CAT/C/61/D/725/2016 Australia. The complainant also claimed that he would suffer harm if returned to Sri Lanka because he was Tamil from an area previously controlled by the Tamil Tigers and because he had left Sri Lanka illegally.7 4.6 The decision maker on the complainant’s application for a protection visa considered the claims and accepted that the complainant was Tamil from the east of Sri Lanka; that he had been a security guard at the university and that, on the night of 11 November 2011, people had entered the university and broke the windows of one of the buildings. The decision maker accepted that he had been questioned by the authorities regarding the vandalism and that his employer had been dissatisfied by his lack of attendance at work following the incident. However, the decision maker did not accept that the complainant had been approached by students about the broken windows, as his account was inconsistent and changed a number of times. It was also not accepted that he had been subsequently abducted by people in a van, who warned him to be quiet. 8 4.7 The State party further submits that the decision maker was not satisfied that available country information supported a finding that the complainant had a well-founded fear of persecution on account of being a failed asylum seeker or a Tamil returnee who had left illegally.9 The decision maker was not satisfied that the complainant had a real chance of being persecuted or that his fear of persecution had been well-founded and, consequently, found that he was not a refugee. The decision maker was also not satisfied that there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of him being removed from Australia to Sri Lanka, there was a real risk that he would suffer significant harm under paragraph 36 (2) (aa) of the Migration Act, which reflects the nonrefoulement obligations of Australia under article 3 of the Convention and under the Covenant. 4.8 On 14 September 2012, the complainant made an application Refugee Review Tribunal for a merits review of the decision by the Department of Immigration and Border Protection.10 On 1 August 2013, the Tribunal affirmed the decision of the Department to not grant the complainant a protection visa. He was present at the Tribunal hearing and was able to make oral submissions with the assistance of an interpreter. The Tribunal also considered the documentation the complainant provided, including copies of the author’s marriage certificate, staff identity card, letter of support from a member of parliament in Batticaloa district and a statutory declaration by the complainant, dated 30 May 2012. The Tribunal noted that country information supported the complainant’s claims that the Tamil Tigers had tried to recruit young people at the time he was young, and accepted that he had experienced harassment and had to move around. However, it did not accept that the Tamil Tigers or Sri Lankan Army were or are searching for him in particular, or that he had been forced to move around because he was a target. 11 4.9 The Refugee Review Tribunal accepted that the complainant had worked as a security guard at the university and that there had been an incident there, during which university property had been damaged. The Tribunal accepted that he had reported the damage to police but did not accept that he had been threatened or harassed by the police or Criminal Investigation Department in relation to the incident, or that there was a real risk of this happening if he was returned to Sri Lanka. The Tribunal also did not accept as true the claim that he had been threatened or harmed by those who had damaged the university or their associates, including the Karuna group. It did not accept there was a real risk he would be so harmed if returned to Sri Lanka. The Tribunal also did not accept that the 7 8 9 10 11 Protection visa decision record, 4-5. Protection visa decision record, 5-7. In reaching this conclusion, the decision maker considered country information from Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Home Office of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Department of State of the United States of America, Amnesty International, the International Crisis Group and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. The Refugee Review Tribunal is a specialist body that provides independent review of decisions concerning protection visas. On 1 July 2015, the Tribunal merged with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, within which it continues to provide independent review of protection related decisions under statute. Refugee Review Tribunal Statement of Decision and Reasons, (36). 5