CEDAW/C/51/D/25/2010 4.12 The State party adds that under international law it is the prerogative of States to prescribe the conditions for foreigners’ entry to and departure from their territory, including the terms of return, subject to their international obligations. This power derives from the sovereignty of States and any exception to this power is limited to cases where the person concerned would suffer serious and irreparable harm. The State party therefore invokes the communication’s incompatibility with the Convention insofar as the author claims the State party is in violation of its obligations under the Convention for discriminatory practices that allegedly took place in Mexico. The State party is of the view that it is not responsible for discrimination carried out in and by another country, since it is only responsible for discriminatory acts that fall within its jurisdiction. 4.13 With regard to the asylum procedure, contrary to the author’s allegations, her case was heard and considered on many occasions. It is clear from the decisions of the Immigration and Refugee Board and the PRRA officer that the decision makers bore in mind the risk of gender-based violence in Mexico. The Immigration and Refugee Board was of the view that the author had not provided credible evidence of the alleged threats. Despite this, taking into account the guidelines on “Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution”, the Immigration and Refugee Board gave the author many opportunities to explain her situation in Mexico. The Board concluded, however, that the author’s testimony was riddled with unexplained contradictions and inconsistencies. Moreover, it is clear from the PRRA procedure that all the evidence was taken into account, but that the risk alleged by the author could not be identified. The State party emphasizes that PRRA officers receive awareness training on the situation of women victims of domestic violence and take that situation into account when evaluating the evidence. The State party adds that the Federal Court of Canada has recognized that PRRA officers are sufficiently independent.5 Lastly, a request for leave and judicial review was submitted regarding both the procedure before the Immigration and Refugee Board and the PRRA request. 4.14 Given that the author has not provided any new evidence that might call into question the proceedings before the national authorities, the State party concludes that the author’s claims of discrimination in the Canadian procedure for determining refugee status are manifestly ill-founded and not sufficiently substantiated (pursuant to article 4, paragraph 2 (c) of the Optional Protocol). Author’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 In a letter dated 16 June 2011, the author’s counsel, without explaining the author’s situation in Mexico since her departure from the State party, makes general allegations that the Canadian courts do not adequately protect persons in cases similar to that of the author. 5.2 In a letter dated 6 July 2011, the author’s counsel simply states that the author was facing difficult circumstances in Mexico, that she was very frightened, and that comments on the State party’s observations would be submitted to the Committee as soon as possible. Despite several reminders, these comments have never been submitted to the Committee; nor has the Committee been provided with any information supporting the counsel’s statements. 5 GE.12-41804 The State party refers to the judgement in Say v. Canada (Solicitor General), [2006] 1 F.C.R. 532; and Hamade et al. v. Canada (Solicitor General), IMM 7864-04 (29 September 2004). 7