CAT/C/61/D/725/2016 complainant’s father or other family members had been threatened or harmed by the police or Criminal Investigation Department in Sri Lanka because of his departure. It also did not accept that he would be targeted for serious harm because he is a Tamil male, has a scar, was a failed asylum seeker or because he had left Sri Lanka illegally. 12 4.10 On 12 February 2015, the Federal Circuit Court dismissed the complainant’s application for a judicial review of the Refugee Review Tribunal decision. He had legal representation at the Court hearing and oral submissions were made on his behalf; he was also granted leave to file post-hearing written submissions. He sought a judicial review of the decision by the Tribunal on the ground that it had failed to sufficiently consider his claims relating to his scar, status as a failed Tamil asylum seeker who had left Sri Lanka illegally and membership of a social group previously from an area controlled by the Tamil Tigers. The Court was not satisfied that the Tribunal had committed a jurisdictional error and dismissed the complainant’s application. 4.11 On 20 March 2015, the complainant made a request under sections 417 and 48 B of the Migration Act.13 There was no further information provided in the author’s request for intervention to indicate the author had an enhanced chance of making a successful protection visa application. Therefore, on 6 May 2015, it was determined the author’s claims did not meet the section 48 B guidelines for ministerial intervention. On 2 August 2015, the complainant made another request for ministerial intervention under sections 417 and 48 B of the Migration Act. 14 That request included evidence from a psychiatrist 15 detailing new claims that the Tamil Tigers had tried to forcibly recruit the complainant when his brother deserted, and his parents had paid large amounts of money to prevent this; that two of his paternal uncles had been forcibly recruited to the Tamil Tigers, and that one was missing and another was disabled and in hiding; that a third paternal uncle had been killed by the army during the civil war; that the authorities believed he or his family knew the location of his brother; that the family had burned all evidence of links to the Tamil Tigers for fear of reprisal from the authorities; that the complainant’s father had been questioned, detained and beaten in relation to his family’s links to the Tamil Tigers, including after the complainant arrived in Australia; and that the complainant had experienced oral and anal sexual assault by male officers of the police or Criminal Investigation Department as part of his interrogation while in Sri Lanka. 16 4.12 The psychiatrist’s report also states that an assessment was undertaken and the complainant was diagnosed with major depressive episode, post-traumatic stress disorder and associated melancholic features and cognitive impairment. The psychiatrist states those illnesses may restrict his ability to recount personal history, engage with bureaucratic process and recall dates and details, and that those factors, and his severe shame, were the most likely reasons the claim had not been raised earlier. 4.13 On 7 August 2015, it was determined that the complainant’s claims did not meet the section 48 B or section 417 guidelines for ministerial intervention. During the assessment 12 13 14 15 16 6 In reaching this conclusion, the Refugee Review Tribunal considered country information referred to by the complainant and the departmental decision maker, as well as from the Danish Immigration Service and Human Rights Watch. Under these non-compellable powers, the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (the Minister) can intervene in individual cases to grant a visa or allow a further protection visa application, if the Minister thinks it is in the public interest to do so. The claims made by the complainant were assessed, with consideration given to the decisions reached by the Refugee Review Tribunal and Federal Circuit Court of Australia. In limited circumstances, a further request for intervention will be sent to the Minister where the Department of Immigration and Border Protection is satisfied that there has been a significant change in the circumstances of an applicant which raises new substantive issues not previously considered. Copy on file. There is no documentary evidence of these claims. The documentary evidence on file includes: a copy of the complainant’s passport, birth and marriage certificate, a letter from his father and from his mother, and a Certificate to Insecure Status of 12 March 2012 by a Batticaloa District MP stating that the parents of the complainant brought to his notice the University incident, the fact that the complainant sustained injury and was kept in a hospital for 3 days, that he complained about this to the police and later the unidentified group threatened him again.