CAT/C/48/D/343/2008 2.5 On 12 February 2005, a United States judge granted the complainant protection under the Convention based primarily on the risk of torture linked to his father’s opposition political views.4 However, the complainant was deported to Canada under the Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America for Cooperation in the Examination of Refugee Status Claims from Nationals of Third Countries on 9 April 2006, after completing his prison sentence in the United States. 2.6 Upon his arrival in Canada, the complainant applied for refugee status but his application was declared inadmissible because of the discontinuance of the proceedings in 2003. On 18 October 2006, Citizenship and Immigration Canada issued a report stating that the complainant was inadmissible to Canada because of his past criminal activity. On 30 March 2007, he applied for a pre-removal risk assessment (PRRA).5 His application was rejected on 7 April 2008 on the grounds that: (a) the complainant himself was not a UDPS member; (b) he had failed to demonstrate that his father was still a UDPS member and had experienced problems as a result of his political views during his stay in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in 2006–2007; (c) the complainant could relocate to Kinshasa, as no violence against the Luba seemed to be taking place there; and (d) the complainant’s credibility concerning the events allegedly experienced in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in 2002 was in doubt. 2.7 The complainant claims to have submitted evidence to refute the PRRA officer’s conclusions, which the latter allegedly failed to take into consideration. For example, he maintains that, during his father’s stay in the Democratic Republic of the Congo during the election period from March 2006 to November 2007, the latter had received anonymous phone calls and threats from the police, probably on account of a transfer of money he had made to the UDPS fund and his efforts to have his house, which was illegally occupied by Government officials, returned to him. 2.8 The complainant claims that the PRRA officer, on his own initiative, made enquiries about his father and used extrinsic evidence (not disclosed to the complainant) to call into 4 5 4 from prison in the Congo, he bears little physical evidence of his torture. The psychological effects are still evident. Based upon what Mr. Kalonzo describes to me about his current condition and based upon my training and experience in evaluating torture victims, he seems to suffer from aspects of post-traumatic stress disorder. Additionally, he seems to have a very reasonable fear of what may become of his life if he is returned to the Congo.” According to the information submitted by the complainant, the American judge found there was sufficient evidence to conclude that there was a possibility that the complainant would be tortured in the event of his return, albeit not necessarily immediately upon return and not with complete certainty; there was, however, a risk of torture. The pre-removal risk assessment (PRRA) report is attached to the present complaint. In that report, the PRRA officer states, inter alia, that on the personal information form submitted to the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, the complainant stated that his father had died in 2002 as a result of ill-treatment. However, other documents showed that his father was still alive. In addition, the complainant did not mention that he had lived in the United States, but rather submitted that he had lived in the Democratic Republic of the Congo until his arrival in Canada in January 2003. The report also indicates that the complainant, when questioned at a hearing on 17 December 2007, contradicted himself several times and omitted important information. For example, he claimed to be unable to provide any details concerning the prison in which he had been held or the circumstances of his detention. It was unclear from his testimony whether he had escaped from prison or whether he had been released lawfully with the assistance of his lawyer. In different statements, he claimed to have been released in July 2002, August 2002 and January 2003, which means that the duration of his alleged detention ranged from 3 to 9 months. Contradictions were also noted as to the dates of and reasons for his father’s trip to the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the latter’s current UDPS membership status. GE.12-43835