CAT/C/60/D/648/2015 doubts about whether he had ever been detained by the Department. The third ground of appeal related to the reviewer’s alleged failure to accord proper weight to the court documents as evidence that corroborated the complainant’s claims. In that connection, the Court found that it was within the authority of the reviewer, in the light of her concerns about credibility, to find that the documents did not relate to the complainant and therefore to give them no weight as corroborating evidence. 4.16 The State party adds that the complainant’s appeal of 2 August 2013 was dismissed by the Federal Court on 4 December. The appeal was based on the claim that the reviewer had denied the complainant procedural fairness by failing to advise him that she might find the report filed by the police with a court in Colombo genuine but not relating to the complainant. Consequently, it was claimed that the reviewer had failed to provide the complainant with an opportunity to provide further comments on that issue. 4.17 The Federal Court accepted that the critical issue on which the reviewer’s decision was likely to turn was whether the complainant had been arrested and detained by the Criminal Investigation Department, and in turn that the reviewer was obliged to make the complainant aware of this issue. In the Court’s view, the complainant had clearly been made aware of this situation and, specifically, was made aware that the reviewer might decide that the court document did not relate to him. The complainant’s solicitor and migration agent were aware that the misspelling of the complainant’s name was problematic. He was given the opportunity, which he availed himself of, to make written submissions thereon. The written submissions were considered by the reviewer and the complainant’s representative was also invited to provide additional comments. The reviewer’s conclusion on the question of the court document flowed from “an obvious and natural evaluation” of the document and the inherent and apparent weakness of that document. Therefore, the Court was not persuaded that there had been any lack of procedural fairness. In so finding, the Court noted that the complainant had not argued on appeal that it was not within the authority of the reviewer to give little or no weight to the court document in the light of the problems identified with the complainant’s evidence. 4.18 The State party reiterated that, on 15 August 2014, the High Court of Australia dismissed the complainant’s application for special leave to appeal the decision of the Full Federal Court of Australia as he had not identified any question of principle that would warrant a grant of special leave. 4.19 On 2 September 2014, the complainant requested a ministerial intervention under sections 417 and 48B of the Migration Act 1958 to permit him to apply further for a protection visa, which the Minister may grant if it is in the public interest. The State party explained that a request for intervention can be referred to the Minister for consideration if it contains additional information which is likely to enhance the person’s chances of making a successful claim for protection. Consequently, the claims made by the complainant were again assessed in full by a delegate of the Assistant Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. The delegate found that no further information provided in the complainant’s request indicated that he had a greater chance of making a successful protection visa application. The State party stated that the complainant had provided, for the first time, a letter from the Registrar of a magistrates court dated 1 September 2014 attesting that the complainant’s name had been misspelled in the extract of the court record. The complainant also provided a letter from a Member of Parliament from Batticaloa District reiterating the complainant’s claims of persecution by the Criminal Investigation Department and the Karuna group. The delegate considered that, in the light of the problems with the complainant’s credibility, those documents should be given no weight by the Department of Immigration and Border Protection. The delegate did not refer the case to the Minister for consideration as none of the information provided indicated that the complainant had a better chance of making a successful application for a protection visa. 4.20 The State party asserts that for the reasons set out above, the complainant’s claims are inadmissible and/or without merit. 7