Advance unedited version CCPR/C/133/D/3212/2018 informed the authorities that his wife and child had been granted a Safe Haven Enterprise visa on 10 July 2018, and requested that he be able to remain in Australia with them. On each occasion, the Department of Immigration and Border Protection considered the author’s situation and determined that his claims did not meet the guidelines for Ministerial intervention and therefore finalized the requests for Ministerial intervention without referral.4 2.10 On 13 July 2018, the author was issued a deportation notice for 16 July 2018. Complaint 3.1 The author claims, at the submission of his complaint, that his deportation to Sri Lanka would amount to a violation of his rights under article 7 of the Covenant. He alleges that as a Tamil man with perceived links to the LTTE and his detention history with the Criminal Investigation Department and the ill-treatment he and his family had suffered in the past are of strong indication that if returned, he would face risks of torture at the hands of the Sri Lankan authorities.5 3.2 The author further claims that his removal would constitute a violation of article 17 in conjunction with article 23 (1) of the Covenant. He refers to A.B. v. Canada, in which the Committee reiterated its jurisprudence that there may be cases in which a State party’s refusal to allow one member of a family to remain on its territory would involve interference in that person’s family life. 6 He further refers to the Committee’s general comment No. 16 (1988) on the right to privacy and general comment No. 19 (1990) on the family, which establish that the concept of the family is to be interpreted broadly and that the separation of a person from his family by means of expulsion can amount to arbitrary interference with the family and a violation of article 17 if the separation of the author from his family and its effects on him would be disproportionate to the objectives of the removal. The author notes that there are no legitimate grounds for his removal because he has not been deemed to pose any risk or threat to the Australian community, nor to have a bad character. He underlines that he and his wife were unable to apply for the same type of protection visa and for this reason, they could not be treated as a family unit for the purpose of both being granted a protection visa. In any event, given that the author had already been denied asylum before his wife applied for a Safe Haven Enterprise visa, he was prevented from making a new application for a protection visa under the relevant laws. 7 State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 On 31 July 2019, the State party submitted its observations on admissibility and the merits. As to the issue of admissibility, the State party argues that the author’s claims under article 7 of the Covenant are manifestly ill-founded and should therefore be declared inadmissible pursuant to article 3 of the Optional Protocol and rule 99 (b) of the Committee’s rules of procedure. The State party submits that should these claims nonetheless be deemed admissible, they are without merit as demonstrated by the findings contained in the domestic decisions. The State party further submits that the author’s claims under article 17 in conjunction with article 23 (1) of the Covenant are without merit, as the author has been removed from Australia in accordance with its laws, which does not constitute arbitrary or unlawful interference with his family life. 4.2 Regarding the alleged violation of article 7 of the Covenant, the State party submits that the author’s claims have been thoroughly considered in a series of domestic decisionmaking processes and have been found not to engage its non-refoulement obligations under the Covenant. The State party recalls the Committee’s jurisprudence, which establishes that it is generally for the courts of the States parties to the Covenant to evaluate the facts and evidence of a particular case, unless it is found that the evaluation was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice. 4 5 6 7 The decision, in response to his request dated 15 July 2018, was delivered after the submission of the present complaint to the Committee, on 19 July 2018. At the time of the submission of the complaint, the author was not yet deported to Sri Lanka. A.B. v. Canada (CCPR/C/117/D/2387/2014), para 8.6. The author refers to s 48A of the Migration Act 1958. 3