CCPR/C/125/D/3041/2017 Annex Individual opinion of José Manuel Santos Pais (partly dissenting) 1. I regret not being able to share the Committee’s conclusion that the author’s expulsion to Angola would not, if implemented, violate the author’s rights or those of her children under articles 17 and 23 and 24 (1) of the Covenant. 2. The author and her two elder children are part of a larger family composed of themselves, the author’s husband and father of the children, L.M., two younger siblings and the author’s mother (para. 2.1), who was shot in the leg while in Angola, which was later amputated (paras. 2.11, 5.3), who joined her daughter in the United States of America. 3. The author and her two elder children, after crossing the Canadian border in 2016, were found ineligible to claim asylum on the basis of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Their claims were redirected to the pre-removal risk assessment process (para. 2.13) and subsequently rejected. The author applied for a deferral of their removal, which was denied on the grounds that the family had voluntarily separated in the past and would reunite once the author’s husband’s claim for protection was determined (para. 2.14). 4. In the meantime, L.M., his two younger children and his mother-in-law saw their asylum claim deferred to the Immigration Refugee Board. This process is still pending. 5. The author claims that she has strong family ties, that deportation of part of the family would interfere with her family rights, and that the two children on whose behalf she presents the communication have been going to school in Canada since they entered the country (in 2016, so for three years now) and have integrated into Canadian society. The removal of the children would consequently have a major impact on them and would not be in their best interests (para. 3.4). 6. The State party acknowledges that the author, her husband and all their children constitute a family (para 4.8). The State party also considers it was the decisions and actions of the author and her husband that resulted in their claims for protection in Canada being determined at different times and in different processes (para 4.9). However, the State party recognizes that these different processes concern the same family and so their outcome will have a significant impact on any of its members. In fact, while the children are not accountable for their parents’ procedural actions, they are now particularly vulnerable, as the deportation order may entail disruption of the family itself. 7. The State party considers that, while the family may be temporarily separated if the authors are deported to Angola, this does not in itself render the removal unlawful, arbitrary, unreasonable or disproportionate. If the author’s husband’s claim for protection is granted, he will be able to apply for permanent residence in Canada and will be able to include the author and the two eldest children on his application (para. 4.9). However, how sure can we be the separation is only temporary? The father’s pending process may take up to 32 months (para. 5.7). On the other hand, if the separation is to be only temporary, why not stay the decision of removal, pending the outcome of the husband’s claim for protection? 8. The State party also states that the hardship resulting from the separation of the family and the children’s best interests were considered in the context of the deferral application (para 4.9), but does not explain how this conclusion was reached. Which children’s best interests were considered: those of the elder children, who are to be removed to Angola with their mother, or those of the younger ones, who are staying in Canada with their father and maternal grandmother? Furthermore, no mention is made of the child to whom the author was expecting to give birth, in September 2018 (para. 5.1). Is this child to be removed to Angola as well, at such a young age? As to the clinical situation of the author’s daughter, allegedly experiencing a serious deterioration in her mental health due to the threat of deportation and family separation, with recurring suicidal thoughts, it does not seem this was also taken into account by the State party. 13