CAT/C/63/D/767/2016 5.4 He further claims that the situation of minorities in Pakistan is deteriorating, with daily reports of killings of Shias by Lashkar-e-Taiba. The Canadian authorities have warned against all non-essential travel to Pakistan. 5.5 Therefore, the complainant claims that he has established prima facie that he was a victim of torture in the past and that he would face a substantial personal, real and present risk of torture in the future. He adds that the rejection of pertinent evidence by the Canadian authorities demonstrates a denial of justice. 5.6 The complainant stresses that he has exhausted all available domestic remedies. He chose not to pursue the remedies listed by the State party as they are expensive, ineffective and unlikely to bring effective relief, with very slim chance of success. Furthermore, these remedies have no suspensive effect on the removal. The State party has no effective recourse that would correct mistakes and prevent violations of international law. 5.7 Furthermore, the complainant married a Canadian permanent resident on 12 September 2016, who has sponsored him for permanent residence in Canada on 26 September 2016; however, the mere act of sponsorship cannot stay his removal, unless approved. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any complaint 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. 6.2 The Committee recalls that, in accordance with article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention, it shall not consider any communication from an individual unless it has ascertained that the individual has exhausted all available domestic remedies. This rule does not apply where it has been established that the application of those remedies has been unreasonably prolonged or is unlikely to bring effective relief. 9 6.3 The Committee takes note of the State party’s argument that the complaint should be declared inadmissible under article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention on the grounds that the complainant has failed to exhaust all available domestic remedies, as he failed to seek judicial review of the negative pre-removal risk assessment and Canada Border Services Agency decisions and as his application for permanent residence based on humanitarian and compassionate considerations was pending. The Committee also takes note of the State party’s submission that the complainant failed to apply for a second pre-removal risk assessment, for which he has been eligible since 29 December 2016. 6.4 The Committee recalls its jurisprudence that a humanitarian and compassionate application is not an effective remedy for the purposes of admissibility pursuant to article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention, given its discretionary and non-judicial nature and the fact that it does not stay the removal of a complainant. 10 Accordingly, the Committee does not consider it necessary for the complainant to exhaust the application for permanent residence on the basis of humanitarian and compassionate grounds for the purpose of admissibility. 11 6.5 Concerning the complainant’s failure to apply for leave to seek judicial review of the pre-removal risk assessment and Canada Border Services Agency decisions, the Committee notes the State party’s argument that judicial review in such cases assesses, inter alia, whether a factual or legal error has been made and that such review is effective and 9 10 11 6 See, inter alia, E.Y. v. Canada (CAT/C/43/D/307/2006/Rev.1), para. 9.2. See also the Committee’s general comment No. 4 (2017) on the implementation of article 3 in the context of article 22, para. 34. See, e.g., communications J.S. v. Canada (CAT/C/62/D/695/2015), para. 6.3; J.M. v. Canada (CAT/C/60/D/699/2015), para. 6.2; A v. Canada (CAT/C/57/D/583/2014), para. 6.2; and W.G.D. v. Canada (CAT/C/53/D/520/2012), para. 7.4. See, e.g., communication S.S. v. Canada (CAT/C/62/D/715/2015), para. 6.3.