CAT/C/64/D/615/2014 that it does not stay the removal of a complainant. 20 Accordingly, the Committee does not consider it necessary for the complainant to exhaust the application for permanent residence on the basis of humanitarian and compassionate grounds for the purpose of admissibility. 21 6.5 As for the complainant’s failure to apply for refugee status or protection, the Committee notes the State party’s argument that the Refugee Protection Division considers applications by foreign nationals seeking protection from Canada based on fear of persecution, torture or other serious violations of their human rights in case of their removal to the country of origin and determines whether the complainant is a person in need of protection. The Committee also notes the State party’s observation that the complainant was eligible to apply to the Division for protection but failed to do so, and that she stopped being eligible to apply for such protection once a removal order had been issued against her. The Committee further notes the complainant’s submission that she considered pursuing that remedy, but did not know what to do since she was scared of being detected by the Canadian authorities, and was not aware in general of the available remedies. In this context, the Committee notes the complainant’s argument that she once verbally indicated to a Canadian immigration officer that she wanted to make a claim for refugee protection, but was told that she was not eligible to make such a claim. 6.6 As regards the complainant’s failure to request an administrative deferral of her removal, the Committee notes the State party’s argument that individuals who allege new evidence of a personal risk may request a deferral of removal from a Canada Border Services Agency enforcement officer. The Committee also notes that the complainant submitted new evidence during the pre-removal risk assessment and judicial review procedures, but did not apply for an administrative deferral of her removal. It further notes the complainant’s comment that she was not aware of any of those procedures. In that regard, the Committee considers that, except the alleged absence of knowledge about all the available procedures to exhaust domestic remedies, the complainant has not provided any information on her efforts to eventually obtain legal aid for the purpose of initiating such proceedings,22 nor has she demonstrated that the refugee status application and request for an administrative deferral of removal were unavailable or ineffective remedies. 23 6.7 In addition, the Committee takes note of the State’s party argument that the complainant could have also applied for a judicial review of the decision denying the granting of refugee status or protection by the Refugee Protection Division, or for an administrative deferral of the removal ordered by the Canada Border Services Agency, and could have even brought a motion for stay of removal pending the outcome of the judicial review application. The Committee recalls its jurisprudence that judicial review in the State party is not a mere formality and that the Federal Court may in appropriate cases look at the substance of a case.24 While noting the complainant’s argument that judicial review before the Federal Court is not an effective remedy as it does not stop or delay the deportation in the majority of cases, the Committee considers that the complainant has failed to advance sufficient elements that would show that a judicial review of the decision denying refugee status or protection, or an administrative deferral of removal, would have been ineffective in this case and has not justified her failure to avail herself of those remedies. 6.8 The Committee concludes that: (a) the complainant could have applied for refugee status in Canada, but it was no longer available when she wanted to make a claim, and she was not eligible for Refugee Protection Division protection since a removal order had been issued against her; (b) the complainant failed to apply for an administrative deferral of her removal; and (c) the complainant did not seek leave for judicial review of the negative decisions, and did not request a motion to stay her removal pending such judicial review. 20 21 22 23 24 8 See J.S. v. Canada (CAT/C/62/D/695/2015), para. 6.3; J.M. v. Canada (CAT/C/60/D/699/2015), para. 6.2; A. v. Canada (CAT/C/57/D/583/2014), para. 6.2; and W.G.D. v. Canada (CAT/C/53/D/520/2012), para. 7.4. See S.S. v. Canada (CAT/C/62/D/715/2015), para. 6.3. See R.S.A.N. v. Canada (CAT/C/37/D/284/2006), para. 6.4. See E.Y. v. Canada, para. 9.3. See also the Committee’s general comment No. 4 (2017), para. 34. See Aung v. Canada (CAT/C/36/D/273/2005), para. 6.3.