CAT/C/71/D/802/2017 However, the complainant never claimed to have had such a profile in China. Falun Gong practitioners lacking a high public profile are also subject to a risk of torture. In any case, as a result of the disclosure of her name by the Federal Court, the complainant has now acquired a public profile. 5.4 The national authorities also erred in their determination that the complainant’s continued employment after her arrest was implausible. The complainant was employed by a private printing factory, and private employers in China have the freedom to choose their employees. The complainant cites reports indicating that dissidents working in the private sector may have less difficulty finding employment than those in the public sector. 6 5.5 Regarding the reason why she remained in China after the departures of her son and her husband, the complainant informed the Refugee Review Tribunal that at that time, she had not known that the practice of Falun Gong was permitted outside of China. After arriving in Australia, the complainant’s husband informed her that Falun Gong could be practised lawfully in Australia. This information prompted the complainant to apply for a passport to travel to Australia. In March 2012, her application for an Australian tourist visa was rejected. The complainant’s migration agent in China advised her to wait six months before reapplying. After having reapplied in September 2012, the complainant obtained a visa for Australia in October 2012, and left China the next month. 5.6 The complainant remained in China after her arrest because she was the primary wage earner in her family. The complainant never claimed to the State party’s authorities that she faced an imminent threat of danger in China. Rather, she claimed to fear that officials of the Public Security Bureau would arrest her again. She asserted before the State party’s authorities that she had left China because its Government was persecuting Falun Gong practitioners. It was implied that the complainant would be affected by that general persecution. The notion that she claimed to face an “imminent threat” was introduced by the State party’s authorities, not by the complainant herself. An individual who has been arrested and tortured is likely to believe that those acts will be repeated at some point, though not necessarily within one or two days. Thus, the absence of imminent fear does not necessarily mean that the complainant’s fear was baseless. The fact that she was tortured in the past is a reasonable indicator that she risks being tortured again. 5.7 By stating that the complainant bears the burden for proving the authenticity of the document attesting to her detention in China, the State party appears to indicate that it would reject as inauthentic any official document issued in China. This is an extraordinary position to take. 5.8 The Refugee Review Tribunal was inconsistent in its determination that the complainant’s delay in leaving China was illogical. Specifically, the Tribunal alternately stated that the complainant’s husband could have stayed in China because he had not encountered problems with the police or other authorities, and that if the complainant were at risk in China, her husband and son would have been at risk as well. The Tribunal is thus contradicting itself. 5.9 Regarding the refusal of the Tribunal to consider the oral testimony of the three witnesses, the complainant states that the Falun Gong credentials of these witnesses were unassailable. The Tribunal could have asked them whether the complainant’s adherence to Falun Gong beliefs was genuine, or what the complainant had told them about her experiences in China. Instead, the Tribunal refused to hear the witnesses, and discounted their written statements without explaining its reasons. 5.10 In a separate matter concerning a breach of privacy committed by the Department of Immigration, which had published online the personal details of almost 10,000 immigration detainees, the High Court issued a decision on 31 January 2014. In its decision, the High Court stated that the assumption made in the International Treaty Obligations Assessment process that their personal information might have been accessed by authorities in Bangladesh and China had removed from the scope of factual inquiry any question of 6 GE.21-11876 The complainant cites, inter alia, United States Department of State, U.S. Department of State Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2001 – China (Includes Hong Kong and Macau), 4 March 2002. 7