CAT/C/59/D/649/2015 4.12 The Refugee Review Tribunal member rejected the complainant’s claims that he had been or would be at risk of adverse attention from the Sri Lankan authorities, noting that the complainant had been able to obtain a passport and travel freely in and out of Sri Lanka. The Tribunal member reviewed the complainant’s profile as a young Tamil male from the north-eastern part of Sri Lanka, taking into account the relevant country information. The member also considered the possibility that the complainant might be imputed with particular political opinions. The Tribunal concluded that the complainant was not suspected or accused of being an LTTE member. As such, it considered that there was not a real chance that the applicant would be persecuted for that reason. 4.13 The Refugee Review Tribunal member accepted that the complainant may be interviewed by the authorities upon his return to Sri Lanka. The Tribunal member noted that under section 45 (1) (b) of the Immigrants and Emigrants Act it is an offence to depart other than through an official port of entry or exit. Penalties for leaving Sri Lanka illegally can include custodial sentences of up to five years and a fine. The Tribunal member considered country information indicating that returnees to Sri Lanka were routinely interviewed by the authorities but were able to pass through the airport after routine identity and documentation checks. The Tribunal member did not consider that the complainant’s Tamil race or alleged LTTE connections would give him a profile that would attract adverse attention from the Sri Lankan authorities. 4.14 The Refugee Review Tribunal concluded that none of those factors, considered either in isolation or cumulatively, meant that there were substantial grounds for believing that there was a real risk that the complainant would suffer significant harm under section 36 (2) (aa) of the Migration Act 1958 if returned to Sri Lanka. 4.15 On 24 September 2013, the Federal Circuit Court dismissed the complainant’s application for a judicial review of the Refugee Review Tribunal’s decision. 15 The complainant was represented by counsel at the Court hearing. The Court concluded that there was no legal error with the Refugee Review Tribunal’s decision. On 23 May 2014, the Federal Court dismissed the complainant’s appeal concerning the Federal Circuit Court decision. 16 The applicant appeared in person at the Federal Court hearing with the assistance of an interpreter. The Federal Court decision is not referred to in the complainant’s submissions. On 15 October 2014, the complainant’s application for special leave to appeal the Federal Circuit Court decision to the High Court of Australia was also dismissed. 4.16 On 30 October 2014, the complainant made a request for ministerial intervention under sections 417 and 48B of the Migration Act 1958. Under those provisions, the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection can intervene in individual cases if he or she thinks it is in the public interest to do so. The claims made by the complainant were again assessed in full, with consideration given to the decisions reached by the Refugee Review Tribunal, the Federal Circuit Court and the Federal Court. No further information provided in the complainant’s request for ministerial intervention indicated that the complainant had an enhanced chance of making a successful protection visa application, which is why the complainant’s request under section 48B of the Migration Act 1958 was not referred to the Minister. The complainant’s case was, however, referred to the Assistant Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, under section 417, who declined to intervene. 15 16 Federal Circuit Court of Australia, SZSHO v. Minister for Immigration & Anor, judgment of 18 September 2013 (FCCA 1457). Federal Court of Australia, SZSHO v. Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, judgment of 23 May 2014 (FCA 535). 7