Non-exhaustion of domestic remedies in case of lack of repeated applications for pre-removal risk assessments from Canada to Angola

Facts

The author of the communication is M.M., an Angolan citizen. He claims that, when he was an evangelical pastor in Luanda, representatives of the Ministry of the Interior ordered him to convince the young people in his church to join the ruling political party. Following his refusal, he was arrested and tortured by the police. In 2014 he fled the country, but he subsequently returned to Angola to take care of his wife. In 2016, M.M. was again arrested and tortured. After having escaped, he fled to Canada and applied for asylum. The application was rejected on the ground that his allegations lacked credibility. In 2019, despite the author’s attempts to submit new evidence in support of his claims, his applications for a pre-removal risk assessment and for permanent residence on humanitarian grounds were both denied. The author alleges that, by attaching insufficient weight to the evidence provided, Canada violated article 2 (right to an effective remedy). He also claims that, by returning him to Angola, the State party would expose him to a real risk of irreparable harm and thus violate articles 6 (right to life) and 7 (prohibition of torture). The Committee requested the State party not to deport the author while his complaint was under consideration.

Admissibility

The Committee notes the State party’s submission that the author has not exhausted all available domestic remedies because, as twelve months have passed since the first pre-removal risk assessment, he could have filed a new application. This would have allowed the Canadian authorities to consider the new evidence provided by the author. Since the author has not submitted any comments on this point, the Committee concludes that his claims are inadmissible for the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.

By: Giacomo Bruno