CCPR/C/106/D/1912/2009 discretionary review by an officer to determine whether a person should be granted permanent residence in Canada for humanitarian and compassionate reasons. When allegations of risk upon return are made, as in the author’s case, the officer assesses the risk a person may face in the country to which he would be returned. In cases such as the author’s where the application is based on risk in the country of origin, a specifically trained PRRA officer assesses the H&C application. 4.9 On 17 September 2007, the author’s application was rejected. The PRRA officer assessing the H&C application accepted that the author’s house and land had been destroyed by the 2004 tsunami, but considered that the tsunami was a natural disaster that affected the entire coastal population of Sri Lanka. The officer did not believe the author’s allegation that his house had been destroyed in a bombing, since it was contradicted by his allegation that it was destroyed by the tsunami, and since the photos of the destroyed house had only been submitted to Canadian authorities after the time of the tsunami. As for the evidence submitted such as a letter from the Sri Lankan Red Cross Society dated 2004 and a letter from his Sri Lankan lawyer dated 2003, they mentioned the author’s arrests and torture of 1987 and 1989 only and did not refer to more recent arrests. The officer considered the human rights situation in Sri Lanka prevailing at the time of his decision and admitted that it was marked by extrajudicial murder by both the Government and the LTTE and other serious human rights violations. However, even accepting that the author had been arrested in 1987 and 1989, he had not established that he had had problems with either side since then. Therefore, there was insufficient proof that the author faced a personal risk to his life or security if returned to Sri Lanka. The author did not have the personal profile of a “young Tamil” who risked forced recruitment by the LTTE or who would be suspected by security forces of being a member or supporter of the LTTE. The author did not apply to the Federal Court for leave to apply for judicial review of this negative decision, as was his right. 4.10 The State party emphasizes that the risk assessment is performed by highly trained officers who consider the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as well as the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man. They also keep up-to-date with new developments in the areas concerned and have access to most recent information on the matter. On 17 September 2007, the PRRA application was rejected. The PRRA decision was based on the same grounds as the decision on the H&C application. 4.11 On 23 October 2007, the author applied to the Federal Court for judicial review and on 24 October 2007, he applied for a stay of removal pending a decision on his leave application. While it considered that the situation in Sri Lanka was no doubt alarming and while there may be massive violations of human rights in that country, the Court considered that the author had not succeeded, as recognized by the PRRA officer, in showing that he would be personally at risk. The Court therefore rejected the author’s application for a stay of removal. The author’s deportation was set for 1 November 2007. The author failed to appear for his scheduled removal and remained in Canada illegally. On 5 February 2008, the Court denied leave to apply for judicial review of the negative PRRA decision. 4.12 On 22 October 2007, at about the same time as he was seeking judicial review of his first PRRA decision, the author applied for another PRRA. His claim was essentially the same. The author added information related to his wife and son who had allegedly stayed for two years outside Sri Lanka travelling in neighbouring countries. Upon their return, the author’s son was allegedly arrested on several occasions. The PRRA officer only considered the elements of proof that post-dated the first PRRA application. The author’s application was rejected on the basis that the author did not fit the profile of a Tamil who would be subject to persecution, that his situation was no different from that of all the 8