CAT/C/61/D/659/2015 that the profile of the complainant and his family as failed refugee claimants did not expose them to a risk of torture if returned to Sri Lanka. 7.4 The State party submits that the officer who considered the application for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds also provided detailed reasons for the rejection of the application filed by the complainant on his own and on behalf of his spouse and daughter, who was 15 years old at the time. That officer was “not satisfied that the complainant and his family would suffer unusual and undeserved or disproportionate hardship should they present their permanent residence application abroad”. 7.5 In coming to this conclusion, the officer considered various factors, including the best interest of the child. In that regard, the officer considered the fact that the family would be returning to Sri Lanka as a unit and the complainant did not demonstrate that his daughter would not have access to adequate education, health or social services. The officer concluded that there was not sufficient evidence to establish that the general consequences of applying for permanent residence from outside Canada would have a negative impact on the child. 7.6 The State party maintains that the complainant and his family have not exhausted all available domestic remedies as they have not applied to the Federal Court for leave for a judicial review of the decisions of 30 October 2015 rejecting their pre-removal risk assessment and permanent residence applications. The State party explains that a successful judicial review would result in an order for reconsideration of the impugned decisions. 7.7 The State party argues that the complainant and his family could have also sought leave for a judicial review of the decision of 28 January 2015 taken by the officer of Canada Border Services Agency rejecting their application for administrative deferral of their removal. The State party further informs the Committee that a judicial stay of removal pending the disposition of a Federal Court application may also be available. 7.8 The State party reiterates that judicial review is a procedure that should be exhausted for the purposes of admissibility and that the judicial review by the Federal Court provides for review on the merits and provides an effective remedy against removal. 7.9 The State party claims that the complainant’s assertions that the judicial review process is both costly and futile are unsubstantiated. The State party submits that mere doubts about the effectiveness of a remedy do not absolve a person from seeking to exhaust that remedy and that it is generally not within the scope of the Committee’s competence to evaluate the prospects of success of a domestic remedy.22 Furthermore, the complainant and his family have not shown, or even alleged, that they lacked the financial means to pursue those remedies. 7.10 Finally, the State party informs the Committee that a new application for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds was received in November 2016. The application was filed by the complainant on his own and on behalf of his spouse and daughter. The State party informs the Committee that they will be entitled to apply to the Federal Court for leave for a judicial review of a negative decision regarding an application for permanent residence. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 8.1 Before considering any claim submitted in a communication, the Committee must decide whether it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention, that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 22 10 See, for example, communications No. 22/1995, M.A. v. Canada, decision adopted on 3 May 1995, paras. 3-4; and No. 86/1997, P.S. v. Canada, decision adopted on 18 November 1999, paras. 5.1-5.3 and 6.3.