CAT/C/55/D/512/2012 PRRA and was determined by a PRRA officer to be a person in need of protection, he would not be removed from Canada and would be eligible to apply for permanent residence status. 6.5 Upon a subsequent PRRA application, applicants may provide evidence and written submissions in support of their application. However, a second PRRA is not intended to be an appeal of the first determination, and determinations based on evidence and allegations of risk in a previous PRRA are considered final for the purposes of subsequent PRRA applications. PRRA officers may therefore limit a subsequent PRRA to a re-examination of the evidence in the light of any changes that have occurred since the previous PRRA was determined. However, the officers have the discretion to consider evidence that predates the previous PRRA decision if it is in the interests of justice to do so. In the present case, the new evidence submitted by the complainant to the Committee substantially relates to events occurring in 2005 and 2009, which predate the complainant’s negative PRRA determination in November 2011. However, the complainant states that the new evidence could not have been assembled in the time provided at the time of his first PRRA application, mainly because it took time to persuade his relatives in Pakistan to assist him in obtaining documents, as they feared reprisals on the part of the Government of Pakistan. A new PRRA would provide domestic decision makers with the first opportunity to determine whether it is in the interests of justice to consider the new evidence the complainant has submitted to the Committee. Furthermore, it would be open to the complainant in a new PRRA application to raise the new and current risks he would allegedly face by the LeJ in Pakistan and to provide the notarized letter from the president of the PPP in Lahore describing the current threats he is said to face in Pakistan. For all these reasons, the State party asserts that the PRRA process is an effective domestic remedy available to the complainant that renders the communication inadmissible for non-exhaustion. 6.6 Concerning the complainant’s abandonment of his refugee claim, the State party notes the complainant’s further comment that he contacted the Immigration and Refugee Board by phone in 2005 after becoming aware that his case had been deemed abandoned, and was threatened over the phone by an unidentified woman at the Board. The State party notes that the complainant had not previously raised this alleged exchange or indicated in any of his submissions to this Committee that he had taken any steps to contact the Board directly after learning that the Board considered his case to have been abandoned. The State party accordingly submits that the Committee should decline to accord this explanation any weight, and maintains that the complainant failed to exhaust this effective domestic remedy. 6.7 Concerning the procedure for applications for humanitarian and compassionate consideration, the State party notes that while an administrative stay is not available on application, applicants can seek to have their removal judicially stayed or administratively deferred while their application is being considered. The State party considers that the complainant’s comments about the alleged ineffectiveness of this domestic remedy do not justify his failure to exhaust it. 6.8 Regarding the complainant’s new claim in his submission dated 27 November 2014 that he fears being tortured by the LeJ upon return to Pakistan, the State party considers that the complainant has not substantiated this argument on a prima facie basis, for several reasons. First, the complainant’s own narrative, as set out in domestic proceedings and in his initial complaint to this Committee, does not support this claim. In his PRRA application submitted in August 2011, the complainant made no mention of the LeJ, nor did he more broadly claim a fear of persecution in Pakistan by religious extremists. The complainant states in his submission dated 27 November 2014 that he was not provided a fair opportunity to present his entire claim for consideration because he was not provided an oral hearing as part of the PRRA process. The State party considers that although the 13