CCPR/C/116/D/2327/2014 international communications before various treaty bodies, including the Committee, rendered moot because their H&C application was successful. Recently, two communications before the Committee involving Canada were discontinued for this reason: communications No. 2138/2012 and No. 2144/2012. 6.6 The State party also responds to the author’s argument that she is delaying her H&C application so as to “have the opportunity to present a strong and effective application”. The State party considers that the author’s explanations for her delay in filing an application confirm that this remedy is both available and effective and must therefore be exhausted for purposes of admissibility. While she claims that she is “presently dealing with psychological issues which made it difficult for her to obtain employment”, she states that she has been employed since 2013. It is inappropriate for the author to purposely delay the making of an H&C application when eligible to apply. The process is not intended to be an alternative immigration stream or an appeal mechanism for failed asylum claimants. It is reserved for applicants who will personally suffer unusual and undeserved, or disproportionate, hardship if required to follow the standard procedure of applying to immigrate to Canada through normal channels, i.e., from outside the country. Positive H&C consideration may be warranted when the period of inability to leave Canada owing to circumstances beyond the applicant’s control is of considerable duration and when there is evidence of a significant degree of establishment in Canada. The author claims that she is purposely choosing to delay accessing an available and effective remedy; thus, it cannot be said that her current circumstances are beyond her control. Therefore, it is inappropriate for the author initially to allege that the State party violated its obligations under the Covenant by denying her access to a domestic remedy but later to take the position that it is not an effective remedy when access to that remedy became available to her and she purposely failed to avail herself of it. 6.7 The State party also considers that the communication is inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded because the author has not substantiated on even a prima facie basis her allegations with respect to articles 6 and 7. The Refugee Protection Division found that the author was not credible. The documentary evidence she provided made “no mention of the [author] in a situation where if [her] allegations were true the panel would expect her to be mentioned”. The Division explained that it expected that the author would be mentioned in the documentation she provided for the following reasons: extensive documentation concerning this murder case was available owing to the high level of publicity surrounding the murder of the author’s brother I., a British citizen; there were numerous individuals and legal teams involved in the murder case, such that the facts surrounding the case were well documented; the author comes from a large family, many of whose members continue to reside in Bangladesh and provide her with information; and the panel has experience with claims from Bangladesh and is aware that the press in Bangladesh is very active. The Division commented on the significant amount of documentary material on the murder and intimidation allegations, noting that that was due partly to the author’s family’s efforts to ensure that the Government of the United Kingdom was aware that it would be a miscarriage of justice if the murderers of a British citizen were not prosecuted. Additionally, the Division noted that there had been in-depth analyses of the risks faced by the author’s family in Bangladesh as a result of hearings on the United Kingdom asylum applications of the author’s sister, L., and the author’s nephew. The Division attached very little probative value to the police complaint filed by the author since it had been created by the author herself on the day she left Bangladesh, when she knew that she would be seeking refugee protection in Canada. In addition, the complaint did not specifically identify anyone, and the author’s immediate departure from Bangladesh ensured that it could not be investigated further. 6.8 The Refugee Protection Division noted that neither the author nor her mother was mentioned in documents relating to the period before and during the murder trial (including 6