CAT/C/58/D/609/2014 observed that the complainant was free to leave the hospital, although he had been taken there by the Army and his injury had been “closely” examined by the Criminal Investigation Department. It also observed that the complainant was able to leave the country from the airport with a valid passport, which would not have been possible had he been a suspected LTTE supporter. Regarding the complainant’s claim that, being a young Tamil man is, in itself, sufficient to link him to LTTE, the reviewer relied on the UNHCR 2010 Eligibility Guidelines, which indicated that Sri Lankans originating from the north of the country were no longer in need of protection solely on the basis of indiscriminate harm. When considering the complainant’s claim that he would be detained and tortured at the airport as a failed asylum seeker, the reviewer concluded that, since the complainant did not have a criminal record nor any connection with LTTE, he would be of no interest to the Criminal Investigation Department or the State Intelligence Service. 2 Since he was in possession of a national passport, the immigration authorities would be able to confirm that the complainant was entitled to enter the country. The reviewer also took into account that the situation of the complainant’s family in Trincomalee was stable and that he would be able to benefit from their support upon return. 2.4 On 20 September 2012, the complainant filed an application with the Federal Circuit Court for judicial review of the independent merits review recommendation of 23 July 2012. At the hearing, the non-governmental organization (NGO) representing the complainant sought an adjournment since he did not have legal counsel. The request was rejected by the Court, which pointed out that, on 14 November 2012, it had provided the complainant with contact details, in his language, of legal providers and translators/interpreters, and the fact that he only contacted the NGO on 28 April 2013, without any valid reason, showed a lack of due diligence on his part. The Court also gave the complainant until 30 January 2013 to file any amended application and additional evidence. On 14 May 2013, the Court found that there was no misinterpretation of the evidence given by the complainant at the first and the second interview such that he was deprived of an opportunity to present his case. The complaints about the findings of the reviewer required a review that was outside the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court. In addressing the claim about the alleged failure of the reviewer to consider the complainant’s psychosocial report, the Court observed that the reviewer had noted that the psychosocial report dated 30 January 2012 was not a medical assessment of the complainant’s condition. It therefore concluded that the reviewer had considered the report but did not find it compelling. The Court also observed that it could not be suggested that the complainant’s mental state had deprived him of a meaningful opportunity to participate in the hearing. 2.5 On 16 August 2013, the complainant appealed to the Federal Court of Australia claiming that the conclusion of the independent merits review that he was not in need of protection was neither logical nor rational and that there was a jurisdictional error in the decision of the Federal Circuit Court. The complainant also requested an adjournment of the hearing until he obtained legal representation. On 26 August 2013, the Federal Court dismissed the appeal, stating that neither the review of the reasons for the decision of the independent merits review nor those for the Federal Circuit Court judgement disclosed any appealable error. The request for adjournment was rejected on the grounds that there was nothing in the complainant’s statement to support his appeal. 2 The Refugee Review Tribunal relied on, inter alia, the following country reports: Australia, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, “Sri Lanka: treatment of Tamils”, Country Information Report No. 10/58, 21 September 2010 (CX249694); Canada, Immigration and Refugee Board, Sri Lanka: Information on the treatment of Tamil returnees to Sri Lanka, including failed refugee applicants, 22 August 2011 (LKA103815); and Denmark, Danish Immigration Service, “Human rights and security issues concerning Tamils in Sri Lanka”, October 2010. 3