CCPR/C/122/D/2292/2013 status as a refugee or person in need of protection. The burden of proof rests on the author to demonstrate that he has exhausted all available domestic remedies or that any remedies he has not exhausted would prolong his case excessively or would be unlikely to bring effective relief. 6.4 The State party recalls that the author’s allegations that Canada has violated articles 9 (1), 17, 18 and 27 of the Covenant are incompatible with the provisions of the Covenant, which do not have extraterritorial application. 6.5 It further submits that the author has failed to substantiate his allegations of discrimination under articles 6 (1), 7 and 9 (1) of the Covenant. Moreover, the author does not specify how articles 17, 18 and 27 have been violated in his case and does not provide any evidence to substantiate his claims under articles 9 (1), 17, 18 and 27 of the Covenant. The State party therefore considers that the communication is manifestly unfounded and should be rejected on the merits. 6.6 The State party recalls that the Canadian decision-making bodies that examined the author’s case file all concluded that his claims about his sexual orientation and his conversion to Christianity — and the alleged risks of irreparable harm that would ensue if he were returned to Egypt — were neither credible nor sufficiently substantiated. It also recalls that the author has enjoyed the right to two pre-removal risk assessments challenging his removal, including two in-depth oral hearings, each before impartial and competent authorities and with the assistance of a lawyer. The author has also on two occasions contested the unfavourable PRRA decisions before the Federal Court. His testimony, the many written representations and all other evidence were taken into account in the context of the second PRRA review. The State party considers that this is clearly demonstrated in the PRRA agent’s comprehensive and detailed reasoning, which extends to 20 pages and was upheld by the Federal Court, which concluded that the agent’s decision had been based on a thorough analysis and was reasonable and fully supported by the evidence on the record. Represented by legal counsel at all stages, the author has had many opportunities to substantiate his allegations and to submit evidence in accordance with the law and the rules of procedural fairness. Moreover, the author’s communication and observations before the Committee contain the same claims and documents as he submitted to the Canadian decision-making bodies. 6.7 With regard to the author’s claim that his failure to request asylum immediately at the point of entry to Canada led to him being unable to submit an application for asylum before IRB, the State party submits that the decision to issue him with an exclusion order was taken upon his arrival because he had attempted to enter Canada using fraudulent documents, in contravention of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and its regulations. Under article 99 (3) of the Act, persons subject to an exclusion order cannot subsequently submit an application for asylum to IRB. The State party submits that the author was informed of his right to seek protection in Canada on the date of his arrival. In this regard, the State party refers to its initial observations, where it explained that, before the exclusion order was issued, the author had been asked clear and precise questions. 30 It was only once he was denied entry to Canada that the author told the border official that he was fearful of returning to Egypt and wished to apply for asylum. He was then informed that he could request a pre-removal risk assessment. He received a PRRA application form the same day and a second one the following day as the first one was no longer in his possession. 6.8 The State party also contests the author’s claim that it attempted to remove him the day after his arrival without giving him the opportunity to submit his PRRA application. Recalling that the author arrived with a fraudulent passport, the State party indicates that he had the option to request the border official to issue an administrative stay of removal or to request the Federal Court to issue a judicial stay of the enforcement of the exclusion order. On 13 September 2013, the author submitted an application to the Federal Court for a temporary stay of the exclusion order. The application became academic the same day, as the author was notified by the CBSA that his removal would not take place before 17 30 GE.18-09612 See para. 4.3 above. 9