CAT/C/60/D/648/2015 inconsistent as to whether he knew the “minister” who had assisted him with his visa application. Taken together, these inconsistencies, along with his business profile, did not support the complainant’s claim that his application for a visa resulted in his arrest by the Criminal Investigation Department on suspicion of links with LTTE. 4.12 In relation to the extract of the police report filed with the court in Colombo, the State party states that the reviewer did not consider that the content of the report outweighed the problems with the complainant’s own evidence. The complainant had pointed to the part which he claimed related to him, but stated that his name had been misspelled. A receipt was also provided, which the complainant stated was proof of having paid for an extract of the court record. This record and the receipt were not provided previously, despite the fact that the receipt was dated 11 June 2011. The complainant stated that this was because his agent had not asked for it. The reviewer did not consider the documents to relate to the complainant and consequently gave them no weight. 4.13 The complainant also claimed for the first time during the second independent merits review interview that he had provided financial support to LTTE. When asked why he had not recounted this fact at an earlier stage, he explained that he had been advised not to do so by others at the detention centre. However, the reviewer noted that the complainant had had access to a migration agent throughout all the processes. The reviewer also did not accept that the complainant had been abducted by the Karuna group or any other paramilitary group, owing to inconsistencies in his evidence about the method by which he was abducted, who had kidnapped him, how he had escaped and how he had departed from Sri Lanka. Regarding inconsistences in his evidence as to who had kidnapped him, the complainant stated that it was hard to distinguish between all the groups. 17 The reviewer further did not accept that the complainant could not identify a group which had tried to indoctrinate him over a three-month period. The complainant also stated that his statement that he had been kidnapped by LTTE was a mistake made by the first interpreter. He insisted that he had tried to correct this misunderstanding at the next interview. When it was pointed out that this was not reflected in the record of that interview, the complainant stated that he had been warned by other detainees not to reveal the identity of the group as that would get him into trouble. This explanation was not accepted. 4.14 The complainant’s explanation of how he had escaped the camp was also found to be implausible and inconsistent,18 as was his explanation of where he went afterwards19 and when he obtained his passport. 20 When the conflicting evidence was presented to the complainant, he denied his earlier evidence, which was on record. Finally, the reviewer found that the complainant did not face a risk of harm on his return owing to his status as a failed asylum seeker. After reviewing the evidence, the reviewer was satisfied that the complainant had not experienced any difficulties upon re-entering Sri Lanka after he was deported from Singapore in 2008. The reviewer noted country information indicating that returnees are unlikely to face significant problems in the absence of a criminal or LTTE profile. The reviewer accepted that the complainant would be subject to routine screening at the airport but that this would not amount to significant harm. 4.15 On 4 July 2012, the complainant appealed the decision of the reviewer on three grounds, all of which related to the rejection of the complainant’s claim that he had been detained by the Criminal Investigation Department in 2006. The Federal Court rejected the submission, finding ultimately that the reviewer had not failed to consider the complainant’s alleged detention by the Department. The complainant claimed that he had not been given the opportunity to comment on whether the court documents, if authentic, in fact related to him. The Court, in dismissing the claim, noted that the complainant had had the opportunity to attend a hearing and furnish additional facts to establish that his name had been misspelled on the record but had failed to do so. In any case, other material raised 17 18 19 20 6 Variously described by the complainant as an unknown group, the Karuna group, the anti-LTTE proGovernment Tamil Makkal Viduthalai Puligal and LTTE. Including the number of guards present at the time of the escape, that they could have all gone to the toilet at the same time and that evidence was revised upon questioning. It was found to be implausible that he would have returned to a house next door to his own. Variously stated to be before or after his detention in the camp.