CAT/C/49/D/416/2010 before it”.8 In making requests for ministerial interventions he primarily sought the approval of the Minister to enable him to reapply for a Protection Visa, but he was repeatedly denied that opportunity. The complainant submits that both the Federal Magistrates Court and the Federal Court of Australia had recognized that he was not aware of the invitation to appear for an interview before the Refugee Review Tribunal,9 but nevertheless he was not given an opportunity for an interview. Instead, the Ministerial Intervention Unit rejected his requests based on the “existence of inconsistencies” and summarily dismissed the new evidence presented by him. 10 Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering a claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide whether it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22, paragraph 5 (a), of the Convention, that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 6.2 The Committee recalls that, in accordance with article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention, it shall not consider any communications from an individual unless it has ascertained that the individual has exhausted all available domestic remedies. The Committee notes that in the instant case the State party has recognized that the complainant has exhausted all available domestic remedies. 6.3 The Committee takes note of the State party’s argument that the communication should be declared inadmissible as manifestly unfounded. The Committee considers, however, that the complaint raises substantive issues under article 3 of the Convention, which should be examined on the merits. As the Committee finds no further obstacles to admissibility, it declares the communication admissible. Consideration of the merits 7.1 In accordance with article 22, paragraph 4, of the Convention, the Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all information made available to it by the parties concerned. 7.2 The issue before the Committee is whether the removal of the complainant to China would violate the State party’s obligation under article 3 of the Convention not to expel or to return (refouler) a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he or she would be in danger of being subjected to torture. The Committee must evaluate whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the complainant would be personally in danger of being subjected to torture upon return to China. In 8 9 10 The complainant refers to paragraph 30 of the Federal Magistrates Court’s decision, Szhie v. Minister for Immigration and Citizenship and the Refugee Review Tribunal, file number SYG2929 of 2005, dated 13 March 2007 (copy provided by the complainant). The complainant refers to paragraph 30 of the Federal Magistrates Court’s decision (ibid.), which states that “the fact that the applicant was unaware of the invitation is not an error on the part of the Tribunal”, and to paragraph 40 of the decision of the Federal Court of Australia, case Szhie v. Minister for Immigration and Citizenship and the Refugee Review Tribunal, file number NSD 95 of 2010, dated 12 March 2010, which states “I accept and find that the applicant was not told by any person of the date, time and place of the Tribunal hearing and that he did not receive the Tribunal’s letter dated 23 May 2005” (copy provided by the complainant). See para. 5.2 and footnote 4 above. 9