CAT/C/62/D/669/2015 3.2 The complainant contends that, following his immigration detention, the Government of China attempted to force him to work for it in Australia by providing information on businessmen and women of interest to the Government of China. He provides the names of individuals who contacted him on different occasions for that purpose and offered him large amounts of money. He alleges that the attempts of the Government of China to recruit him led to his daughter’s kidnapping. He also claims that he has been warned to remain quiet if he wants to see his daughter again. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 In its submissions dated 23 December 2015, the State party argues that the communication is inadmissible because the complainant’s claims are manifestly unfounded, or, alternatively, without merit. 4.2 The State party notes that the claims made by the complainant — except those referred to in para. 4.5 below — have been thoroughly considered by domestic administrative and judicial instances, including by the Department of Immigration and Border Protection and, on two occasions, by the Refugee Review Tribunal. Both Refugee Review Tribunal decisions were in turn subjected to judicial review. Robust domestic processes have determined that the complainant’s claims were not credible and did not warrant protection under article 3 of the Convention. 7 The State party recalls the Committee’s general comment No. 1 (1997) on the implementation of article 3, in the sense that the Committee is not an appellate or judicial body. 4.3 The complainant’s protection visa application was rejected because the complainant was considered to have been untruthful about his reasons for travelling to and remaining in Australia. His claim that his wife had bribed the Chinese police to kidnap his daughter in 2009 was also rejected. The delegate concluded that the complainant had circumstances in China that he was avoiding, which may include his assistance relating to investigations into allegations of corruption, either as a witness or as a suspect, and that he introduced claims about his wife and daughter as a means of enhancing his claims through intrigue. 4.4 The State party notes that, on 17 May 2012, the complainant was released from immigration detention and granted a bridging visa. On 23 March 2015, he was detained again. 4.5 The State party notes that a number of the allegations made by the complainant before to the Committee had not been expressly raised before the Chinese authorities. For instance, the complainant claims that his father was visited on several occasions by the Beijing police between 2011 and 2012; however, during the first Refugee Review Tribunal hearing the complainant stated that the police had been in contact with and threatened his father. He suggested that the Governments of Australia and China had colluded but does not substantiate this statement. He did not claim at the domestic level that he had been given medication against his will. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 In his submissions dated 12 December 2016, the complainant states that, on 7 July 2016, his father was granted a permanent visa to join his wife in Australia. On 7 October 2016, the complainant was released from immigration detention for the second time on a six-month visitor’s visa. The complainant notes that he received no explanation as to the reasons for granting that visa. He also notes that, a few days after his release, he was contacted by an immigration official, who advised the complainant that his sister should apply for a permanent visa for him under the family reunification provisions. 5.2 7 On 18 October 2016, the complainant filed a new request for ministerial intervention. The State party notes that the complainant’s claims have been assessed, in particular, under the complementary protection provisions contained in paragraph 36 (2) of the Migration Act 1958, which reflects the non-refoulement obligations of the Government of Australia under the Convention and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 5