CCPR/C/116/D/2327/2014 Division hearing. Considering that Canada’s overall acceptance rate for refugees is about 41.6 per cent, according to recent statistics, 6 the lower PRRA acceptance rate reflects the fact that most individuals in need of protection receive it from the Immigration and Refugee Board. 6.3 The State party clarifies that under domestic law, the PRRA process is not an appeal of the Refugee Protection Division decision. The applicant may submit for consideration only new risk-related evidence that arose after the adoption of the Division’s decision or that was not reasonably available at that time. Moreover, the Pre-Removal Risk Assessment Officer can also consider only evidence that demonstrates that the applicant would be exposed to a new, different or additional risk not contemplated at the time of the Division’s decision. In the author’s case, the officer diligently executed his duties, researching whether there had been a change in country conditions and considering the evidence that the author claimed to be new. The officer found that the allegedly new evidence was not new because it either predated the Division hearing and thus should have been presented to the Division, or was irrelevant to the PRRA process. In particular, the officer considered the letter written by the author’s sister, L., dated 10 December 2013. He noted that although the letter post-dated the Division hearing, it was not new evidence because it could reasonably be expected to have been available to the author to provide to the Division during the hearing. The author could easily have obtained such a letter from L. for presentation at that time. Furthermore, the officer found that the statements made in L.’s letter did not overcome all the issues raised by the Immigration and Refugee Board. 6.4 Regarding the author’s argument that the H&C process is not available or effective, the State party considers that this remedy is available to the author because she became eligible to file an H&C application on 15 March 2014. Although the filing of such an application would not lead to an automatic stay of removal pending the outcome of the assessment, the author could apply to the Federal Court for a judicial stay of removal so that she could remain in Canada during the consideration of her application. Ultimately, if the application is successful, she could remain in Canada as a permanent resident. Because successful applicants are allowed to remain in Canada, the H&C application is an effective domestic remedy available to those who have their claim for protection denied. 6.5 The State party notes that in Dastgir v. Canada and Khan v. Canada, the Committee took the view that the H&C application was an effective remedy that must be exhausted for purposes of admissibility.7 The State party regrets the Committee’s more recent position that such applications are not remedies that must be exhausted for the purposes of admissibility.8 The State party considers that the grounds on which the author of a communication is allowed to remain in Canada should not matter, as long as the author is protected from removal to the country where she or he alleges to be at risk. The H&C application is a fair administrative procedure, subject to judicial review, that includes an assessment of relevant hardship factors that an individual might face if required to apply for permanent resident status from outside Canada. In fact, a number of authors have had their 6 7 8 The State party cites Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Statistical Yearbook 2012, 12th ed., Annex, table 10, “Asylum applications and refugee status determination by country/territory of asylum and level in the procedure”, available from www.unhcr.org/52a723f89.html. See communication No. 1578/2007, Dastgir v. Canada, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 30 October 2008 and No. 1302/2004, Khan v. Canada, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 15 July 2006, cited, among other cases, by the State party. The State party cites communications No. 1959/2010, Warsame v. Canada, Views adopted on 21 July 2011, para. 7.4; and No. 1816/2008, K.A.L. and A.A.M.L.. v. Canada, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 26 March 2012, para. 6.5. 5