CEDAW/C/50/D/26/2010 an H&C application based on conjugal violence, in which the same risk was alleged, and which was dismissed. An appeal lodged against this decision was also dismissed. Regarding the latest proceedings, she refers to her last PRRA application, which was denied on 7 December 2010. She stresses that according to Canadian law, a second PRRA application does not have a suspensive effect vis-à-vis deportation, and that removal arrangements were undertaken immediately after the negative decision, but interrupted after the Committee’s request for interim measures to prevent a deportation to Mexico. The author claims that she has therefore exhausted domestic remedies. Issues and proceedings before the Committee concerning admissibility 6.1 In accordance with rule 64 of its rules of procedure, the Committee shall decide whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Convention. 6.2 In accordance with rule 66 of its rules of procedure, the Committee may decide to consider the question of admissibility and merits of a communication separately. 6.3 The Committee notes the State party’s argument that the communication should be declared inadmissible under article 4, paragraph 1, of the Optional Protocol for nonexhaustion of domestic remedies, because the author submitted on 25 June 2010 an application for a second PRRA, in which she highlighted a number of changes in her situation, and which had not been examined at the time of the State party’s observations on the admissibility of the present communication. In accordance with article 4, paragraph 1, of the Optional Protocol, the Committee shall not consider a communication unless it has ascertained that all available domestic remedies have been exhausted, unless the application of such remedies is unreasonably prolonged or unlikely to bring effective relief. The Committee recalls its jurisprudence, according to which the author must have raised in substance at the domestic level the claim that he/she wishes to bring before the Committee,16 so as to enable domestic authorities and/or courts to have an opportunity to deal with such a claim.17 In this respect, it notes that at the time of consideration of the communication, the author’s second PRRA application has been dismissed on 7 December 2010.18 The Committee further notes the State party’s argument that the author could seek leave to apply for judicial review of the negative PRRA decision before the Federal Court. The author has not contested this, nor has she substantiated why she did not seek judicial review or sought a stay of deportation before the Federal Court until a decision was issued on the request for leave to appeal and, if leave was granted, until completion of the judicial review. The Committee observes that a favourable decision by the Federal Court could effectively stop her deportation to Mexico, which in turn would render her communication moot before the Committee. The Committee therefore finds that the author should have availed herself of this remedy, and finds the present communication inadmissible under article 4, paragraph 1, of the Optional Protocol. 6.4 Having found the communication inadmissible on the ground that the author failed to exhaust domestic remedies, the Committee does not consider it necessary to examine other inadmissibility grounds invoked by the State party. 7. The Committee therefore decides: __________________ 16 17 18 See communication No. 8/2005, Kayhan v. Turkey, decision of 27 January 2007, para. 7.7. See N.S.F. v. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (note 5 above), para. 7.3. At the time of the initial submission of her communication by the author (15 September 2010), her second PRRA application, filed on 25 June 2010 was still pending. A decision was adopted on 7 December 2010 on this application. 9