CCPR/C/116/D/2314/2013 2.5 The author submits that he has exhausted all available domestic remedies, as the only remedy open to him was the appeal to the Federal Court, which, on 29 July 2013, denied his permission to commence a judicial review of the decision of the Immigration Refugee Board. He also claims that, at the time he submitted his complaint to the Committee, he was ineligible to file applications for a pre-removal risk assessment and for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds, under a legislative provision barring such applications within one year of a negative asylum decision. 10 2.6 On 12 February 2014, the author became eligible for a pre-removal risk assessment. He submitted his application on 19 March 2014, which was rejected on 17 April 2014. The pre-removal risk assessment officer considered that the author had repeated many of the allegations made before the Immigration Refugee Board. He also rejected most of the evidence presented by the author, considering that some of it had already been presented to the Board, or that it had predated the decision of the Board, or that no satisfactory explanation for a late submission had been given, or that it was irrelevant, and could therefore not be taken into account in the context of a pre-removal risk assessment. In that connection, the State party refers to: (a) a medical certificate dated 12 March 2007 that indicates that the author had received treatment in a hospital in Jaffna, following an attack that had resulted in injuries and a fractured arm; (b) photographs of the author’s injuries; (c) an affidavit from the author’s mother dated 23 November 2012 confirming the incidents he claimed as basis for his asylum request; and (d) an undated letter from Ms. S. stating that she knew the author from his school days and that he was an honest man with no links to anti-social or anti-Government activities and who used to work as a media photographer. Only two new pieces of evidence were accepted: a letter dated 20 May 2013 signed by the Chief Editor of the Uthayan, certifying that the author had worked for the newspaper as a photojournalist from October 2006 to May 2011, and a letter from the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka dated 6 December 2013, regarding a complaint made by the author’s mother on 27 September 2013, according to which soldiers and “boys with weapons” had come to her house the day before and had asked about the author’s whereabouts. The letter states that it is not advisable for the author to return to Sri Lanka as he would be “definitely identified by the security forces and taken to serious task”. 2.7 The pre-removal risk assessment officer considered that the country conditions had not significantly changed after the decision of the Board and that only perceived critics or opponents to the Government would face a risk if returned. The question for the officer was therefore whether the author had demonstrated that he personally was an actual or perceived critic of the Government. The officer concluded that the evidence submitted did not demonstrate such a profile. He considered that the letter from the Uthayan was not reliable because the author did not plausibly explain why he was not able to get it before. The officer also considered that, even if the letter was genuine, it did not establish the author’s allegations of risk, as it did not indicate that the author would be perceived as a critic or opponent to the Government who would be exposed to a real risk in Sri Lanka. As for the letter from the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka, the officer doubted that it was genuine because its tone was not professional and it failed to establish that the author would be at risk if returned. Finally, the officer reiterated the assessment of the Immigration Refugee Board that being a Tamil male from northern Sri Lanka was no longer a risk factor. On 19 June 2014, the author applied to the Federal Court for leave to commence a judicial review of the negative decision concerning the pre-removal risk assessment. The Court dismissed the application without reason on 7 October 2014. 10 4 The author cites the Canada Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, subsection 25 (1.2) (c) and article 112 (2) (c). The decision of the Immigration Refugee Board was issued on 12 February 2013 and the complaint was presented to the Committee on 6 December 2013.