CAT/C/56/D/562/2013 of torture”.16 The complainant argues that the Federal Court did not assess his case on its merits, refused to hear him, and that the same Federal Court judge rejected his judicial review application without giving any reasons in March 2013 and August 2014. State party’s additional observations 7.1 In a submission dated 7 November 2014, the State party reiterates that the Federal Court’s decision denying leave reinforces its position that there is no evidence that the author would face a personal and real risk of torture in Uganda, and that the author’s claim is inadmissible on the ground of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies because he failed to apply for permanent residence on the basis of humanitarian and compassionate considerations. 7.2 The State party argues that a humanitarian and compassionate application consists of a broad, discretionary review by an officer to determine whether a person should be granted permanent residency in Canada for humanitarian and compassionate reasons. The test is whether the applicant would suffer unusual, undeserved or disproportionate hardship if he or she had to apply for a permanent resident visa from outside Canada, “according to the general rule”. The assessing officer considers all the relevant evidence and information, including the applicant’s written submissions. 7.3 Until 2010, the humanitarian and compassionate consideration also included a risk component. Following the legislative reform of the refugee and protection system in 2012, humanitarian and compassionate applications are no longer based on risks assessed within the refugee determination or pre-removal risk assessment processes, such as the risk of torture. Nevertheless, hardship potentially faced by the applicants in their country of origin remains a relevant consideration. Examples of such hardship include a lack of critical medical or health care and adverse country conditions that have a direct, negative impact on the applicant, such as war, natural disasters, unfair treatment of minorities, political instability, lack of employment and widespread violence.17 Decisions on humanitarian and compassionate applications are also reviewable, with leave, on judicial review by the Federal Court of Canada. 7.4 The State party indicates that, subject to certain exceptions, applicants must wait twelve months from their last negative decision from the Immigration and Refugee Protection Board before submitting a humanitarian and compassionate application. In the present case, the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Board determined that the author was not a Convention refugee by a decision dated 19 October 2012. Therefore, the complainant has been able to apply for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds since 19 October 2013. If the complainant were to apply for and be granted permanent residence on that basis, his complaint before the Committee would be rendered moot as the author would be able to remain in Canada. The State party refers to the jurisprudence of the Committee in P.S.S. v. Canada, according to which the possibility of making an application for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds was identified among the domestic remedies available to bring effective relief to the complainant, and where the Committee consequently found that the communication was inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies.18 16 17 18 The author refers to communication No. 319/2007, Singh v. Canada, decision adopted on 30 May 2011, para. 8.9. The State party refers to “The humanitarian and compassionate assessment: Hardship and the H&C assessment”. Available at www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/tools/perm/hc/processing/hardship.asp. See communication No. 66/1997, P.S.S. v. Canada, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 13 November 1998, para. 6.2. 9