CAT/C/71/D/802/2017 in Jilin was inauthentic, and that the complainant’s statement regarding its authenticity was not convincing. The Committee also notes that the complainant has not provided details regarding the Falun Gong-related protest activities in which she allegedly participated in Australia. 9.9 While noting the complainant’s claim that the online publication of her name and claim for protection in the decision of the Federal Court have exposed her to a risk of harm because the Government of China has had the opportunity to identify her as a Falun Gong practitioner, the Committee notes that the decision also contained a determination that the complainant was not a genuine Falun Gong practitioner. The Committee considers that the information set forth by the complainant does not establish error in the finding of the domestic authorities that the Government of China would not identify her as a genuine Falun Gong practitioner. 9.10 On the basis of the information above, the Committee considers that the complainant has not provided sufficient evidence to enable it to conclude that her forcible removal to China would expose her to a foreseeable, real, present and personal risk of torture within the meaning of article 3 of the Convention. Moreover, her claims do not establish that the evaluation of her asylum application by the State party’s authorities failed to comply with the standards of review required by the Convention. 10. The Committee, acting under article 22 (7) of the Convention, decides that the complainant’s removal to China by the State party would not constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention. GE.21-11876 11