CAT/C/61/D/720/2015 decision maker was satisfied that, although the complainant would be subject to questioning at Colombo Airport about his Tamil ethnicity and possible links to LTTE, he would not be subjected to any persecutory harm because of that. The decision maker noted that the complainant had no connection at all to LTTE nor any other profile of significance and that the conflict between the Sri Lankan authorities and LTTE had ended in May 2009. 4.8 The decision maker accepted that the complainant had been beaten during interrogation when he was detained by the authorities following a bomb blast in 2009. However, the decision maker concluded, based on the complainant’s evidence, that the trigger for his detention at that time no longer existed in Sri Lanka, as bomb blasts, which were a regular occurrence during the conflict, and subsequent roundups had now ceased. Referring to open source material, the decision maker acknowledged that the types of beatings and physical violence feared by the complainant did continue to occur in some cases but that the complainant did not have a profile that would lead him to be subject to such beatings. Furthermore, the Refugee Review Tribunal considered country information that indicated that people were leaving Sri Lanka for economic reasons, not persecution, and the United Nations had reported that more than 440,000 persons had returned to the North of Sri Lanka since the end of the war. The decision maker concluded that, given such massive returns, the United Nations considered the situation safe for returnees and that the generalized fear of the authorities previously held by Tamil males was no longer supported by the evidence.17 4.9 The decision maker also noted that the complainant had left Sri Lanka legally on two occasions and had not suffered ill-treatment either upon exiting or upon re-entering in 2009.18 Based on country information indicating that the security situation for Tamils had improved significantly since the end of the war, the decision maker concluded that the complainant was less likely to suffer persecutory harm now than he was when he previously exited and re-entered Sri Lanka. Having applied the relevant country information to the circumstances and profile of the complainant, the decision maker concluded that he did not have a profile of significance and did not have a well-founded fear of persecution upon return. The decision maker also concluded that the complainant’s cumulative claims of being a young Tamil man, with origins in the North of Sri Lanka, the single episode of his detention by the Sri Lanka Army and his return following a failed asylum attempt do not give rise to a reasonable belief that he would face a real risk of persecution in any part of Sri Lanka. 4.10 The complainant subsequently applied to the Refugee Review Tribunal for a merits review of the Immigration and Border Protection decision on 9 October 2012. He was present at the Tribunal hearing and was able to make oral submissions with the assistance of a Tamil interpreter and was represented by a registered migration agent. Like the Immigration and Border Protection official, the Tribunal accepted that the complainant had been arrested, detained and beaten by the Sri Lanka Army in early 2009 and that he was released upon payment of a bribe. The complainant was not able to detail exactly when in 2009 he was arrested, and stated that the beatings he had sustained in detention had affected his memory. The Tribunal noted that the evidence provided by the complainant was inconsistent with respect to the length of time that he was detained: at the hearing, he 17 18 mechanisms or for a presumption of eligibility for Sri Lankans of Tamil ethnicity originating from the north of the country”. Reference to Integrated Regional Information Network, “Sri Lanka: Government welcomes refugee repatriation from India”, 30 August 2012. It is not clear whether the complainant returned to Sri Lanka in 2008 or 2009. During the protection visa assessment process, he claimed that he had spent the period from 2006 to 2008 working in Qatar and returned to Sri Lanka from Qatar when his visa expired and because his mother was unwell, referred to as being either in 2008 or 2009. During the interview with the Refugee Review Tribunal, the complainant claimed that he had returned to Sri Lanka in 2008 and planned to remain for a few months then travel again to Qatar, but was prevented from leaving the country because the Sri Lanka Army refused to issue a clearance certificate, despite the fact that he showed them his passport and explained that his visa for Qatar had not yet expired (but was close to expiry). In his submissions to the Committee, the author puts forward a new claim that he returned to Sri Lanka in early 2009 from Qatar and on return was detained and interrogated at Colombo Airport. 5