CAT/C/57/D/529/2012 the adultery allegations made by B.; (b) a risk of persecution from the residents of her village as a result of the adultery allegations; and (c) a risk to her life from B. 4.13 The Refugee Protection Division concluded that the complainant had been a credible witness in relation to the facts of her account. However, it concluded that her specific claims of the risk she would face were not supported by the evidence provided and that, ultimately, she had a clear internal flight or relocation alternative in Pakistan. First of all, the Division concluded that there was not sufficient credible evidence that the police would seek out the complainant if she returned to Pakistan, because she had been released after only two days in custody and had testified that the matter had never reached the courts because a local politician had come to get her out of the police station. Furthermore, she was able to leave Pakistan legally and using her own passport, without any difficulties. Secondly, the Division concluded that the complainant had not provided sufficient credible evidence that she would face persecution from the residents of her village if returned. Her personal narrative and testimony consistently indicated that her husband and her family and the rest of the village had supported her and not B., after the allegations of adultery were made. Thirdly, and taking into account the conclusions on the points above, the Division concluded that there was not sufficient credible evidence that B. would be able to harm the complainant if she returned to Pakistan. The legal action concerning the land had already been decided in the complainant’s favour and there was no evidence to indicate that the accusation of adultery would proceed further. Ultimately, the Division concluded that if the complainant returned to Pakistan, she would have an internal flight or relocation alternative with respect to any risk posed by B. The complainant did not provide sufficient credible evidence that B. would be able to learn of her return if she relocated to a major urban centre, or that B. would be able to persuade the State authorities to seek her out. Furthermore, even if B. learned of her location, it was not clear that he would seek her out because her daughters live in a place that is known to B. and he has not harmed them. The Division took into account all serious problems, including societal discrimination faced by women in Pakistan in general, but concluded that the complainant would not face undue hardship if she availed herself of an internal flight or relocation alternative. 4.14 Judicial review of a Refugee Protection Division decision is available with leave from the Federal Court. The Federal Court’s test for granting leave to apply for judicial review of such decisions is the applicant’s demonstration that there is a fairly arguable case or a serious question to be determined. The Federal Court hears and decides legal disputes arising in the federal domain, including challenges to the decisions of federal tribunals like the Refugee Protection Division. The complainant did not apply to the Federal Court for leave to seek judicial review of the Division’s decision. 4.15 The complainant also did not apply for permanent residence on the basis of humanitarian and compassionate grounds. When an application on humanitarian and compassionate grounds is made by a foreign national, it must be considered by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration or his representative. The assessment of such an application consists of a broad, discretionary review by the decision maker to determine whether the person should be granted permanent residence for humanitarian and compassionate reasons. The test is whether the applicant would suffer unusual and undeserved or disproportionate hardship if he or she had to apply for a permanent resident visa from outside of Canada. The decision maker considers and weighs all the relevant evidence and information, including the applicant’s written submissions. Some examples of hardship that may be considered in an application on humanitarian and compassionate grounds include lack of critical medical or health care; discrimination that does not amount to persecution; and adverse country conditions that may have a direct, negative impact on the applicant. In her communication to the Committee, the complainant did not explain why she had not submitted an application for residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds to the Canadian authorities. 7