CAT/C/56/D/562/2013 7.5 The State party concludes that the communication should be held inadmissible or, should the Committee consider any part of the communication admissible, that it is wholly without merit. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s additional observations 8.1 In his additional comments on the State party’s observations, dated 29 January 2015, the complainant reiterates the arguments presented in his previous submissions and refers to the Committee’s jurisprudence according to which humanitarian and compassionate applications are not remedies that must be exhausted for the purpose of admissibility. 19 8.2 The author argues that the earliest date on which he could have filed a humanitarian and compassionate application was after the date of his deportation to Uganda, which would have prevented him from applying. He adds that the humanitarian and compassionate application is a two-step process, and that the first step takes approximately 28 months, during which there is no stay of removal. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 9.1 Before considering any claim submitted in a communication, the Committee must decide whether it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention, that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 9.2 The Committee notes that the complainant’s application for leave seeking judicial review of the pre-removal risk assessment, issued on 9 April 2014, was rejected by the Federal Court on 23 July 2014. The Committee also notes that, after the Federal Court issued its decision, the State party decided to withdraw the claim of inadmissibility that it had made on the ground that the pre-removal risk assessment was pending review by the Federal Court. The Committee further notes the State party’s argument that the complainant failed to apply for permanent residence on the basis of humanitarian and compassionate considerations, and that his complaint is therefore inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies. With regard to the State party’s observations concerning the effectiveness of that remedy, the Committee recalls its jurisprudence according to which, although the right to assistance on humanitarian grounds may be a remedy under the law, such assistance is granted by a minister on purely humanitarian grounds, rather than on a legal basis, and is thus ex gratia in nature. The Committee has also observed that when an application for judicial review is approved, the Federal Court returns the file to the body that took the original decision or to another decision-making body and does not itself conduct the review of the case or hand down any decision. 20 Rather, the decision depends on the discretionary authority of a minister and, thus, of the executive. Based on those considerations, the Committee concludes that, in the present case, the possible failure to exhaust that remedy does not constitute an obstacle to the admissibility of the complaint .21 9.3 The State party submits that the complaint is inadmissible as manifestly unfounded. The Committee considers, however, that the arguments put forward by the complainant raise substantive issues that should be dealt with on the merits. Accordingly, the Committee finds no obstacles to the admissibility and declares the communication admissible. 19 20 21 10 The author refers to communications No. 343/2008, Kalonso v. Canada, decision adopted on 18 May 2012, para. 8.3; and No. 333/2007, T.I. v. Canada, decision adopted on 15 November 2010, para. 6.3. See communication No. 333/2007, T.I. v. Canada, para. 6.3. See communication No. 343/2008, Kalonso v. Canada, para. 8.3.