CEDAW/C/59/D/49/2013 Complaint 3.1 The author claims that, by deporting her to Mexico, Canada would violate articles 1 to 3 of the Convention, read in conjunction with the Committee’s general recommendation No. 19. She submits that, in case of forcible return to Mexico, she would be a victim of gender-based violence inflicted by her former partner in the form of physical, mental and sexual violence and that she would not obtain adequate protection from the Mexican authorities. 3.2 The author maintains that she suffered an injustice during the national proceedings because the evidence that she submitted was rejected or disregar ded. She considers that the State party denied her refugee protection on the basis of an erroneous assessment by the pre-removal risk assessment officer, who concluded that protection for victims of gender-based violence was available in Mexico City. She further asserts that the decision wrongly suggested that she could have an internal flight alternative in Mexico City, where protection was available to her. In this regard, she submits that the State of Morelos, where she was living, borders Mexico City and almost constitutes a suburb of it, meaning that her former partner would not find it difficult to have access to her should she return to Mexico City. She also recalls that she was unable to obtain effective protection from the Mexican authorities. 3.3 With regard to the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the author recalls that her application to stay her removal pending judicial review was denied, meaning that she has no additional remedy available. She compares her case with a communication in which a victim of domestic violence was being deported to Pakistan, where she would not have adequate protection from the authorities. The author contends that, in that case, the Committee had ruled the author’s claim admissible, but then considered the communication inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies, given that the author had not availed herself of judicial review. 3 The author suggests that her case should be admissible because she did seek judicial review. State party’s observations on admissibility 4.1 On 7 June 2013, the State party submitted its observations on the admissibility of the communication, challenging the admissibility on three grounds. The State party argues, first, that the author has not exhausted all domestic remedies in respect of her allegation that the Canadian refugee protection system is discriminatory. Second, it indicates that the claim that Canada has an obligation of non -refoulement is incompatible with the provisions of the Convention. Third, it states that the submission is manifestly ill-founded or the author has not sufficiently substantiated her claim that she would face risk of torture or risk to life if she were returned to Mexico. 4.2 With regard to the facts of the case, the State party indicates that the author arrived in Canada on a visitor’s visa and that, when her visa expired, her overstay __________________ 3 4/14 Communication No. 10/2005, N.S.F. v. the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 30 May 2007. The Committee determined that the author had failed to exhaust domestic remedies and, on that basis, declared the communication inadmissible under article 4 (1) of the Optional Protocol. The failure of the author to raise sex discrimination before the national authorities was central to the Committee’s finding, which did not make determinations relating to the other grounds of admissibility. 14-67406