CAT/C/39/D/304/2006 Page 7 4.13 The State party points out that the complainants cited the same risks to CBSA as they had in their asylum and PRRA applications. The complainant had also argued that, as a single mother, she would find herself in a very difficult financial situation in Mexico, which would prevent her from applying for permanent resident status (in Canada). CBSA noted that the complainants have relatives in Mexico, while, in terms of the child’s best interests, the complainant’s daughter, who had been in Canada for three years, had not formed bonds with local people such that being taken away from them would create unwarranted or unreasonable difficulties. Unless otherwise indicated, a child’s well-being lies in living with their parents. 4.14 CBSA thoroughly considered all the risks cited by the complainant, and the situation in Mexico. It examined the translation of the death certificate, which gives Chilpancingo as the place of death, unlike the translation provided to the Refugee Protection Division, but decided that it could not credit it with great evidentiary value. In any case, CBSA noted that, even if it accepted the certificate, it did not prove that the killing had been carried out by the police. CBSA was unable to grant an exemption from this requirement on humanitarian grounds. 4.15 The State party further asserts, citing the Committee’s case law recognizing the effectiveness of submitting a request for leave and judicial review in conjunction with an application for stay of removal, that the complainants have not exhausted effective domestic remedies. They could have asked the Federal Court for leave to apply for judicial review of the PRRA decision and, at the same time, could have requested a stay of the removal order pending the outcome. They could have submitted the same request for leave to apply for judicial review - again along with an application for a stay - in respect of the CBSA decision not to grant an administrative stay of removal pending consideration of the application on humanitarian grounds. Lastly, they could have requested leave to apply for judicial review of the CBSA denial of their application on humanitarian grounds. Since these remedies have not been exhausted, the communication is inadmissible. 4.16 The State party further argues that the communication is inadmissible because it is manifestly unfounded. The complainants have failed to produce any evidence in support of their claims that they would be in danger of being subjected to torture in Mexico. All the Canadian decision makers found that the complainants generally lacked credibility. As to the CBSA decision, the State party recalls that the Federal Court did not deem it necessary to intervene and denied leave for judicial review of that decision. 4.17 With regard to the present communication, the State party notes that the complainants claimed to be the victims of errors made by the lawyers they themselves retained. The State party recalls that the Committee has held that “alleged errors made by [the complainant’s] privately retained lawyer cannot normally be attributed to the State party”.8 In the State party’s view, the communication contains no information that might explain the inconsistencies and contradictions noted by the Canadian decision makers. 8 R.S.A.N. v. Canada, communication No. 284/2006 (21 November 2006), para. 6.4.