CAT/C/65/D/784/2016 6.6 The Committee notes that pursuant to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act regulations, the complainant is not at risk of deportation during the ongoing consideration of the pre-removal risk assessment, as the enforceability of a removal order is stayed (see para. 4.3 above). In that connection, the Committee observes that the complainant has not attempted to submit any new evidence to meet the requirements under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act,31 nor has she sought legal aid for the purpose of applying for an assessment. The Committee also notes that the complainant has not argued that she was represented by a State-appointed lawyer at the relevant time, recalling that errors or omissions made by a privately retained lawyer cannot normally be attributed to the State party. 32 The Committee further recalls that the mere doubt about the effectiveness of domestic remedies does not absolve the complainant from the duty to exhaust them, in particular when such remedies are reasonably available and have suspensive effect. While noting the complainant’s argument that the application for an assessment would not represent an effective remedy in her case, the Committee considers that the complainant has not adduced sufficient elements which would justify her failure to avail herself of the possibility of applying for such an assessment and that would demonstrate that the assessment procedure would have been ineffective in this case. 6.7 Accordingly, the Committee is satisfied with the argument of the State party that, in this particular case, there were remedies, both available and effective, which the complainant has not exhausted.33 In the light of this finding, the Committee does not deem it necessary to examine the State party’s assertion that the communication is also inadmissible as incompatible with the Convention, or manifestly unfounded. 7. The Committee therefore decides: (a) That the communication is inadmissible under article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention; (b) That the present decision shall be communicated to the complainant and to the State party. 31 32 33 8 See Aung v. Canada, para 6.4. See R.S.A.N. v. Canada (CAT/C/37/D/284/2006), para. 6.4. See J.S. v. Canada, para. 6.6., S.S. and P.S. v. Canada (CAT/C/62/D/702/2015), para. 6.6., Shodeinde v. Canada (CAT/C/63/D/621/2014), para. 6.8., and U.A. v. Canada, paras. 6.6.–6.7. GE.19-05767