CAT/C/64/D/615/2014 such as Kalonzo v. Canada,18 wherein the Committee considered that humanitarian and compassionate applications were not remedies that had to be exhausted for the purpose of admissibility. 5.4 The complainant further rejects the State party’s argument that she could also have applied to the Canada Border Services Agency for an administrative deferral of removal or sought judicial review of the negative decision by the Federal Court. She recalls that a request to defer removal is made to the removal officer with the Canada Border Services Agency responsible for deporting the person concerned to his or her country of origin. She submits that the discretion of such removal officers is practically non-existent, as they are required to remove individuals very quickly, and also that there is no consistency on the part of the Federal Court when deciding on whether to grant a stay of removal pending judicial review of a negative decision on an application for administrative deferral. 5.5 Finally, the complainant submits that an application to the Federal Court for leave to appeal and judicial review against an immigration decision made by the executive branch of Government would fall within the ambit of Canadian administrative law. Where the Federal Court is asked to grant an application for review of the particular facts and circumstances that formed the basis of the decision of a Canadian government official, Canadian law allows only for the use of the reasonableness standard of review in examining the application for leave to appeal. The complainant claims that the reasonableness standard of review is not a sufficient remedy, as it denies her the opportunity to have a judicial review of the merits of her situation prior to being expelled from Canada. The complainant thus reiterates that she has exhausted all available domestic remedies and requests the Committee to consider her communication admissible. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any complaint submitted 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. 6.2 The Committee recalls that, in accordance with article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention, it shall not consider any communication from an individual unless it has ascertained that the individual has exhausted all available domestic remedies. This rule does not apply where it has been established that the application of those remedies has been unreasonably prolonged or is unlikely to bring effective relief. 19 6.3 The Committee takes note of the fact that the complainant twice initiated the preremoval risk assessment procedure and challenged the negative decisions on both assessments through applications to the Federal Court for judicial review. The Committee also notes the State party’s argument that the complaint should be declared inadmissible under article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention on the grounds that the complainant failed to exhaust all available domestic remedies, as she failed to apply to the Refugee Protection Division for refugee status or protection, failed to make an application for permanent residence on the basis of humanitarian and compassionate grounds and failed to request an administrative deferral of her removal from the Canada Border Services Agency. The Committee further observes the State party’s assertion that the complainant could have sought leave from the Federal Court to apply for judicial review of Refugee Protection Division or humanitarian and compassionate application decisions. 6.4 The Committee recalls its jurisprudence that a humanitarian and compassionate application is not an effective remedy for the purposes of admissibility pursuant to article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention, given its discretionary and non-judicial nature and the fact 18 19 See Kalonzo v. Canada, para. 8.3. See E.Y. v. Canada (CAT/C/43/D/307/2006/Rev.1), para. 9.2. See also the Committee’s general comment No. 4. 7