CAT/C/68/D/568/2013 Consideration of admissibility 10.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide whether it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention, that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 10.2 The Committee notes the State party’s argument that the complaint should be declared inadmissible under article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention, because the complainant did not make an application to the Federal Court for leave and for judicial review of the decisions on the pre-removal risk assessment and humanitarian and compassionate considerations, and the decision not to process his request for an administrative deferral of the removal. The Committee also notes the complainant’s contention that the aforementioned remedies do not provide any relief against a threat of torture, because they are designed to assess the degree of his establishment in Canada and hardship in the country of origin upon return. 10.3 With regard to the possibility to apply for leave and for judicial review of the decision on humanitarian and compassionate considerations, the Committee recalls its jurisprudence according to which, although the right to assistance on humanitarian grounds may be a remedy under the law, such assistance is granted by a minister on purely humanitarian grounds, rather than on a legal basis, and is thus ex gratia in nature. 42 Furthermore, this remedy does not shield applicants from deportation. The Committee concludes that the fact that the complainant did not apply for leave and for judicial review of the decision on humanitarian and compassionate considerations does not constitute an obstacle to the admissibility of the complaint. 10.4 As for complainant’s failure to apply for leave to seek judicial review of the preremoval risk assessment decision of 23 May 2018, the Committee notes the State party’s argument that, with leave, the Federal Court may review decisions on pre-removal risk assessments. It also notes that a judicial stay of removal pending the adoption of a final court decision may be available. With reference to its previous jurisprudence on the matter, the Committee observes that under section 18.1 (4) of the Federal Courts Act, judicial review of a decision on a pre-removal risk assessment is not limited to errors of law and mere procedural flaws and that the Court may, in appropriate cases, look at the substance of a case.43 The Committee also observes that the complainant has not put forward arguments substantiating his allegation that judicial review of the decision on pre-removal risk assessment is an ineffective remedy. Instead, he merely argues that this procedure is very expensive, would not be assessed fairly and would likely lead to a rejection. The Committee recalls that mere doubts about the effectiveness of a remedy do not dispense a complainant from the obligation to exhaust it.44 Accordingly, the Committee considers that the complainant has failed to exhaust the available domestic remedies since he did not file an application for judicial review of the decision on the pre-removal risk assessment before the Federal Court. 10.5 Accordingly, the Committee is of the view that domestic remedies have not been exhausted in accordance with article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention. In light of this finding, the Committee does not deem it necessary to examine any of the other grounds invoked by the State party for considering the communication inadmissible. 11. The Committee therefore decides: (a) That the communication is inadmissible under article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention; 42 43 44 See, for example, X v. Canada (CAT/C/67/D/791/2016), para. 6.3; W.G.D. v. Canada (CAT/C/53/D/520/2012), para. 7.4; and Falcon Ríos v. Canada (CAT/C/33/D/133/1999), para. 7.3. See, for example, Shodeinde v. Canada (CAT/C/63/D/621/2014), para. 6.7; S.S. v. Canada (CAT/C/62/D/715/2015), para. 6.4; J.S. v. Canada (CAT/C/62/D/695/2015), para. 6.5; L.Z.B. and J.F.Z. v. Canada, para. 6.6; and S.S. and P.S. v. Canada (CAT/C/62/D/702/2015), para. 6.5. See, for example, S.S. v. Canada, para. 6.4; Aung v. Canada, para. 6.3; and S.S. and P.S. v. Canada, para. 6.5. 13