CAT/C/65/D/784/2016 the incidents resulted in physical injury. However, the complainant does not submit any evidence in that regard. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any complaint 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. 6.2 The Committee recalls that, in accordance with article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention, it shall not consider any communication from an individual unless it has ascertained that the individual has exhausted all available domestic remedies. This rule does not apply where it has been established that the application of those remedies has been unreasonably prolonged or is unlikely to bring effective relief. 27 6.3 The Committee takes note of the fact that the complainant applied for refugee status, which was rejected by the Refugee Protection Division on 30 March 2016, that she applied for a judicial review of the Division’s decision to the Federal Court, which was rejected on 25 August 2016, and that she applied for permanent residence on compassionate grounds on 27 January 2017, which was rejected on 13 February 2017. The Committee takes note of the State party’s argument that the complaint should be declared inadmissible under article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention on the grounds that the complainant has failed to exhaust all available domestic remedies, in particular an application for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds and an application for a pre-removal risk assessment. 6.4 The Committee recalls its jurisprudence that a humanitarian and compassionate application is not an effective remedy for the purposes of admissibility pursuant to article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention, given its discretionary and non-judicial nature28 and the fact that it does not stay the removal of a complainant. 29 Accordingly, the Committee does not consider it necessary for the complainant to exhaust the application for permanent residence on the basis of humanitarian and compassionate grounds for the purpose of admissibility. 30 6.5 As for the complainant’s failure to apply for a pre-removal risk assessment, the Committee notes the State party’s observation that the Canada Border Services Agency considers applications for such assessments of persons in Canada, whose claims for refugee status have been rejected, and are subject to an enforceable removal order, and who may present new evidence that arose after the dismissal of their claims, or which was not reasonably available, or could not reasonably have been presented, at the time of the rejection. The Committee also notes that the complainant has been eligible to apply for such an assessment since 29 March 2017 (para. 4.3), and could subsequently apply for a judicial review of a negative decision arising from the assessment to the Federal Court, but has not done so. The Committee takes note of the complainant’s argument that the domestic remedies in question would not constitute an effective remedy in her case, as she could not provide new evidence to the Border Services Agency, and that she perceived the assessment process as lacking independence. 27 28 29 30 GE.19-05767 See E.Y. v. Canada (CAT/C/43/D/307/2006/Rev.1), para. 9.2. See also the Committee’s general comment No. 4 (2017) on the implementation of article 3 in the context of article 22, para. 34. See Falcon Ríos v. Canada (CAT/C/33/D/133/1999), para. 7.3. See J.S. v. Canada (CAT/C/62/D/695/2015), para. 6.3; J.M. v. Canada (CAT/C/60/D/699/2015), para. 6.2; A. v. Canada (CAT/C/57/D/583/2014), para. 6.2; and W.G.D. v. Canada (CAT/C/53/D/520/2012), para. 7.4. See also R.S.M. v. Canada (CAT/C/50/D/392/2009), para. 6.3., and the Committee’s general comment No. 4, para. 34. See J.N.N. v. Canada (CAT/C/64/D/615/2014), para. 6.4., U.A. v. Canada (CAT/C/63/D/767/2016), para. 6.4., and S.S. v. Canada (CAT/C/62/D/715/2015), para. 6.3. 7