Date of reply Latest reply on 14 January 2008 (had previously responded on 9 March 2005 and 17 May 2007). State party response On 9 March 2005, the State party provided information on follow-up. It stated that the complainant had submitted a request for a risk assessment prior to return to Mexico and that the State party will inform the Committee of the outcome. If the complainant can establish one of the motives for protection under the Immigration and Protection of Refugee’s Law, he will be able to present a request for permanent residence in Canada. The Committee’s decision will be taken into account by the examining officer and the complainant will be heard orally if the Minister considers it necessary. Since the request for asylum was considered prior to the entry into force of the Immigration and Protection of Refugee’s Law, that is prior to June 2002, the immigration agent will not be restricted to assessing facts after the denial of the initial request but will be able to examine all the facts and information old and new presented by the complainant. In this context, it contests the Committee’s finding in paragraph 7.5 of its decision which found that only new information could be considered during such a review. On 17 May 2007, the State party had informed the Committee that, on 28 March 2007, the complainant had filed two appeals before the Federal Court and that at that point, the Government of Canada did not intend to implement the order to return the complainant to Mexico. On 14 January 2008, the State party informed the Committee that the two appeals were dismissed by the Federal Court in June 2007, and that the immigration agent’s decisions are now final. For the moment, however, it did not intend to return the complainant to Mexico. It will inform the Committee of any future developments in this case. 113