecution, risk to life, risk of torture, or risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment if returned to Nigeria”. 4.6 The State party submits that the complainant’s communication is inadmissible in its entirety for three reasons. First, the complainant has failed to exhaust available domestic remedies by not applying for leave to seek judicial review of the Refugee Protection 9 4 On 20 February 2015, the State party indicated that the complainant was notified of the decision regarding his pre-removal risk assessment application on 5 January 2015. The complainant’s application was rejected on 19 December 2014.