CAT/C/61/D/687/2015 4.3 The State party explains that if the Federal Court decides that there is an error of law or an unreasonable finding of fact in the decision under review, it will grant leave for judicial review and it has the authority to set the decision aside and send it back for redetermination by a different decision maker, in accordance with such directions as the Court considers to be appropriate. It also explains that it does not accept as a general proposition that its domestic system of judicial review, and in particular its Federal Court, does not provide an effective remedy against removal where there are substantial grounds for believing that a complainant faces a risk of torture. In that regard, the State party considers that recent decisions of the Committee suggest that it has misapprehended the nature of judicial review by the Federal Court, given that the State party’s current system of judicial review does in fact provide for judicial review on the merits. 6 4.4 The State party also submits that the complainant failed to make an application on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. The State party submits that that process is an effective domestic remedy which is available to the complainant and which he should be required to exhaust prior to submitting a communication to the Committee. In addition, while a stay of removal is not automatically available on an application on humanitarian and compassionate grounds, if compelling humanitarian and compassionate grounds can be demonstrated, a stay may be granted until a final decision is made on the application for permanent residence. The complainant may also request an administrative deferral of removal from a Canada Border Services Agency enforcement officer. If an application on humanitarian and compassionate grounds is determined negatively, an application to the Federal Court for leave to judicially review the decision is available, and a motion may be made to the Federal Court for a judicial stay of removal pending any application for leave and for judicial review. 4.5 The State party then argues that the communication is inadmissible on the grounds of incompatibility with the provisions of the Convention because the complainant’s allegations concern threats from Sipah e Sahaba, a non-State entity that has been banned by the Government of Pakistan as a terrorist organization. The complainant has not provided any evidence that he has been or will be subjected to torture at the hands of public officials or anyone acting in an official capacity, or that the State concerned has consented to or would consent to or has acquiesced to or would acquiesce to such mistreatment. In this connection, it refers to the jurisprudence of the Committee, according to which communications concerning non-State actors have consistently been held inadmissible as falling outside the scope of article 3 of the Convention. 7 4.6 The State party also submits that the complainant has not sufficiently substantiated, for the purpose of admissibility, any of his allegations that he faces a real and personal risk of torture such that his removal to Pakistan would be a violation of article 3 of the Convention. It explains that domestic decision makers found that the complainant was not credible. Giving detailed reasons, the Refugee Protection Division expressed concerns about the plausibility of the complainant’s allegations, ultimately concluding that he was not a credible witness. In particular, the Division found several key aspects of the complainant’s claim to be implausible and noted several discrepancies. For example, it found that the complainant contradicted himself when speaking about the reason why a case of blasphemy would be registered against him and not against the three other individuals who accompanied him to the police station with the same purpose of protecting W.B. against the Sipah e Sahaba group. It also found that his testimony regarding the circumstances of W.B.’s attempts to seek protection and assistance from the complainant lacked credibility and plausibility. 4.7 The Refugee Protection Division rejected the complainant’s assertion that his opposition to the actions of Sipah e Sahaba with regard to the attack on W.B. were a reflection of his imputed political opinion, stating that an individual who is claiming 6 7 4 The State party refers to communication No. 319/2007, Singh v. Canada, decision adopted on 30 May 2011, para. 8.8; and communication No. 520/2012, W.G.D. v. Canada, decision adopted on 26 November 2014, para. 7.3. The State party refers to communication No. 177/2001, H.M.H.I. v. Australia, decision adopted on 1 May 2002, paras. 6.6 and 7.