CCPR/C/116/D/2314/2013 2.8 After the pre-removal risk assessment application was rejected, the author was advised by the Canada Border Service Agency to apply for a new passport. He went to the Sri Lanka High Commission in Ottawa and requested a new passport, but his request was rejected because the High Commission does not provide documents to persons holding certain types of work permits linked to asylum proceedings, as the author had. He was informed that only the Canada Border Service Agency could request a passport for persons in such a situation. On 15 October 2013, the author met with representatives of the Agency and was informed that it would apply for a travel document on his behalf before the Sri Lankan authorities. The complaint 3.1 The author submits that, by forcibly returning him to Sri Lanka, the Canadian authorities would violate his rights under articles 6 (1), 7 and 9 (1) of the Covenant.11 He asserts that he would be subjected to mistreatment on the basis of his profile, characterized by the following features: (a) he is an ethnic Tamil from Jaffna; (b) he is a failed asylum seeker; (c) he was a journalist photographer for the Uthayan, which is perceived to be critical of the Government and has been repeatedly targeted for this reason; (d) he was assaulted during several incidents during the Sri Lankan civil war; (e) he would be forcibly removed to Sri Lanka with a travel document issued by the Sri Lanka High Commission at the request of the Canadian authorities. 3.2 The author asserts that the Immigration Refugee Board was unreasonable and procedurally unfair in finding that he had not established that he had been a journalist photographer for the Uthayan or another newspaper because he had an unsatisfactory knowledge of cameras and photography. The author states that the Board member who had asked the questions on this issue was using terms that the interpreter could not translate into Tamil. He indicates that the Board acknowledged these interpretation problems in its decision and that he could have replied to the questions if he had understood them. The author also maintains that the Board had made an error when questioning his credibility. As he claimed before the Board, his photos had been published under different aliases for security reasons and he did not have any receipts from the newspaper because, according to the practice of the newspaper, he was paid in cash. He further submits that he had not been able to get a letter from the newspaper before the hearing before the Board because the head of the photography department was no longer working there. The author explained to the Board that he had tried unsuccessfully to call the newspaper and that his sister and mother had gone to the offices of the Uthayan to ask for a work certificate, but two policemen had not let them in. He provided a letter from one of his former colleagues from the Uthayan confirming that he had worked there, but that had not been mentioned in the decision of the Board.12 3.3 The author considers as insufficient the argument of the Immigration Refugee Board that his press credentials had been forged because such documents are often forged in Sri Lanka. He states that even the Board’s jurisprudence recognizes that evidence of the widespread availability of fraudulent documents is not, by itself, sufficient grounds on 11 12 The author also refers to article 3 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. The letter is signed by N. R., who states that he worked as a photographer for the Uthayan newspaper from 2004 to the first half of 2007 and that the author had joined his team by the end of 2006. The letter is not dated but indicates that it was issued at the request of the author and confirms the author’s account of his arrest by the army during a demonstration in 2007. 5