CAT/C/61/D/659/2015 and his family have not been removed to Sri Lanka owing only to the Committee’s request for interim measures. Furthermore, on 30 October 2015, a negative decision was rendered in relation to his application for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds by a representative of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Canada. The reasons for that decision were sent to the complainant upon request on 9 December 2015. The deciding officer mentioned that he or she was also the officer in charge of the preremoval risk assessment application submitted by the complainant and his family. Although the criteria for granting permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds are different from those for the pre-removal risk assessment, it is almost always the same decision that is rendered by the deciding officer for both applications. Although the complainant has not received the pre-removal risk assessment decision as yet, he fears that it will be negative for the same reasons as the application for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. Complainant’s additional comments 6.1 On 28 November 2016, the complainant informed the Committee that, on 30 October 2015, his application for a pre-removal risk assessment was rejected as it was determined that he and his family “would not be subject to risk of persecution, torture, risk to life or risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment if returned to Sri Lanka”.19 6.2 The complainant explained that they decided not to contest the negative decisions relating to their applications for pre-removal risk assessment and permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds in the Federal Court because of the costs involved and because they felt that those procedures would be futile.20 He and his family re-applied for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds in August 2016. However, their application was returned in November 2016 because they had used outdated forms. The complainant and his family resubmitted an application later the same month. 21 State party’s additional observations on the complainant’s comments 7.1 By note verbale of 30 January 2017, the State party submitted its observations on the complainant’s comments. The State party reiterates that the communication is inadmissible because the complainant and his family failed to exhaust all available domestic remedies and that their claim that their return to Sri Lanka would be in violation of article 3 of the Convention is manifestly unfounded. In the event that the Committee should consider the communication admissible, the State party considers that it should be found without merit. 7.2 The State party submits that the pre-removal risk assessment officer provided detailed reasons in the decision of 30 October 2015 for the rejection of the application filed by the complainant on his own and on behalf of his spouse and daughter. The officer reviewed all the evidence submitted and identified documents which could constitute new evidence of risk of harm and thus be considered relevant to the assessment process. In that regard, the officer took into consideration police reports submitted by the complainant as new evidence that were not previously available to him. In his analysis, the officer outlined a contradiction between the complainant’s narrative and the adduced reports, demonstrating that the complainant, the principal applicant, had previously provided reasons why he did not file a written complaint with the police in relation to the motorcycle incident when, in fact, one of the reports specifically mentions that a complaint was filed. That contradiction further undermined the complainant’s credibility and the evidence was given little probative value. 7.3 The assessment officer also found that the complainant failed to submit sufficient evidence to establish a link between the alleged threats to his married daughter who is in Sri Lanka and his previous work with the United Nations. Furthermore, after considering a number of general reports on conditions in Sri Lanka, the assessment officer determined 19 20 21 The complainant provides a copy of the pre-removal risk assessment decision dated 30 October 2015. The complainant does not provide any further information. The complainant does not provide a specific date. 9