CAT/C/61/D/614/2014 the complainant.10 The risk must be “assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory and suspicion”.11 4.3 The State party asserts that the complainant’s claims have been thoroughly considered through a series of robust domestic processes that considered and determined that his claims were not credible and did not engage the State party’s non-refoulement obligations. In particular, the complainant’s claims have been assessed under the complementary protection provisions contained in section 36 (2) (aa) of the Migration Act 1958, which reflect non-refoulement obligations as enshrined in article 3 of the Convention. 4.4 The State party recalls that the complainant lodged an application for a protection visa following his unlawful arrival by boat in Australia on 1 December 2011. On 6 March 2012, the Department of Immigration and Citizenship refused the complainant’s application, following assessment of all the complainant’s protection claims, on the basis that he was not a person to whom Australia owed protection obligations. During a Protection Obligations Evaluation, he was interviewed with the assistance of an interpreter, while all relevant country information was considered.12 The primary decision maker concluded that the complainant’s claims about harassment in 2008 and 2011, some three and six years after his participation in the play in 2005, and about his abduction in June 2011, were not credible. The decision maker accepted that the complainant participated in the play in 2005, which was sponsored and organized by LTTE, but did not accept that he was consequently suspected of being a supporter of LTTE and of interest to paramilitary groups of the Sri Lanka Army. The State party submitted that this conclusion was supported by the fact that he had been able to depart from Sri Lanka using a genuine passport without incident. The decision maker also relied on country information that indicated that the security situation in Sri Lanka had improved since the cessation of hostilities in 2009, and that the complainant would not be targeted for reasons of his Tamil ethnicity. Accordingly, the complainant was found not to have a well-founded fear of persecution. The complainant’s claims were not assessed under the complementary protection provisions of the Migration Act during the Protection Obligations Evaluation, as those provisions were not in effect on 6 March 2012 when the determination was made. 13 However, the complainant’s claims were subsequently assessed under the complementary protection provisions in further domestic processes, including the Independent Protection Assessment. 4.5 On 27 September 2012, the Independent Protection Assessment was undertaken with regard to the decision to refuse the complainant’s application for a protection visa, and confirmed that he did not meet either of the criteria for a protection visa under the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, of 1951, or under the complementary protection provisions of the Migration Act. The complainant was interviewed by the assessor on 11 July 2012, with the assistance of a Tamil interpreter and in the presence of a migration agent. The assessor considered background documents, as well as additional claims made in the complaint to the Committee, concerning the alleged targeting of other participants in the school play in 2005 and the interrogation of his brother by the Sri Lanka Army and armed gangs while he was in Malaysia in 2011. The assessor concluded that the complainant did not meet the criteria for a protection visa as he would not face a real risk of persecution if returned to Sri Lanka. There were no substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of his removal to Sri Lanka, he would face a real risk of suffering significant harm, including arbitrary deprivation of life, torture, or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The assessor did not consider the complainant to be a credible witness in relation to a large proportion of his claims. According to the Independent Protection Assessment Office’s decision on file, the inconsistencies in the complainant’s account concerned, for example, his story about seeking sanctuary in the local Roman Catholic church, and the fact that the complainant had 10 11 12 13 4 See communication No. 203/2002, A.R. v. Netherlands, decision adopted on 14 November 2003, para. 7.3. Ibid. The complainant did not claim at the Protection Obligations Evaluation stage that the Sri Lanka Army and armed gangs had interrogated his brother while the complainant was in Malaysia from 15 to 19 July 2011. The provisions of the Migration Act became effective on 24 March 2012.