CAT/C/59/D/582/2014 7.3 On 23 September 2016, the complainant informed the Committee that his preremoval risk assessment application had been rejected on 30 November 2015. 11 On the same date, his application for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds had also been rejected. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 8.1 Before considering any complaint submitted in a communication, the Committee must decide whether or not 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. 8.2 The Committee takes note of the State party’s argument that domestic remedies have not been exhausted in the present case because the complainant was eligible to file a preremoval risk assessment application, which was subject to judicial review, and an application for permanent residence based on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. The Committee notes that the complainant has since applied for a pre-removal risk assessment and that his application has been rejected. His humanitarian and compassionate application has also been rejected and does not, in any case, constitute an effective remedy for the purposes of admissibility, given its non-legal nature and the fact that it does not stay the removal of a complainant.12 The Committee takes note of the State party’s argument that a negative pre-removal risk assessment can be subject to judicial review. It notes, however, that such judicial review is a narrow review for gross errors of law, does not involve a review of the merits of the case and does not have suspensive effect. Given that the complainant has submitted applications to the Immigration and Refugee Board and the Federal Court, as well as applications under the pre-removal risk assessment and the humanitarian and compassionate procedures, the Committee considers that it would be unreasonable to require that the complainant also apply for judicial review of the preremoval risk assessment decision. 13 Accordingly, the Committee considers that it is not precluded by the requirements of article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention from considering the communication on the merits. 8.3 The Committee takes note of the State party’s argument that the communication is manifestly ill founded. However, the Committee is of the view that, for the purposes of admissibility, the complainant has provided sufficient information in support of his claim under article 3 of the Convention. Accordingly, the Committee declares the claim admissible and proceeds with its consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 9.1 In accordance with article 22 (4) of the Convention, the Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all information made available to it by the parties. 11 12 13 In his submission dated 31 August 2015, the complainant stated that it was possible to seek judicial review of a negative pre-removal risk assessment decision with stay of removal, but that the process was very expensive and ineffective, with very slim chances of success. See, inter alia, communication No. 343/2008, Kalonzo v. Canada, decision adopted on 18 May 2012, para. 8.3. See, inter alia, communications No. 520/2012, W.G.D. v. Canada, decision adopted on 26 November 2014, paras. 7.2 and 7.3, and No. 319/2007, Singh v. Canada, decision adopted on 13 May 2011, para. 8.8. 7