CAT/C/39/D/304/2006 Page 6 4.7 The complainant apparently decided as early as August 2003 to flee the country but did so only three months later. The tribunal found this lapse of time excessive, particularly where death threats were hanging over an individual and her family: an individual in such a situation would be expected to leave at the earliest opportunity. 4.8 The complainants asked the Federal Court for leave to apply for judicial review of the Refugee Protection Division decision6 but that request was turned down on 10 May 2005. 4.9 They then applied for a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) on 15 June 2006, citing the same risks as those cited to the Refugee Protection Division. They argued that even if they settled elsewhere in Mexico they would be tracked down. Furthermore, the fact that they had applied for asylum in Canada would put them in an even more dangerous situation in Mexico. 4.10 The PRRA officer took the view that the situation in Mexico was the same as it had been when the application to the Refugee Protection Division had been rejected.7 After having studied the asylum application, the other evidence and information on the current situation in Mexico, the officer had concluded on 14 August 2006 that there were no substantial grounds for believing that the complainants would be in danger of being subjected to torture in Mexico or that their lives would be at risk. 4.11 The PRRA officer noted that the rest of the complainants’ family were still living in Mexico, even though it would be reasonable to suppose that it would be in their pursuers’ interests to turn on their relatives given the alleged contents of the compromising letter. 4.12 On 3 October 2006, faced with the possibility of forcible return to Mexico, the complainants submitted a request for a stay of removal until the Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA) had made a decision on their application for reconsideration on humanitarian grounds. On 5 October 2006 CBSA refused to grant a stay and on 6 December 2006 rejected the application for reconsideration on humanitarian grounds. The State party explains that, since the complainants had cited risks to their life and safety in Mexico, their application had been assessed by a PRRA officer, that is to say an immigration official with special training in assessing the risks of return. 6 The State party notes that any legal measure may be subject to judicial review by the Federal Court if leave is granted. The standard applied in granting leave for judicial review on immigration matters is whether there is an arguable case concerning a serious issue. 7 According to the State party, the only new element was a letter from the complainant’s sister stating that she had been told by someone else that people had come to the complainant’s former home looking for her. The officer noted that the letter was unsigned, and it was impossible to determine who these people were or what links, if any, they had with the police. There was no mention of the date the alleged incident occurred and the letter had not been produced until June 2006, whereas the complainant was sought since 2002.