CAT/C/56/D/562/2013 4.4 The State party also informed the Committee that the complainant was entitled to seek leave to apply to the Federal Court for judicial review of the pre-removal risk assessment decision and to seek a judicial stay of removal pending the Court’s decision on the leave application. In accordance with paragraph 72 (2) (b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, an application for leave must be filed in the Federal Court within 15 days after the day on which the applicant is notified of the pre-removal risk assessment decision, or otherwise becomes aware of the matter. 4.5 At the time that the State party submitted its request for suspension, the complainant had not yet applied to the Federal Court for leave to seek judicial review of the pre-removal risk assessment decision. The State party indicated that, in the absence of a Federal Court order for a stay following a negative determination, it could not be assumed that it would continue to defer the removal of the complainant. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 5.1 On 26 June and 25 August 2014, the State party requested the Committee to lift interim measures and submitted its observations on admissibility and the merits of the communication. It considered that the Federal Court decision issued on 23 July 2013 denying the complainant’s application for leave to seek judicial review of the decision rejecting his pre-removal risk assessment issued on 9 April 2014 “reinforced its position that there was no evidence that the author would face a personal and real risk of torture in Uganda”. 5.2 The State party reiterated that the communication was inadmissible on the ground that the complainant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies, as he had not filed a humanitarian and compassionate application.11 A successful humanitarian and compassionate application would allow the author to remain in Canada as a permanent resident. 5.3 The State party considers that the communication is inadmissible because the complainant has failed to substantiate, even on a prima facie basis, that he faces a real and personal risk of torture in Uganda. The domestic authorities found that the complainant’s allegations were not credible or plausible with respect to central aspects of his claim. The State party indicates that the Committee has found that it is not within its scope of review to re-evaluate findings of fact or credibility by domestic decision makers. In particular, the story of the complainant’s arrest and detention in 2007 for participating in a pro-gay protest is not credible. There are significant inconsistencies and contradictions in the complainant’s evidence and testimony with respect to that element of the story. For instance, the complainant stated before the Refugee Protection Division that he was not able to remember the exact date of his participation in the demonstration; he speculated that it should have been about three days before 17 August 2007. However, he could not prove that the demonstration took place a few days before that date. Furthermore, the release bond submitted by the complainant is dated 24 August 2007, a week after the day he claimed in his testimony before the Refugee Protection Division that he had been released, that is, 17 August 2007. There is also no mention of the complainant’s arrest and detention in R.M.’s letter, despite the fact that, according to the complainant’s testimony, R.M. assisted him after he was released by the police. There is no corroborative proof supporting the 11 6 In its submission dated 26 June 2014, the State party also considered that the communication was inadmissible on the basis of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies owing to a pending pre-removal risk assessment. However, in its submission dated 26 August 2014, the State party withdrew that argument and informed the Committee that the complainant’s pre-removal risk assessment had been denied.