be regarded as an abuse of the right of submission under article 3 of the Optional Protocol. The Human Rights Committee therefore decides: The communication is inadmissible. (с) That the author has himself indicated that he still intends to pursue further domestic remedies. The Committee concludes that, in these cir­ cumstances, the submission of the communication must TWELFTH SESSION Communication No. 68/1980 Submitted by: A. S. on 23 May 1980 Alleged victims: The author, her daughter and grandson State party: Canada Date of decision on inadmissibility: 31 March 1981 (twelfth session) create an employment opportunity for her daughter and/or grandson. The author was then told to go ahead and to purchase the business in question, but since she is fully employed herself and would need the assistance of her daughter and grandson to run the business, she felt she would not be in a position to purchase, without any assurances that they would be permitted to enter Canada. The immigration authorities then requested, and were furnished with, relevant information concern­ ing the author's income and assets, showing that she is able fully to support her daughter and grandson, being the owner of four housing units in Windsor, all without encumbrance, and having also a steady full-time job, as well as funds in a bank account. This information was furnished to the immigration authorities in June 1979. In spite of repeated inquiries, the author has been unable to obtain any further information about the matter. She feels that her daughter and grandson are unjustly being kept away from her and points out that, in the absence of an entry permit, her daughter and grandson are unable to make the necessary application for permission to leave Poland. She states that there are no domestic remedies that could be further pursued. Immigration—Protection of the family—Equal protec­ tion of the law—Compatibility of communication with Covenant—Inadmissibility ratione materiae— Jurisdiction of State party over victim Articles of Covenant: 12, 17, 23 and 26 Article of Optional Protocol: 1 and 3 1. The author of the communication (letter dated 23 May 1980) is a Canadian citizen of Polish origin, at present residing in Ontario, Canada. She submitted the communication on her own behalf and on behalf of her daughter and grandson, alleging that all her efforts to obtain permission from the Canadian authorities for her daughter and grandson to enter Canada in order to join her have been in vain. Without specifying a breach of any particular article of the International Covenant on Civil and Pohtical Rights, she seeks the Committee's assistance in the matter and describes the relevant facts as follows: 2. The author, who was born in Poland, is a Ca­ nadian citizen, living in Ontario, Canada. Her daughter, B, born in 1946, and her daughter's son, C, born in 1964, live at Torun, Poland. They are both PoUsh nationals. 4. By its decision of 21 July 1980, the Human Rights Committee transmitted the communication under rule 91 of the provisional rules of procedure to the State party concerned, requesting information and observa­ tions relevant to the question of admissibility of the communication, and drawing the State party's attention in particular to the provisions of articles 12, 17, 23 and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 3. In the spring of 1977, the author filed an applica­ tion on behalf of her daughter and grandson at the ap­ propriate Canadian Immigration Office, requesting per­ mission for them to enter Canada in order to join the author as permanent residents. Six months later, her daughter was informed by the Canadian Consul in War­ saw, Poland, that she was not eligible for entry into Canada, because she did not have a profession and that, before the Canadian authorities could proceed further, an employment guarantee would have to be procured for her. An employment guarantee was thereupon ob­ tained in the author's home town, Windsor, Ontario, but the Windsor Department of Manpower concluded, upon inquiry, that there were already people available for the job in question (the job of a sales person in a pet store). The author informed the immigration authorities in 1979 that she was willing and able to buy a small business in Windsor (a confectionery store) in order to 5.1 In its reply dated 2 December 1980, the State party objected to the admissibility of the communica­ tion on the ground that the facts of the case did not reveal any breach of the rights protected under articles 12, 17, 23 and 26 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and that furthermore the communication did not meet the requirements of article 1 of the Optional Protocol (which stipulates that the Committee has com­ petence to receive and consider communications from individuals subject to a State party's jurisdiction), since 27