CAT/C/49/D/417/2010 under the Migration Act 1958, claiming the status of refugee under the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees 1951. In his Protection Visa application, the complainant claimed that he had started practising Falun Gong in China in 1997 and had been an organizer in his local area. He claimed that during 2003 he was arrested and detained for three months after printing Falun Gong pamphlets and distributing them in mailboxes. The complainant alleged that he was forced to attend “brainwashing” classes in a “re-education centre” for three months and was released with reporting conditions when he wrote a letter renouncing his beliefs. 4.3 On 24 December 2003, a delegate of the Minister for Immigration refused the complainant’s Protection Visa application. The complainant sought a merits review by the Refugee Review Tribunal on 13 January 2004. On 25 February 2004, the Tribunal invited the complainant to give evidence at a hearing on 18 March 2004. On 16 March 2004, the complainant advised the Tribunal in writing that he did not wish to give evidence and consented to the Tribunal proceeding to make a decision in his absence. The Refugee Review Tribunal affirmed the immigration department’s decision on 15 April 2004. The Tribunal concluded that the complainant’s claims about his Falun Gong activities and practice were not credible. It was not prepared to accept the complainant’s claims without the opportunity to test his claims at a hearing and due to the lack of detail in the complainant’s claims. Specifically, the Tribunal did not accept that the applicant was a Falun Gong practitioner or that he had received adverse attention from Chinese authorities as a result of his activities.1 4.4 On 11 May 2007, the complainant sought judicial review of the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal by the Federal Magistrates Court. The complainant sought an appeal on the grounds that he had never received a letter from the Tribunal notifying him to attend the hearing and he claimed that his migration agent had not informed him of the hearing. The Court found that he was aware of the date of the Tribunal hearing and that he had been invited to attend the hearing. 2 Because of the general unreliability of the complainant’s evidence to the Court, the Court was not persuaded that the complainant did not attend the Tribunal hearing as a result of a fraudulent statement by his migration agent. On 19 September 2007, the Federal Magistrates Court dismissed the appeal on the basis that there was no jurisdictional error affecting the Tribunal’s decision.3 On 6 November 1 2 3 4 According to the Refugee Review Tribunal decision (available on file), the complainant did not provide any details about the nature of his Falun Gong practice, or on where or how often he practised. He claimed that he was a Falun Gong organizer in his area but did not provide details about when or how he came to be an organizer, how many members were in his group or where the group practised. He also claimed that after the Government began to supress Falun Gong, the police caused his groups many problems, committed acts of violence and destroyed their books, tapes and documents. However, he provided no particulars about the nature of the violence committed by police or when the alleged incidents of violence and destruction of property had occurred. The Court found that the complainant had signed a “Response to Hearing Invitation”, in which he had stated “I do not want to come to a hearing, I consent to the Tribunal proceeding to make a decision on the review without taking any further action to allow or enable me to appear before it”. According to the immigration department minutes (available on file), the migration authorities pointed to a series of inconsistencies in the complainant’s claims. He commenced judicial review at the Federal Magistrates Court in relation to the Refugee Review Tribunal decision on 11 May 2007, nearly three years after the Tribunal upheld the immigration department’s decision. His ground of appeal was that he did not receive the notification letter inviting him to attend the Refugee Review Tribunal hearing. In another statement submitted to the Federal Magistrates Court on 27 August 2007, the complainant said that he did not learn, until shortly before commencing litigation, that there was a review application with the Tribunal that had failed. However, during the Federal Magistrates Court hearing held on 4 October 2007, the complainant admitted that he had signed all the documents in relation to his Protection Visa application and that he was aware at the time that his application was