CCPR/C/122/D/2292/2013 pastors were not questioned.36 In addition, the author uses a different name — Marco David — as it better reflects his Christian identity. 7.3 The author also claims that the immigration guidelines indicate that a subsequent PRRA is limited in its analysis of the evidence. Where an applicant has previously applied for a PRRA, the new application is assessed solely on the basis of risks that arose after the first PRRA was conducted, unless the agent believes that it would be in the interests of justice to reassess an issue that has already been addressed in the first PRRA. The jurisdiction of the Federal Court is limited to issues of jurisdiction, the principle of natural justice, procedural fairness or legal errors, or instances in which an agent has issued a decision that is based on an erroneous finding of fact or was made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material presented. In addition to these jurisdictional limitations, the jurisprudence of the Federal Court indicates that it should intervene only in very limited circumstances. Indeed, the Supreme Court of Canada has issued a test of the reasonableness of decisions which is based on their “justification, transparency and intelligibility”. The Federal Court must therefore determine whether the decision and its justification are reasonable. In the case of the author, the Federal Court decision is very short and does not address the author’s arguments to the effect that the agent did not assess his religious conversion, the documents provided in support thereof and in particular the risk ensuing from his conversion should he be removed to Egypt. The author therefore considers that, owing to its limitations, the remedy of judicial review does not protect applicants from the arbitrariness of the PRRA procedure. 7.4 With regard to the H&C application, the author submits that making such an application does not result in a stay of removal, as has been recognized by the Committee.37 Furthermore, the H&C application is not intended to take the place of a claim for protection, as has been reiterated by the Supreme Court of Canada. 38 The author also refers to the instructions on the limitation on assessment of risk in an in-Canada application — available on the official website of the Government of Canada — according to which agents do not determine whether a well-founded fear of persecution, risk to life, danger of torture and risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment has been established, but they may take the underlying facts into account in determining whether the applicant will face hardship if returned to their country of origin. 39 In referring to the factors that must be assessed in an H&C application, 40 the author believes that the assessment rests on considerations other than those of relevance to the Covenant. The H&C application is therefore not a substitute for the assessment of refugee status, which the author has been denied. 7.5 The author concludes that, due to his sexual orientation and his conversion, his life and freedom would be at risk in Egypt and that he would also face a risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment. He would be unable to pursue his romantic or sexual 36 37 38 39 40 12 The author provides additional letters from pastors and other members of various churches, which attest to his attendance at church and his artistic talent. Thuraisamy v. Canada, para. 6.4. The author is referring to the case of Kanthasamy v. Canada, 2015 SCC 61. See the section “Humanitarian and compassionate assessment: Hardship and the H&C assessment,” available on the website of the Government of Canada: www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugeescitizenship/corporate/publications-manuals/operational-bulletins-manuals/permanentresidence/humanitarian-compassionate-consideration/processing/assessment-hardshipassessment.html. The author cites the relevant factors listed on the website of the Government of Canada (www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/publications-manuals/operationalbulletins-manuals/permanent-residence/humanitarian-compassionateconsideration/processing/assessment-hardship-assessment.html): establishment in Canada for inCanada applications; ties to Canada; the best interests of any children directly affected by the H&C decision; factors in their country of origin including adverse country conditions; health considerations including inability of a country to provide medical treatment; family violence considerations; consequences of the separation of relatives; inability to leave Canada has led to establishment (in the case of applicants in Canada); ability to establish in Canada for overseas applications; any unique or exceptional circumstances that might merit relief. GE.18-09612