CAT/C/55/D/505/2012 impartiality of PRRA officers and the PRRA programme have been considered in detail and have been confirmed by Canadian courts, including the Federal Court of Appeal.15 4.26 The State party submits that the Federal Court did not grant leave to the complainants for a judicial review of the RPD decision. The Federal Court’s decision not to grant leave was consistent with the RPD determination that, even if the complainants had been found credible in respect of their claims of past torture, they nevertheless have an internal flight alternative given the situation in India at present. The PRRA officer provided detailed reasons in his decision for either refusing to consider certain evidence or ascribing little weight to the evidence. These reasons were in accordance with the statutory and regulatory rules governing the PRRA process, in particular section 113 (a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. The State party submits that the new evidence rule for this risk assessment process strikes the correct balance between fairness to the person and sufficient discretion to decision makers to reject evidence that was available to the claimants at the time of the original decision on their claim for protection but which, without good reason, was not provided to the RPD. The rule recognizes the practical need to keep the second assessment prior to removal focused on any changed circumstances. The evidentiary rule allows for a fair degree of flexibility as it allows for consideration of evidence predating the RPD determination that was not reasonably available to the applicants or that the applicants could not otherwise reasonably have been expected to present at the time of the RPD refusal decision. 16 After giving careful consideration to the complainants’ PRRA application and accompanying documents, the PRRA decision maker found that the complainants had provided insufficient evidence to demonstrate that they would be at risk if returned to India. 4.27 The State party submits that the complainants have not clearly identified or explained any specific examples of alleged procedural unfairness during the consideration of their various applications to domestic Canadian decision makers, let alone arbitrariness or denials of justice. Although the complainants imply in their communication that the domestic decision makers were biased and lacked independence, they do not make any specific allegations or provide any specific evidence with respect to the conduct of their own domestic proceedings. When the complainants applied to the Federal Court for leave to seek judicial review of their RPD decision, they could have raised allegations of bias and/or a lack of independence, but they did not do so. They also could have raised specific allegations of this nature in their application for leave to seek judicial review of their PRRA decision. They did not do so, however, and instead made broad systemic assertions about bias and lack of independence, similar to those contained in their communication. The complainants are simply dissatisfied with the results of their applications, and generally the Government’s decision to remove them to India. The State party submits that the complainants have failed to establish, on even a prima facie basis, that the Canadian decisions in their particular case were arbitrary or in any way amounted to a denial of justice. 4.28 The State party observes that the complainants also impugned the effectiveness of applications to the Federal Court for judicial review and for stays of removal. It submits that the complainants have not provided sufficient evidence to substantiate the allegation 15 16 12 See Say v. Canada (Solicitor General), 2005 FC 739, affirmed by 2005 FCA 422, application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed [2006] S.C.C.A. No. 48; Nalliah v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 759. Section 113 (a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act establishes that evidence submitted for the purpose of a PRRA must be “new evidence that arose after the rejection [by the RPD] or was not reasonably available, or that the applicant could not reasonably have been expected in the circumstances to have presented, at the time of the rejection”.