CCPR/C/125/D/3041/2017 dismissed in the United States. In Canada, she had access to a pre-removal risk assessment procedure. She was represented by counsel, and had every opportunity to participate by way of extensive written submissions. She had access to judicial review of the negative decision regarding her pre-removal risk assessment. She was able to make an application for deferral of her removal, and for judicial review of that negative decision. She had access to a judicial stay of removal. The facts do not disclose any violation of article 13 of the Covenant. 4.8 The State party further submits that claims under articles 17 (1), 23 (1) and 24 (1) of the Covenant should be found inadmissible for lack of substantiation. The author alleges that her prospective deportation, with her two eldest children, while her husband, two youngest children and mother remain in Canada for the determination of their claims for refugee status, would constitute a violation of their right to family life and of the children’s right to protection as minors. The State party notes that, when the author and the two eldest children entered Canada in 2009, the author claimed that her husband was deceased. When she presented the authorities with the children’s birth certificates, a person named A.L. was listed as their father. Despite these inconsistencies, the State party is prepared to grant the author the benefit of the doubt for the purpose of these submissions, and consider that the author, her husband and children constitute a family. 4.9 The State party claims that 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. The fact that the family may be temporarily separated if the authors are deported to Angola 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 he will be able to include the author and the two eldest children on his application. If the author’s husband’s claim for protection is denied, he will be able to join the author in Angola, a country where they have citizenship and where they have, by their own admission, lived for a number of years. The State party emphasizes that, at the time of the author’s intended removal, originally scheduled for May 2017, the family had been in Canada for less than a year. The family are not long-term residents and do not have a long-settled family life in Canada. The author’s two elder children were not born in Canada and cannot be considered to be so integrated into their school and Canadian society as to warrant overriding a lawful deportation order. Moreover, the hardship resulting from the separation of the family and the children’s best interests were considered in the context of the deferral application; the Canada Border Services Agency officer deciding the application noted that the evidence in the psychological report was based exclusively on the statements of the author and her husband, and featured many contradictions. The officer noted that the family had voluntarily separated in the past, and that the adults had entered Canada illegally, knowingly putting their children in an unstable and stressful situation. As a result, the officer concluded there were insufficient grounds to defer removal. The Federal Court declined to judicially review the decision. On this matter also, the State party considers that the author has not demonstrated that the evaluation of her case by domestic authorities has been manifestly arbitrary or amounts to a denial of justice, and concludes that her claims under articles 17 (1), 23 (1) and 24 (1) of the Covenant should be found inadmissible. 4.10 The State party therefore requests the Committee to find the communication inadmissible as insufficiently substantiated, and to declare the author’s claims inadmissible. Should any of the author’s claims be deemed admissible by the Committee, the State party submits that the facts do not disclose a violation of the Covenant for the same reasons. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 The author submits that, since the submission of her communication, she has found out she is pregnant and that the expected date of birth of her child is 9 September 2018. Furthermore, the mental health of her daughter has seriously deteriorated owing to the threat of deportation and family separation. According to the medical report that the author attached, her daughter has recurring suicidal thoughts and would be at high risk of committing suicide if deported. The author submits that appropriate mental health care and 6