CAT/C/40/D/293/2006 page 5 State party’s observations 4.1 In a note verbale dated 7 March 2007, the State party submitted its comments on the admissibility and, additionally, on the merits of the complaint. The State party contends that the complaint is inadmissible in respect of Mrs. R.S.N. and Ms. T.X.M.S., since they are not subject to an expulsion order from Canada. Their complaint is therefore premature. The complainant’s case is also inadmissible; it is manifestly unfounded, given the lack of evidence and the fact that the alleged risks do not fall within the definition contained in article 1 of the Convention. The complaint is therefore incompatible with article 22. 4.2 The State party describes the different remedies invoked by the complainant. With regard to the denial of refugee status, CISR decided that the evidence submitted was insufficient to show that there was a basis for the request. It also noted that the complainant had not sought the protection of the Mexican authorities. The evidence before CISR indicated that State protection was available and would have been effective. According to the complainant’s testimony, the Mexican authorities had conducted an investigation into corruption at the vehicle pound after a complaint had been filed by a client, and it had made some arrests following the murder of the complainant’s former employer. Indeed, according to the allegations, the Mexican authorities had dismantled the alleged “corruption network”. CISR also raised doubts about the existence of a subjective fear, highlighting the complainants’ lack of urgency in filing their claims for refugee status after arriving in Canada. Later, they renounced the PRRA, opting instead to leave Canada voluntarily on 14 July 2002, in order to apply for immigration visas from the Delegation of Quebec in Mexico, which they would not have been able to do had they remained in Canada. Their application was denied, however. 4.3 On 19 November 2004, the complainant submitted a PRRA application alleging the same risks of persecution as had been mentioned in his request for refugee status, which had been rejected. The PRRA officer noted firstly that the complainant had not submitted any evidence of the threats which he allegedly had received during his visit to Mexico between 14 July and 16 October 2002. The officer also noted that the complainant’s behaviour did not corroborate the existence of such threats, since he had returned to Canada on his own, leaving behind his wife and two children, even though he claimed that the whole family was being targeted by the new threats and that his children and home had been visited and put under surveillance by individuals wishing to do him harm. Furthermore, his family had stayed in Mexico without any apparent difficulties until August 2004, when they had returned to Canada because of the complainant’s accident, and not in order to flee from threats or danger in Mexico. The PRRA officer also noted that the complainant’s return to Canada on 16 October 2002 did not prove that there was any subjective fear on his part, since he had been planning to return all along, having left all his family belongings in the apartment that he had been renting in Canada since 1999. The PRRA officer further concluded that there was no evidence that the complainant could not benefit from the protection of the Mexican authorities. The complainants had not challenged the rejection of their PRRA application before the Canadian Federal Court. 4.4 Regarding the application filed on humanitarian grounds, the deciding officer noted that it contained no new evidence that would allow him to arrive at a different conclusion from that reached by CISR and the PRRA officer. The complainants had still not provided any evidence to