CAT/C/63/D/767/2016 to appeal that decision as, in order to be granted leave, the complainant should have demonstrated that there was a “fairly arguable case” or a “serious question to be determined”. 4.5 The complainant’s application for a pre-removal risk assessment was also rejected, on 29 December 2015, after due consideration of the complainant’s submission and country reports on Pakistan. The pre-removal risk assessment officer determined that the complainant had presented little evidence to show that he faced a risk of persecution or a personalized, forward-looking risk of torture, risk to his life or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment at the hands of his former girlfriend’s family or due to his religion. For the same reasons, the officer found it unnecessary to examine the existence of State protection or an internal flight alternative. The complainant did not seek judicial review of the pre-removal risk assessment decision before the Federal Court. 4.6 The complainant’s application to defer his removal was denied by the Canada Border Services Agency on 10 August 2016, after considering his request and evaluating the totality of the materials submitted. The State party explains that claimants who allege new, personalized evidence of risk may request an administrative deferral of removal from a Canada Border Services Agency removals officer. With reference to the practice of the Federal Court of Appeal, the State party stresses that the Canada Border Services Agency removals officer must defer removal if proceeding with the removal would expose the person to “a risk of death, extreme sanction or inhumane treatment”.2 The complainant did not seek judicial review of the Canada Border Services Agency decision before the Federal Court either. 4.7 The State party stresses that a successful judicial review would result in an order for reconsideration of the impugned decision. The State party refers to the Committee’s Views in several communications which show that judicial review in the State party is not a mere formality and may consider the substance of the case. 3 The State party addresses recent Views of the Committee in which it decided that judicial review in the State party did not and should not provide a review of the merits of decisions to expel individuals who faced a substantial risk of torture. 4 The State party does not accept that its domestic system of judicial review, in particular its Federal Court, fails to provide an effective remedy against removal where there are substantial grounds for believing that applicants face a serious risk. It submits that the current system does in fact provide for a judicial review on the merits when there are questions as to whether the decision maker acted within its jurisdiction; whether procedural fairness principles were complied with; whether a factual error was made; and whether the decision maker made a legal error.5 In such cases, the Federal Court would necessarily review the applicant’s claim of risk of torture if returned to his or her country of origin. If the Federal Court decides that there was an error of law or an unreasonable finding of fact, it will grant leave for judicial review and has the authority to set the decision aside and send it back for redetermination by a different decision maker, in accordance with such directions as the Court deems appropriate.6 The Federal Court will not hesitate to intervene if it determines that the impugned decision has been erroneously made.7 The State party further submits that its judicial review determinations, using the 2 3 4 5 6 7 4 See Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) v. Shpati, 2011 FCA 286 (CanLII), paras. 41–45 and 52; Baron v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2009 FCA 81 (CanLII); and Wang v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2001 FCT 148 (CanLII). See Aung v. Canada (CAT/C/36/D/273/2005), para. 6.3; and L.Z.B. and J.F.Z. v. Canada (CAT/C/39/D/304/2006). See Singh v. Canada (CAT/C/46/D/319/2007), para. 8.8; and W.G.D. v. Canada (CAT/C/53/D/520/2012, para. 7.3). See Federal Courts Act, subsect. 18.1 (4). Ibid., subsect. 18.1 (3). See Tabassum v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 FC 1185 (CanLII), paras. 39 and 43, in which the Court concluded that the pre-removal risk assessment officer had mischaracterized the evidence and erred in his finding that the applicant was not being threatened by her husband; Babai v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2004 FC 1341 (CanLII), paras. 35 and 37, in which the Court concluded that the pre-removal risk assessment officer had failed to consider contradictory evidence and had made a reviewable error in finding that State protection was available to the applicant; Abbasova v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2011