CCPR/C/122/D/2292/2013 persecution”, the agent was not convinced that the author would be victimized by his family or the authorities on account of his purported sexual orientation or religious conversion. 2.12 On 25 August 2015, the Federal Court dismissed the author’s application for leave to seek judicial review of his failed PRRA application as it considered that the documents provided by the author, including written, oral and visual evidence, had revealed major contradictions in his case and that the inconsistencies clearly showed a lack of credibility. The Federal Court upheld the point-by-point analysis by the PRRA agent, noting that he had been detailed in his description of the reasons for not having found the author credible with regard to the obtainment of his passport, his sexual orientation and his religious conversion. According to the Federal Court, the agent also demonstrated how the author’s sexuality was entirely called into question by his relationships with women. The complaint 3.1 The author contends that his expulsion would constitute a violation of articles 6 (1), 7, 9 (1), 17, 18 and 27 of the Covenant because his liberty, security and life would be threatened and he would run a risk of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment on account of his sexual orientation and conversion from Islam to Christianity. His religious freedom would also be violated. He recalls that he has already received death threats from his sister and her husband, who are important figures in Egypt. 3.2 The author further claims that Canada has not reasonably assessed the risk inherent in his removal. State party’s observations on admissibility 4.1 On 23 May 2014, the State party submitted its observations on admissibility, requesting that the admissibility and merits of the communication be considered separately. The State party considers that the author’s allegations are inadmissible for two main reasons: non-exhaustion of domestic remedies and incompatibility of some of the allegations with the provisions of the Covenant. 4.2 Regarding non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, the State party notes that, at the time of writing its observations, the Federal Court had received, on 4 April 2014, the application for leave to seek judicial review of the PRRA decision, but that the appeal had yet to be heard on the merits. Approval of the PRRA application would confer on the author either asylum or the status of a person in need of protection, which is the redress sought by the author through his communication to the Committee. Furthermore, the PRRA system has been found by the Committee to be an effective remedy that should be exhausted for the purposes of admissibility. 4.3 The State party points out that, when the author arrived in Canada on a fraudulent passport, he was asked questions before the exclusion order was issued. Two law enforcement agents asked him clear and precise questions on two occasions with the aim of determining whether he required protection, but he maintained that he had no fears in any country.13 His reply meant that he did not qualify for refugee status. However, when he was notified that an exclusion order had been issued against him and that he could no longer seek asylum,14 he changed his story and indicated that he feared irreparable harm if he were removed to Egypt because he was gay and had recently converted to Christianity. Consequently, the author was entitled to a pre-removal risk assessment (PRRA), which allowed him to contest his removal, including as part of a hearing before the competent 13 14 GE.18-09612 The State party indicates that the border official asked the author the following three questions: (1) whether he came to Canada to seek asylum; (2) whether he came to Canada because he feared for his life in any country in the world; and (3) whether he had any problems in Israel. The author replied in the negative to all of these questions. Then, before concluding that the author was inadmissible and issuing an expulsion order, the IRCC representative asked the author the following three questions: (1) Is your life in danger in Israel or any part of the world?; (2) Do you fear for your life in Israel or any part of the world?; and (3) Will you be in danger if you returned to Israel or any country of the world? The author replied in the negative to all of these questions. Under article 99 (3) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, an asylum claim cannot be made by a person who is subject to a removal order. 5