CAT/C/62/D/669/2015 that the complainant has failed to submit convincing arguments to show that the assessment of his claim by the Refugee Review Tribunal was arbitrary, lacking in due process or failed to respect his rights. 8.5 The Committee takes note of the complainant’s claim relating to an alleged attempt by the Government of China to involve him in Australian business circles and the resulting abduction of his daughter. The Committee notes that the complainant has described several unsuccessful attempts by unknown Chinese agents to offer him large amounts of money and other benefits in exchange for doing business with them. However, the complainant has failed to provide any detailed information or evidence in support of these seemingly unrelated events, which were separated in time, occurring in December 2010 and December 2012 — July 2013, or to articulate how these facts might justify the claim of a risk of a violation of article 3 of the Convention in case of return to China. 8.6 Finally, the Committee observes that the complainant’s claims relate to alleged continuous persecution by the Chinese authorities originating from his past work for the Government of China. The Committee notes, however, that the complainant’s allegations in this respect were reviewed on several occasions by the Australian authorities, including by the former Federal Magistrates Court and, on two occasions, by the Refugee Review Tribunal. These bodies found the complainant’s statements to be inconsistent and contradictory in several fundamental aspects, including the complainant’s and his mother’s employment situations, the complainant’s marital status, the alleged abduction of his daughter and the arrest warrant allegedly issued against him. On this basis and taking into account the fact that the complainant had applied for a protection visa only after the cancellation of his tourist visa and after having travelled to Fiji, these bodies concluded that there were no grounds to believe that the complainant would be at risk in case of return to China. 8.7 In the light of the foregoing, the Committee considers that the complainant has failed to substantiate, for the purpose of admissibility, the existence of a risk of a violation of article 3 of the Convention in case of return to China and concludes, in accordance with article 22 of the Convention and rule 107 (b) of its rules of procedure, that the complaint is manifestly unfounded. 9. The Committee therefore decides: (a) That the communication is inadmissible under article 22 of the Convention; (b) That the present decision shall be communicated to the complainant and to the State party. 7