CAT/C/65/D/784/2016 the above claims to be incompatible with article 22 (1) of the Convention against Torture. It further notes that the complainant had access to all available remedies to challenge decisions rejecting her application for asylum. The State party submits that the complainant seeks from the Committee the review of the evaluation of facts and evidence and of the interpretation of domestic legislation by the Canadian authorities. Besides, the complainant has not demonstrated that the domestic courts acted arbitrarily, were biased or in any way denied her access to justice. Accordingly, the complainant has not substantiated her claim even on a prima facie basis. 4.8 Finally, the State party considers that the communication is wholly without merit as there is no evidence to suggest that the complainant is at foreseeable, real and personal risk of torture in Pakistan. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 19 July 2017, the complainant submitted her comments on the State party’s observation on admissibility and the merits. 5.2 As regards the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the complainant rejects the State party’s observation, arguing that she did not submit a new application for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds owing to the length of time required for that application process, which can take up to six months, while not providing any suspensive effect. She therefore considers that the procedure is an ineffective remedy, as it does not prevent her deportation to Pakistan. The complainant further submits that, if she had applied for a pre-removal risk assessment, she would have had to present only new evidence that arose after the dismissal of her request for refugee status. She submits that she could not have provided new information to the Canada Border Services Agency, as she did not have any such new information. She also claims that the officers who conduct such assessments are not independent, impartial or competent in dealing with issues involving human rights. Besides, the complainant notes that the Federal Court of Canada has consistently held that the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada has a discretionary power over asylum matters. 24 The Federal Court of Canada can reject a decision of the Immigration and Refugee Board only when the Court observes a breach of procedure or error of law. The complainant therefore holds there would be no grounds to re-examine her case. Consequently, she considers that she had exhausted all the domestic remedies that could have been effective. 5.3 As regards the State party’s assertion of a lack of substantiation, the complainant claims that she submitted evidence to support her allegations in the form of copies of newspaper articles and written testimonies. 25 She asserts that her allegations have not been fully examined by the authorities, arguing that she was persecuted by members of Islamist groups in Pakistan for almost seven years. She explains that her parents had to move temporarily to Dubai as a result of their fear of being harassed and attacked. As the United Arab Emirates does not grant permanent residence, they moved back to Pakistan, where her mother died of illness in 2014. The complainant submits that she could not even go to Pakistan to attend her mother’s funeral. As a journalist and a modern woman, she fears being targeted by Islamist groups and subjected to harassment, violence and death threats if she were to return to Pakistan, which could cause her irreparable harm. 5.4 In addition, the complainant rejects the State party’s observation that she did not seek protection from the police in Pakistan. In an affidavit dated 26 July 2017, 26 the complainant claims that the newspaper where she worked did lodge official complaints to the police, but she did not meet any police officer who would initiate investigations before her departure to Canada. She claims not to have been offered any protection when she tried to get help from the state authorities, although the police confirmed that the complaints were received and considered, but were not deemed to be of sufficient gravity, as none of 24 25 26 6 The Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada is a Division of the Ministry of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada. The complainant submitted affidavits from her colleagues, but the State party considered that they were not credible, as they were almost identical. Submitted on 27 July 2017. GE.19-05767