CAT/C/59/D/633/2014 Immigration and Border Protection can intervene in individual cases if he thinks it is in the public interest to do so. The claims made by the complainant were again assessed in full, with consideration given to the decisions reached by RRT and the Federal Circuit Court. The complainant claimed that his aunt, T.S., had been arrested, falsely accused of terrorism and detained for a period of several months from 1999 to 2000. The complainant attached a letter dated 29 January 2001 from the International Committee of the Red Cross delegation in Sri Lanka in support of that claim. The letter indicated that the delegation had visited T.S. at Katugastota Police Station, Kandy District on 17 June 1999 and at Welikada Prison, Colombo District and Batticaloa Prison, Batticaloa District on dates between 19 August 1999 and 13 June 2000. The letter indicated that T.S. had told a delegate that she had been arrested on 27 May 1999 and released on 29 January 2000. The complainant had not raised that claim previously, despite having had a number of opportunities to do so during the protection visa process. The decision maker noted that the complainant had not provided an explanation for that omission or provided any further information as to how those circumstances would affect his return to Sri Lanka. The decision maker considered that there was no credible new information provided in the complainant’s request for ministerial intervention to indicate that the complainant had an enhanced chance of making a successful protection visa application. Therefore the complainant’s request under section 48B of the Migration Act was not referred to the Minister. However, the complainant’s case was referred to the Assistant Minister for Immigration and Border Protection under section 417 of the Migration Act. The Assistant Minister declined to exercise her power to intervene. 4.16 In addition, the Government of Australia responded to the following matters that were raised in the complainant’s submissions: new evidence relating to the alleged harassment of the complainant’s wife; new evidence relating to the alleged eviction of the complainant’s family; claims regarding the alleged torture of the complainant’s father; a new claim regarding comments reportedly made by the Defence Secretary of Sri Lanka; a new claim regarding the law on serious harm; and claims regarding the return of failed asylum seekers to Sri Lanka. 4.17 The State party noted that the complainant had claimed that, since his arrival in Australia, his wife has been harassed by Sri Lankan authorities and the Tamil Makkal Viduthalai Pulikal. The complainant claimed that the Criminal Investigation Department had made inquiries with the complainant’s wife about his whereabouts, demanded money from her and arrested her when she refused to pay. He claimed that she was detained for three days, beaten and released on bail to return to court at a later date. She also allegedly received unknown visitors demanding money and threatening telephone calls. The complainant suspected that the telephone calls were from the Criminal Investigation Department, the Tamil Makkal Viduthalai Pulikal or a paramilitary group. The complainant’s wife allegedly made a complaint to the police about the threats she had received. RRT did not find those claims to be credible because the information the complainant provided was vague and his explanation did not make sense and shifted over time. RRT did not accept that the complainant’s wife was of any adverse interest to the Sri Lankan authorities. In support of those claims, the complainant annexed to his submissions evidence that was not provided to RRT. The complainant’s submissions included two letters from a parish priest, from Saint Theresa’s Church in Valaichenai. The letters were not provided to previous decision makers. One letter, dated 14 June 2012, attested to the complainant’s positive personal qualities. The letter indicated that the priest had been “told by the complainant’s wife … that she and her husband had undergone many hardships during the war and post-war”. The second, undated, letter referred without elaboration to “an unfortunate incident” that had taken place on 16 July 2012. It stated that the complainant’s wife subsequently received threatening telephone calls for a period of more than two weeks, which had left her unable to work. The complainant’s submissions also 7