CAT/C/46/D/319/2007 2003, where he again suffered torture before being released on 20 January 2003, with the help of his parents and a prominent Akali Dal member. 2.7 On an unspecified date, after a Sikh function, the complainant was approached by an individual who was impressed by the service in the temple, in which the complainant was preaching at that time, and invited him to come to Canada. On the basis on an invitation of a Sikh temple in British Columbia, the complainant received a Canadian visa on 16 September 2003 and arrived in Vancouver, Canada on 24 September 2003. While the complainant was already in Canada, his father was arrested for three days, following the escape of killers of the Punjab’s Chief Minister. Afterwards the complainant’s family was constantly harassed by police, in attempts to establish his whereabouts. 2.8 After his arrival in Canada the complainant preached in two Sikh temples for a year and a half on voluntary basis. He was promised by the management of the Canada based Gurudwara society that they will arrange his immigration status, but they failed to do so. 2.9 The complainant travelled to Montreal where, on 28 March 2005, he filed an application for refugee status and protection. The complainant’s refugee claim was heard by the Immigration and Refugee Board (“the Board”) on 3 October 2005. On 16 November 2005, the Board determined that he was not a Convention refugee. The Board concluded that the applicant was not credible, that his behaviour was not remonstrative of a person fearing for his life and that his departure related to the invitation by the Sikh religious community to work in Canada. 2.10 The complainant applied to the Federal Court for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision, which was granted on 16 March 2006. The request for judicial review of this decision was heard on 7 June 2006 and it was denied by the Federal Court on 13 June 2006. The standard that the Federal Court applied to the credibility of the findings of the Board was that of “patent reasonableness”. The Court concluded that the decision was not patently unreasonable, largely on grounds of the delay in claiming refugee status after arrival to the country and failure to provide credible or trustworthy evidence as to the complainant’s background information in India. 2.11 After the refusal of refugee status and the decision from the Federal Court, on 27 December 2006, the complainant filed an application for stay for humanitarian reasons, (so called H&C application), submitting additional evidence under article 25(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. The application was refused on 27 March 2007 by a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) Officer who concluded that the applicant did not establish that he would be at risk should he return to India. The complainant applied to the Federal Court for leave to apply for judicial review of the H&C decision, which was dismissed without reasons on 6 September 2007. 2.12 On 12 December 2006, the complainant submitted an application for protection from Canada under the PRRA programme. On 27 March 2007, the latter was rejected by the same PRRA Officer who refused the H&C application. The motivation was that the documentary evidence submitted by the complainant did not demonstrate that he might be listed or wanted by the Indian authorities; that the complainant had never claimed that he was a Sikh militant or a supporter of the militants; that he had not established that he held a high profile, nor that he was a person of interest for the Indian authorities. Therefore, the evidence submitted by the complainant did not corroborate that he might face a personal and objectively identifiable risk should he return to India. 4