CCPR/C/114/D/2280/2013 and Immigration Canada). He claimed that, as he was Tamil and a failed asylum seeker, he would be at risk of hardship if returned to Sri Lanka. 2.12 On 31 August 2012, the Federal Court dismissed the author’s application for judicial review. The Court agreed with the IRB findings that the end of the armed conflict had produced a change of conditions in Sri Lanka such that the author could return to his country of origin and live safely in Jaffna or Colombo. In its decision, the Federal Court stated: The Court agrees with the respondent and notes that the Board clearly examined documentary evidence and provided a comprehensive explanation as to why it chose to prefer certain documents over others provided by the applicant. Although the Court agrees that some of the documentary evidence on record was more recent that the UNHCR document relied upon by the Board, the Court notes that the Board acknowledged that there was documentary evidence that was more recent than the UNHCR document but explained why it determined that the information in the UNHCR document was still valid. The Court is also of the opinion that it was open for the Board to find that the documentary evidence did not support the applicant’s allegation … Indeed, the evidence demonstrates that the applicant was not a criminal, and did not have connections to the LTTE … Further, the [Sri Lanka Army] would not likely have released the applicant during 2009 in exchange for a bribe if it really believed that the applicant was associated with the LTTE. 2.13 On 24 December 2012, the author filed a pre-removal risk assessment (PRRA) application before Citizenship and Immigration Canada. The author claims that he provided documentary evidence issued after the adoption of the IRB decision, which indicated that the situation in Sri Lanka had become more perilous for young male Tamils from northern Sri Lanka and for failed asylum seekers. 2.14 On 30 April 2013, Citizenship and Immigration Canada dismissed the author’s humanitarian and compassionate grounds and PRRA applications. The PRRA officer noted in his decision that he had reviewed and considered the country condition reports and articles submitted in support that post-dated the IRB hearing and decision. Several of the reports and articles indicated that political activists, including those who had been politically active abroad, human rights defenders, civil activists, journalists, and Tamils with an actual or perceived association with LTTE were at risk of forced disappearance, torture and arrest. He did not find that the applicant had sufficiently tied those articles to a personal risk. The officer stated that the author had failed to provide sufficient objective evidence to corroborate his claims that he would be at risk as a failed asylum seeker. The officer noted that he had also reviewed publicly available information on the current country conditions in Sri Lanka. While acknowledging that impunity and human rights abuses continued to be serious issues, he did not find that the conditions had changed significantly since the IRB decision to put the applicant at risk as defined in section 96 or 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.3 2.15 On 8 July 2013, the Canada Border Services Agency informed the author that he would be removed to Sri Lanka on 31 July 2013. On 23 July 2013, the author filed two 3 The PPRA decision refers to the United States Department of State, 2011 Human Rights Report: Sri Lanka, 24 May 2012; United Kingdom: Home Office, Operational Guidance Note: Sri Lanka, April 2012; Amnesty International, Amnesty International 2012 Annual Report – Sri Lanka, 24 May 2012; and Freedom House, Freedom in the World 2012 – Sri Lanka, 22 August 2012. 5