CAT/C/52/D/455/2011 3.2 The complainant also claims that the danger for Tien Tao practitioners in China is serious. To that end, she attached to her submission an RRT Research Response, dated 19 October 2007, concerning the situation and treatment of Tien Tao practitioners in China, particularly in Fujian. State party’s observations on admissibility and merits 4.1 On 29 June 2012, the State party submitted its observations on the admissibility and merits of the communication. The State party considers that the communication should be dismissed for lack of merit. 4.2 The State party outlines the facts of the case and describes the procedure followed by the complainant at the national level. It highlights that in the complainant’s first application to the Immigration Department for a protection visa she used the false name, Mei Liu, and claimed that she feared being tortured by the Chinese authorities if she were deported because she was a Falun Gong practitioner. The Immigration Department rejected her application because it was not convinced that she had a well-founded fear of persecution for any of the Refugees Convention reasons nor was it persuaded that she had a significant leadership role in Falun Gong. It further indicated that the complainant would be able to practice her religion in her private life without interference. Furthermore, the fact that the complainant was able to leave China legally indicated that she was not of interest to the Chinese authorities. 4.3 Regarding the Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT), it could not verify the complainant’s identity as she used different names and identity documents in her protection visa application and the RRT application. Furthermore, she claimed that she was a Tien Tao practitioner and withdrew her claim of being a Falun Gong practitioner. The RRT did not accept that the complainant’s claim that she was a Tien Tao practitioner in China or that she was harassed by the police. It held that the complainant’s engagement in Tien Tao activities in Sydney was solely for the purpose of strengthening her refugee claim. 4.4 Following the dismissal of her application for judicial review by the Federal Magistrate Court as well as of her appeal to the Federal Court of Australia, the complainant submitted applications for intervention by the Minister for Migration in 2007, 2009 and 2010. In her 2010 request, the complainant reiterated her claim that it is due to the misguiding advice she received from the migration agent that she was unable to genuinely substantiate her claim before the Immigration Department. The case officers concluded that there was no new credible information that would enhance the complainant’s chances of making a successful protection visa application. In her last application to the Minister for Migration for intervention, dated 4 March 2011, she supported her claim with an uncertified photocopy of an untranslated Chinese document, which she claimed was the hospital report describing the injury to her left index finger that was inflicted by the police at a temple meeting. On 18 July 2011, the complainant’s request was deemed not to meet the guidelines set out in sections 417 and 48B of the Migration Act, as they were the same claims as those submitted earlier to the RRT, which had concluded that there was no evidence to believe that the complainant was of interest to the Chinese authorities for practicing Tien Tao or for any other reason. 4.5 After outlining the legal framework of the complainant’s application, the State party submits that the complainant did not provide sufficient evidence that she would be personally at risk of torture if deported to China. The photocopy of the medical report dated 17 February 2005 was examined by the Immigration Department in the context of the application for ministerial intervention, which was deemed not to sufficiently support the complainant’s claim that she had been beaten by the police and finalized on 18 July 2011. The original document was not submitted to the Immigration Department, therefore its genuineness could not be determined. Fraudulent documents, including hospital documents, 4