In P.S. v. Canada the Committee had found the communication inadmissible on the grounds that the complainant had not applied for judicial review of a decision denying his request for a ministerial waiver.

The complainants then decided to request leave to apply for a judicial review of the decision of the Refugee Determination Division.

Had their application been turned down, the complainants could have requested leave to apply for judicial review of the decision.

2.3 On 28 September 1999, the Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT), following a hearing at which the complainant appeared with interpretation, affirmed the decision not to grant a protection visa.

The first RRT decision found that the complainant's evidence lacked credibility and that some evidence was fabricated.

The Claim

The claim

The complaint

Therefore, appropriate weight should be given to the findings of RRT taking note of the inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence before the domestic authorities.

The Committee observes that, in respect of the first RRT decision which concentrated on his credibility, the complainant pursued no appeal to the Federal Court and has offered no explanation for his failure to do so.

The author sought to have the HREOC decision reviewed by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, but was advised that the matter was outside their jurisdiction.

Revision

Northern Mariana Islands

Revision

We get ready.

Check.

Date of the complaint 29 August 2000 (initial submission)

In case there is still doubt as to the wish of the complainant, the Committee shall be seized of the complaint.

Comments by the complainant

The complainant's submission

The complainant's comments

We can't complain.

Stop beefing.

Can't complain.

The State party, adopting the reasons advanced by RRT for its decision, rejects the complainant's contention that the inconsistencies in his evidence were not material.

The State party's submission on admissibility and merits and the complainant's comments thereon

Complainant's comments on the State party's observations regarding the admissibility and merits of the complaint

Complainant's comments on the State party's submissions on the admissibility and the merits of the communication

Summary of audited activities and audit reports

Protocol Revision

Revision A

Revision B

doing a life review.

(a) That the complaint is inadmissible and

(c) The object of the complaint

You got a right to complain.

Stepan, stop whining.

5.3 In response to the State party's argument concerning the possibility of judicial review of the decision to deny him relief on humanitarian grounds, the complainant asserts that such a remedy would be based on the same facts as his application for refugee status.

4.9 The State party notes that in R.K. v. Canada the Committee found that the complainant had not exhausted domestic remedies if he had not pursued a request for judicial review of a negative decision by the Refugee Determination Division and had not lodged a request for a ministerial waiver.

The complainant did not pursue judicial review of the first RRT decision which he now impugns as both biased and flawed owing to a misapplication of the law.

Audit process

Scope of audit

Review and reform of the law

External audit

Internal audit