CAT/C/49/D/417/2010 2008, the complainant applied to the Federal Court of Australia for an extension of time to appeal the decision of the Federal Magistrates Court. The Federal Court dismissed the application on 12 December 2008. 4.5 The complainant’s Bridging E Visa expired on 25 May 2005. He remained unlawfully in the community until 11 May 2007, when he was granted a new Bridging E Visa on the basis of his judicial review. He was granted successive Bridging E Visas, of which the most recent expired on 2 June 2008. The complainant remained unlawfully in the community until he was located by police on a traffic matter. As a result, he was detained at Villawood Immigration Detention Centre on 3 November 2008. 4.6 Between 7 May 2004 and 29 December 2009, the complainant lodged nine separate ministerial intervention requests under sections 48B and/or 417 of the Migration Act. The first section 417 Migration Act request was referred to the Minister on a schedule; the Minister declined to intervene in February 2005. Each of the subsequent requests was assessed as not meeting the ministerial guidelines for referral to the Minister. 4.7 In his request for ministerial intervention of 4 October 2007, the complainant raised claims that he had been held in a “re-education through labour camp” from 20 August 1999 to 19 August 2000 because he practiced Falun Gong. The complainant provided copies of some documents, namely a notice of release from the Zhangshi Labour Reform Centre from 20 August 1999 to 19 August 2000 and a copy of a medical report dated 28 August 1999 for a self-inflicted injury.4 These documents were considered by the immigration department when provided in the complainant’s ministerial intervention requests. The assessment of the ministerial intervention request dated 6 December 2007 found that the information contained in the notice of release from a labour reform centre contradicted his original claim made in his Protection Visa application that he had been detained for a threemonth period sometime after March 2003. The assessment also noted that the complainant did not provide original documentation, which meant it was not possible to be certain of its authenticity. 4.8 In the ministerial intervention request of 6 December 2007, the complainant also submitted a translated copy of a business licence purported to have been issued by the Government of China in relation to his business, the Shenyang City Weil Li Compressor Accessory Factory. The licence states that the business was established on 18 May 2001. This contradicts information provided by the complainant in his Protection Visa application, in which he stated that he was a worker in the same factory from January 1980 until March 2003. The assessment of the ministerial intervention request found that the evidence concerning the complainant’s business interests, including over the period of his alleged detention, would appear to undermine his claim of past persecution. The complainant did not provide any new information in support of his claims in his subsequent requests for ministerial intervention to alter these findings. 4.9 4 The complainant was removed involuntarily to China on 1 April 2010. passing through a staged process of consideration. The evidence provided by the complainant during the Protection Visa process has proven to lack credibility, including his claim that his migration agent misrepresented him and advised him against attending the Refugee Review Tribunal hearing. The medical report of the Fourth Hospital affiliated with China Medical University refers to the following diagnosis: an incised wound in the left forearm, complete tear of the left thumb extensor and long muscles, complete tear of the left thumb’s abducent and long muscles and separation of a nerve in the left forearm. The report indicates that these injuries were caused as a result of selfmutilation. 5