CAT/C/56/D/604/2014 in light of the numerous contradictions, omissions and inconsistencies it found. On appeal, the Refugee Appeal Division carefully analysed the decision of the Refugee Protection Division and concluded that that Division did not make any errors in its assessment of the author’s credibility or its consideration of the evidence. The State party observes that the Federal Court decision in Kaur v. Canada36 does not support the assertion that the author faces a present risk at the hands of Sunni terrorist in Pakistan. The Kaur v. Canada decision concerns a Sikh woman from the Punjab in India, and the perpetrators of violence were stated to be the police, not non-State actors. 6.2 With respect to the documentary evidence on sectarian violence in Pakistan submitted in support of his supplemental submission, the State party submits that the Committee should not base its views on evidence that has not yet been considered by available and effective domestic processes. 37 In any event, it observes that a situation of generalized risk of violence on account of religious beliefs does not support allegations of a personalized risk of torture and notes that most of the incidents of attacks against Shia Muslims were reported to have occurred in Karachi. 6.3 The State party also maintains that it is not within the scope of review of the Committee to consider the Canadian system in general, but only to examine whether, in the circumstances giving rise to the complaint before it, Canada has complied with its obligations under the Convention.38 In any event, the State party strongly objects to these allegations and considers it necessary to refute the main contentions made, which have no basis in fact or law. It observes that the supplemental submission fails to identify any alleged injustices in the pre-removal risk assessment process other than to suggest that any such application is unlikely to be fairly determined. It submits that this allegation is unsupported by any evidence and should not be accorded any weight by the Committee and that the allegations that the process to request consideration on humanitarian and compassionate grounds is unfair and ineffective are without merit. 6.4 The State party submits that claimants who are not yet eligible to apply for a preremoval risk assessment but who allege to have new and compelling personalized evidence of risk may request from an enforcement officer a deferral of removal. Enforcement officers have limited discretion under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act as to the timing of a removal, since an enforceable removal order “must be enforced as soon as possible”.39 However, the Federal Court of Appeal has repeatedly held that enforcement officers must defer removal if proceeding with the removal would expose the person to “a risk of death, extreme sanction or inhumane treatment”.40 If a deferral of removal is refused, that decision may be judicially reviewed by the Federal Court with leave. A judicial stay pending the outcome of an application for leave and for judicial review of a negative deferral decision may also be available. 36 37 38 39 40 16 Kaur v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 1491, paras. 2 and 32, available at: http://canlii.ca/t/1m0m6. See communications No. 35/1995, K.K.H. v. Canada, decision on admissibility adopted 22 November 1995, para. 5; and No. 30/1995, P.M.P.K. v. Sweden, decision on admissibility adopted 20 November 1995, para. 7. The State party refers to the comments of the Committee in communication No. 15/1994, Khan v. Canada, Views of 15 November 1994, para. 12.1. Canada, Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, section 48 (2). The full text of section 48 is available at: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/I-2.5/FullText.html. See Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) v. Shpati, 2011 FCA 286, paras. 41-45, 52, available at: http://canlii.ca/t/fnkq2; and Baron v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2009 FCA 81, para. 51, available at: http://canlii.ca/t/22rzn.