CAT/C/40/D/293/2006 page 9 Comments concerning the complainant’s family 6.1 In a letter of 24 May 2007 the complainant states that, when he submitted his case to the Committee, his wife and daughter were awaiting a reply to their application for extension of their visitor status. They were not therefore about to be expelled from Canada. Their applications were approved on 28 February 2007 but only until 15 August 2007. It is clear that they have exhausted all remedies: application for refugee status, two humanitarian applications, three applications to the Federal Court of Canada, a PRRA application, etc. Visitor status is totally precarious and does not guarantee residence in the country. The case of the daughter-in-law demonstrates that the people persecuting the complainant decided to target other members of the family. Consequently, these two people should form part of the complaint before the Committee. 6.2 In a letter of 26 June 2007, the State party replied that the complaint had been submitted in the name of three people. However, the complainant’s wife and daughter had never been the subject of a deportation order. The wife and daughter held renewable visitor’s visas valid until 15 August 2007. Consequently, the complaint was manifestly premature and inadmissible with respect to them. Additional submission of the State party 7.1 In a note verbale dated 31 July 2007, the State party reiterates that there is no evidence corroborating the existence of the threats and persecution to which the complainants claim they were subjected in Mexico. None of the documents that they have submitted establishes any link between them and Mr. O.E.V. The complainants have likewise not furnished evidence leading to the conclusion that Mr. O.E.V. or his alleged colleagues meet the requirements of article 1 of the Convention. According to the complainant’s allegations, Mr. O.E.V. is a fugitive from Mexican justice. This is therefore incompatible with the claim that he enjoys the support of the Mexican authorities. Even if he did have such support, the complainants would still have to demonstrate that he instigated or agreed to the alleged persecution. However, no evidence of this kind has ever been presented. 7.2 In addition, Mrs. V.V.J.’s asylum application was not based exclusively on the allegations and testimony of the complainant. Mr. J.A.M.S., the complainant’s son and husband of Mrs. V.V.J., had also submitted an affidavit in support of the latter’s asylum application. In it he claimed that he had had problems with “four soldiers and two PDJ officials”, whose link with the complainants has not been established. It is therefore not clear what testimony led the CISR to grant Mrs. V.V.J. refugee status. Moreover, the fact that the CISR rejected the asylum application by Mrs. V.V.J.’s husband is not without significance. 7.3 As to the threats which the complainant allegedly received during his visit to Mexico in 2002, if they had been genuine he would have mentioned them to CISR in order to justify his alleged fear. However, neither he himself nor his son nor Mrs. V.V.J.’s lawyer informed CISR of the existence of any threat received during that time. 7.4 The complainant has given only one example of “threats” that he allegedly received in Mexico between 14 July and 16 October 2002. He claims that his sister went to his former workplace in order to obtain an attestation of employment and that she was forcefully questioned