CAT/C/43/D/307/2006 extreme sanctions or inhuman treatment upon return to Iraq. On 28 June 1999, the complainant’s application was dismissed. 2.7 The complainant did not request leave to apply to the Federal Court for judicial review of the decision on his humanitarian and compassionate application. 2.8 On 14 August 1999, the complainant married a Canadian citizen, who filed an application to sponsor his immigration to Canada on 20 August 1999. On 6 March 2002, Citizenship and Immigration Canada informed the complainant that his sponsored application for permanent residence had been refused on the basis that he was inadmissible to Canada, since there were reasonable grounds to believe that he had participated in crimes against humanity. His wife’s appeal to the Immigration Appeal Division was dismissed on 5 July 2004, under Section 64 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, for lack of jurisdiction to hear her spousal sponsorship appeal with respect to a person found to be inadmissible in Canada. 2.9 On 18 November 2004, the complainant filed an application for a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) pursuant to Section 112 of the Immigration and Refugee Act. In his PRRA application form, he claimed that after the change of regime in Iraq, he was no longer at risk of life and cruel or unusual treatment upon return to Iraq because he had deserted the military, but because he was a Sunni Muslim who had served in the Republican Guards under Saddam Hussein. Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad was full of former members of the Republican Guards. 2.10 On 21 January 2005, the complainant was informed that his PRRA application had been rejected, since he had been determined not to be at personal risk to his life or of torture or cruel and unusual treatment or punishment if returned to Iraq. The PRRA officer observed that the complainant’s name did not appear on the list of most wanted persons in Iraq. His fear of return based on his desertion from the army no longer had an objectively identifiable basis after the fall of Saddam’s regime. That the complainant was a Sunni Muslim and former member of the Republican Guards was not by itself a reason that the Coalition forces would consider him an enemy or a terrorist to be imprisoned. On the contrary, former members of the Republican Guards were permitted to work in the civil service or to join the armed forces of the new government. Given his low profile, there were no grounds to believe that the complainant would be the victim of acts of vengeance. The general instability in Iraq affected all Iraqis and was not personal to the complainant. 2.11 The complainant did not request leave to apply to the Federal Court for judicial review of the PRRA decision. 2.12 On 11 February 2005, a removal order was issued against the complainant. On 19 October 2006, he was informed that his deportation to Iraq via Jordan had been scheduled for 31 October 2006. On 29 October 2006, the complainant requested the enforcement officer to defer his removal until the Committee has taken a final decision on his complaint. By fax dated 30 October 2006, the Canadian Border Services Agency notified the complainant that his request for deferral had been denied. 2.13 On 30 October 2006, the complainant applied for leave to apply to the Federal Court for judicial review of the decision not to defer his removal. However, he did not submit additional documents required to complete his application. The application was still pending at the time of submission of the complaint. He also applied for a stay of removal. On 31 October 2006, the Federal Court dismissed the motion for a stay. 2.14 The complainant failed to appear for his removal from Canada on 31 October 2006. Accordingly, an arrest warrant was issued against him under Section 55 (1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. The complainant’s current whereabouts are unknown. 4 GE.09-46716