CAT/C/49/D/416/2010 2.9 The complainant also submits that in July 2005, while he was in Australia, he learned that the police went again to his home in Cuihou village, trying to determine his whereabouts. He stresses that his sons were suspended from school in order to force him to give himself up to police. The complainant claims that, at the time of the submission of the communication, he was continuing his practice of Falun Gong in the Villawood Immigration Detention Centre. The complaint 3. The complainant claims that if he is returned to China, given his arrest, detention and recorded profile as a Falun Gong leader, he would be subjected to interrogation immediately upon arrival at the airport, which may lead to a period of detention for further questioning and result in infliction of torture. The complainant claims that this forcible return would constitute a violation by Australia of article 3 of the Convention, since he would be exposed to a high risk of further torture. State party’s observations on the admissibility and the merits 4.1 On 31 October 2011, the State party submitted that the communication should be ruled inadmissible as unsubstantiated or, should the Committee be of the view that the allegations are admissible, they should be dismissed as being without merit. 4.2 The State party submits that the complainant had arrived in Australia on 12 December 2004 on a Business (Short Stay) Visa and that, on 20 January 2005, he applied for a Protection Visa under the Migration Act 1958, claiming refugee status. In his application he alleged that he had started practicing Falun Gong in 1995, became a teacher in his area and that in 2001 he had been arrested, detained and tortured for two weeks, after organizing a group of practitioners to seek the release of other detained Falun Gong practitioners. 4.3 On 5 March 2005, the complainant’s application was rejected by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration, Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs. On 6 April 2005, the complainant appealed to the Refugee Review Tribunal, which, on 23 May 2005, wrote to advise him that it was unable to make a favorable decision on the information in its possession and invited him to give evidence at a hearing on 22 June 2005. Since he did not attend the hearing, on that date the Tribunal confirmed the refusal. The Tribunal decided that the complainant’s claims about being a Falun Gong practitioner and having a wellfounded fear of persecution in China were not credible. The complainant sought judicial review of the Tribunal’s decision by the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia, claiming that he had never received the letter inviting him to attend a hearing; however, on 13 March 2007, the Court found that there was no error made by the Tribunal and dismissed the application. On 3 February 2010, the complainant applied to the Federal Court of Australia for an extension of time to appeal the Federal Magistrates Court’s decision, but the latter dismissed his application on 12 March 2010. 4.4 The State party further submits that after the complainant’s Bridging E Visa expired on 10 April 2007, he remained unlawfully in the country until 11 February 2009, when he was taken into immigration detention, and that he remained in the Villawood Immigration Detention Centre from 13 March 2009 to 15 August 2011, when he was placed in community detention by the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship. It further submits that between 5 October 2005 and 15 March 2010 the complainant lodged three separate 5