CAT/C/63/D/618/2014 that the author faced a foreseeable, real and personal risk of harm, including torture, if returned to Sri Lanka. Therefore, his protection visa was refused. The primary decision maker specifically noted that in assessing the credibility of an applicant’s testimony, a decision maker must “be sensitive to the difficulties often faced by asylum seekers and the benefit of the doubt should be given to those who are generally credible, but are unable to substantiate all of their claims”.8 In this regard, the decision maker found that while the author and his family may have been involved in politics in their local area, the author did not meet the criteria to be considered as a target by United People’s Freedom Alliance members or persons supporting the current ruling party. This led the decision maker to question the veracity of the author’s claims that he was pursued by Alliance associates. The decision maker did not accept either that members of the Alliance had returned to the complainant’s house four or five times following the 2010 elections, and found that there would have been ample opportunity to take action against the complainant; the fact that he was never attacked by an Alliance member further weakened his claim of being of such interest to the Alliance. 5.5 On 17 October 2012, the complainant made an application for external merits review to the Refugee Review Tribunal. On 5 December 2012, the Tribunal affirmed the primary decision maker’s decision not to grant the complainant a protection visa. After considering the complainant’s claims of his fears of harm on account of his political activity on behalf of the United National Party; being a failed asylum seeker; and being a Catholic of interest to Buddhist extremists, the Tribunal concluded that while the author may have been involved in political activity as an ordinary campaign worker for the United National Party in his local area, it could not accept that people from the United People’s Freedom Alliance went looking for him months after the election, and months after his active involvement with the party had ceased. Therefore, the Tribunal did not accept that there was a real chance that the complainant would be persecuted for a Convention reason or that he would suffer significant harm if returned to Sri Lanka. The Tribunal also rejected the complainant’s concerns at being a failed asylum seeker and a Catholic, as there was no evidence that he would be at risk of torture for those reasons. The Tribunal considered a Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade report, which stated that up until 16 October 2012, no returned failed asylum seekers had been charged with offences in relation to their illegal departure from Sri Lanka. The Tribunal also observed that the complainant lived in a region where approximately a third of inhabitants are Catholic; the Tribunal could find no reports detailing the problems, if any, that would be experienced by Catholics in the region. 5.6 On 22 May 2013, the Federal Circuit Court dismissed the complainant’s application for judicial review of the Refugee Review Tribunal decision. The State party notes that the complainant had one ground of appeal before the Federal Circuit Court of Australia: that the Refugee Review Tribunal had committed a jurisdictional error by misconstruing or misapplying the applicable law or asking itself the wrong question. The Tribunal had concluded that the author’s chance of being the subject of future violence or being arrested, in connection with his political activity, was very remote, having regard to the very large number of people involved in election campaigns in Sri Lanka. The Federal Circuit Court found that the Tribunal had made findings based on the evidence and material before it, and had reached conclusions based on its findings and to which it had applied the correct law. 5.7 On 18 September 2013, the Federal Court also dismissed the complainant’s application for judicial review. The complainant relied on two grounds. The first was the same ground of appeal relied on in the Federal Circuit Court, which was dismissed for the same reasons as before. The second was that the Refugee Review Tribunal had erred by engaging in jurisdictional error, by failing to consider a claim or component of a claim, or by failing to take into account a relevant consideration. The relevant claim was the author’s allegation before the Refugee Review Tribunal that his name had been on a list of local supporters of the United National Party that was given to the United People’s Freedom Alliance. The Federal Court considered that this component had already been directly 8 6 Protection (Class XA) Visa Decision Record, 1 October 2012, p. 10 (annexed to the initial communication).