CAT/C/59/D/666/2015 for group-based protection mechanisms or for a presumption of eligibility for Sri Lankans of Tamil ethnicity originating from the north of the country”.7 4.4 As part of assessing the risk the complainant faces of being persecuted because of his race and political opinions, the decision maker specifically considered the complainant’s claims that he would suffer significant harm, including torture, as a result of being a Tamil man and a failed asylum seeker returning to Sri Lanka. The decision maker found that the complainant does not have a profile that would be of significance to the Sri Lankan authorities nor does he belong to any particular high-risk group, which would increase his chances of being detained or subjected to significant harm. The decision maker further noted that the complainant has not committed any crimes and has never been charged with any offence, so it was not likely that he would have been identified as someone who warranted increased scrutiny. 4.5 The primary decision maker determined that the complainant’s claims lacked credibility, and concluded that he did not have a significant profile that would draw particular, adverse attention from the Sri Lankan army, government authorities or any paramilitary or other group. In the light of all of the circumstances, any vulnerability arising from the complainant’s Tamil ethnicity and its impact on his returning as a failed asylum seeker did not engage the State party’s non-refoulement obligations. 4.6 The decision of the Minister’s delegate not to grant the complainant a protection visa was confirmed on 29 May 2013 upon appeal to the Refugee Review Tribunal. The Tribunal is a specialized, external review body and provides full and independent review of decisions concerning protection visas. The author was present at the Tribunal hearing and was represented by a registered migration agent. He was able to make oral submissions with the assistance of an interpreter. In connection with the complainant’s claim to fear harm as a result of his brother being shot in 2005, the Tribunal found that his brother was not of interest to the Government or other groups in Sri Lanka because of a link to LTTE; he continued to live and work in Sri Lanka and was facing no difficulties. The Tribunal did not accept that the complainant was involved in the Tamil National Alliance in the manner claimed, i.e., that he had been targeted in Sri Lanka because of an association with the Alliance and that he had worked with, for, or was associated with, the Alliance Member of Parliament S.Y. The Tribunal noted the complainant’s lack of ability to provide details about the Alliance and to explain why he worked for it; the inconsistent evidence as to the length of his involvement with the Alliance; the inability to identify the political party to which S.Y. belonged; the failure to refer to any association or work with S.Y. or the Alliance at his entry interview, which was explained as forgetfulness; the inconsistent evidence as to his familial relationship with the Member of Parliament; and inconsistent evidence as to when and on how many occasions the complainant had been threatened. The Tribunal was unable to place any weight upon the document submitted as corroborating evidence from the Member of Parliament, taking into account the high prevalence of document fraud in Sri Lanka. The Tribunal also did not consider that the complainant would face persecution solely on the basis of his Tamil ethnicity. It accepted that upon return to Sri Lanka the complainant might experience a delay in having his entry processed and might be detained and fined before being released, but decided that those circumstances did not engage the State party’s non-refoulement obligations. 4.7 On 21 October 2014, the Federal Circuit Court dismissed the complainant’s application for judicial review of the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal, concluding that no error by the Tribunal was apparent, that the Tribunal had examined and determined 7 4 UNHCR Eligibility Guidelines for Assessing the International Protection Needs of Asylum Seekers from Sri Lanka, 5 July 2010.