CAT/C/61/D/659/2015 claimants had been detained or tortured upon return to Sri Lanka.12 Most reports, however, make it clear that returnees were detained because they were accused of links to LTTE, activists or opposition parties. There appears to be a consensus among credible human rights organizations that, in the absence of this perceived link, failed refugee claimants who are returned to Sri Lanka do not face a risk of harm that is sufficient to require international protection. The State party submits, therefore, that even if Sri Lankan authorities should identify the complainant and his family as failed asylum seekers of Tamil descent, it will not lead the authorities to subject them to torture. The complainant and his family have not provided any reason to believe that Sri Lankan authorities will consider them to be LTTE supporters. There is also no indication that any of the family members are the subject of outstanding court orders or arrest warrants, or are otherwise on a “stop” or “watch” list. 4.7 As to the complainant’s claim that his former role with the United Nations puts him at risk of torture, the State party reiterates its argument that United Nations employees are not subject to a particular risk of torture or harm at the hands of the Sri Lankan authorities. Furthermore, the complainant’s suggestion that the Government of Sri Lanka may impute a connection between him and LTTE based on his role with the United Nations is unsubstantiated. The complainant has not provided any evidence to suggest that the Government may perceive him as being an LTTE supporter or an anti-Government activist. The United Nations is not in conflict with the Government, nor is it aligned with LTTE, and employment with the United Nations cannot be perceived as anti-Government activity. As to the complainant’s argument that filing a claim for refugee protection when one has extensive knowledge of the security situation in Sri Lanka is tantamount to antiGovernment activity, the State party submits that such position is unsubstantiated, since the complainant has not demonstrated that United Nations employees face a greater risk of harm than failed refugee claimants generally. The State party submits, therefore, that there are no substantial grounds to believe that returning the complainant and his family to Sri Lanka would expose them to a risk of being subjected to torture in violation of the State party’s obligations under the Convention. 4.8 The Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada found that many of the complainant’s statements concerning the threats against his family were not credible. It highlighted inconsistencies in the complainant’s oral testimony, his interview with an officer of Canada Border Services Agency, his Personal Information Form and other documentary evidence submitted to the Board. In particular, the Board highlighted the complainant’s failure to mention, in some interviews, alleged incidents of harassment that he raised in others. The complainant also gave inconsistent responses to the question of whether he had ever been tortured. The Board also noted that aspects of the complainant’s evidence were implausible. For instance, the Board questioned why some incidents had been reported to the local police, while others had not. In concluding that the complainant’s version of events lacked credibility, the Board also considered the evolving political situation in Sri Lanka. It noted that, according to its National Documentation Package on Sri Lanka, the group TMVP that allegedly threatened the author outside his house in 2009 had surrendered its weapons that same year and ceased to operate as a paramilitary group. As a result, the Board concluded that the threats received by the complainant and his family in 2009 did not demonstrate the existence of an ongoing risk. 4.9 The State party adds that the complainant and his family were represented by legal counsel at the Board’s hearing and were given the opportunity to adduce evidence and make submissions. The complainant provided testimony to substantiate the risk the family allegedly faces. That testimony was thoroughly assessed in the Board’s decision. 4.10 The complainant and his family subsequently applied to the Federal Court for leave to seek judicial review of the Immigration and Refugee Board’s decision. The Federal Court denied the application on 17 September 2014. In compliance with its practice regarding applications for leave, the court did not provide reasons. 4.11 In January 2015, the complainant and his family applied for an administrative deferral of their removal. On 28 January 2015, an Inland Enforcement Officer of Canada 12 6 See UNHCR Eligibility Guidelines, p. 8.