CCPR/C/125/D/3041/2017 2.9 On 5 March 2009, the author and her two children in whose name she submits the communication sought to enter Canada from the United States using false names and claiming that the author’s husband and father of her two children was dead. They were returned to the United States pursuant to the terms of the Canada-United States Safe Third Country Agreement. 2.10 On 9 January 2010, the family requested refugee status in the United States. Their request was rejected in June 2012, and an appeal denied in December 2015. On 29 February 2016, the author’s husband’s application for an extension of his work permit (employment authorization) was denied by the United States authorities. 2.11 After 2014, the author’s parents and siblings, who still lived in Angola, were tracked down and subjected to harassment, mostly by telephone, presumably by the Angolan police with the help of the police force of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. In May 2015, officers of the Angolan secret police broke into their residence and questioned them about the author’s husband, using death threats. The author’s younger brother was fatally shot and her mother was shot in the leg, which was later amputated. While her mother was in hospital, the family lost track of the author’s father and other siblings; the family is still unaware of their whereabouts today. In August 2015, the author’s mother joined them in the United States. 2.12 On 10 November 2015, a warrant was issued against the author and her husband by the National Intelligence Agency (Agence nationale de renseignements) of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. 2.13 On 4 June 2016, the author and her family crossed the border irregularly from the United States into Canada. They were arrested by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The author and her two elder children (in whose name she submits the communication) were found ineligible to claim asylum on the basis of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act because their prior claim had been found to be inadmissible (when they attempted to enter Canada on 5 March 2009). Their claims were redirected to the pre-removal risk assessment process. However, L.M., his two younger children and his mother-in-law saw their asylum claim deferred to the Immigration Refugee Board. 2.14 On 23 February 2017, the author’s application for pre-removal risk assessment was rejected for lack of credibility regarding her identity and because the family had been able to live in Angola for a number of years without incident. On 11 May, the author requested leave to apply for judicial review by the Federal Court of the rejection of her application for pre-removal risk assessment. On 12 May, the author applied for a deferral of their removal on the basis that the separation of the family would cause them hardship, stress and anxiety. On 17 May, the deferral application was denied on the grounds that the psychological report presented by the author included various contradictions and that the family had voluntarily separated in the past and would reunite once the author’s husband’s claim for protection was determined. The author applied to the Federal Court for a judicial stay of the removal; her application was however refused on 26 May. On 13 July, the Federal Court denied the leave to apply for judicial review regarding the negative pre-removal risk assessment decision. 2.15 On 23 May 2017, after a massive prison breakout at the Makala detention facility in Kinshasa that month, another warrant of arrest was issued against L.M., alias J.M., by the National Intelligence Agency. The complaint 3.1 The author submits that her deportation together with her children to Angola would amount to violations of articles 6 (1), 7, 9, 13, 17 (1), 23 (1) and 24 (1) of the Covenant. 3.2 The author claims that, if returned to Angola, they risk being sent to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where they would be persecuted by security forces, as reflected by the persecution that she and her husband had previously endured. This would amount to a violation of articles 6 (1), 7 and 9. They substantiate that risk by highlighting that their Angolan passports were obtained through misrepresentation, and that they do not actually hold Angolan nationality. 3