CAT/C/59/D/644/2014 5.2 She submits that her permanent residence permit in Italy is dependent upon her exhusband’s permit and that, as the State party has not requested Italy to accept her transfer and that of her daughters, it is unknown whether Italy will allow her and her daughters to stay in Italy. 5.3 Even if the complainant’s permanent residence permit in Italy were independent of that of her ex-husband’s, it is still doubtful whether Italy would accept responsibility for her and her daughters, since the holder of a long-term resident’s European Community permit needs to show that he or she has sufficient income to maintain himself or herself and the members of his or her family. According to Italian law, the residence permit can be revoked if the holder no longer fulfils the requirements for its issue. Since the complainant no longer has an income in Italy, she would risk her permit being revoked and being sent back to Nigeria with her daughters. Further submissions by the State party 6. On 26 April 2016, the State party provided a further submission and reiterated its previous observations. It noted that there is nothing in the complainant’s comments to suggest that she and her first two daughters no longer hold valid residence permits in Italy. The complainant’s assertion that these permits may be revoked under some circumstances cannot lead to the conclusion that they are unable to return to Italy. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 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. 7.2 The Committee recalls that, in accordance with article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention, it shall not consider any complaint from an individual unless it has ascertained that the individual has exhausted all available domestic remedies. It notes that in the present case, the State party has recognized that the complainant has exhausted all available domestic remedies. Accordingly, the complaint meets the admissibility requirement set forth in article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention. 7.3 The Committee takes note of the State party’s argument that the complainant and her minor daughters are not to be considered victims within the meaning of article 22 of the Convention, since she and two of her daughters hold valid residence permits in Italy. They can therefore be transferred to that country, and thus they are presumably no longer in immediate danger of removal to Nigeria. The Committee observes that, in the present complaint, it is asked to determine whether removal of the complainant and her minor daughters to Nigeria would constitute a violation of the Convention; that the decision of the Migration Agency of 3 April 2013 which ordered their expulsion to Nigeria has been subsequently confirmed by the Migration Court and the Migration Court of Appeal; and that such order is valid and executable if the complainant and her daughters do not leave the State party voluntarily. Against this background, the Committee considers that, in the circumstances of the present case, the State party’s observations about the complainant’s possibility of returning to Italy cannot be disassociated from the complainant’s other claims under article 3 of the Convention. Accordingly, the Committee considers that the complaint meets the admissibility requirement established in article 22 (1) of the Convention. 7