CAT/C/60/D/648/2015 5.10 The complainant also refers to the second reviewer’s conclusion that he was inconsistent in stating during the first independent merits review interview that he had received his passport legally in 2006 and in the second review that he had received the passport after his detention in 2008. The complainant states that this is a misunderstanding of his evidence. He submits that these were not the same passports. The first was obtained legally for the purposes of his visa application and the second was obtained illegally after his escape from the Karuna camp. 5.11 The complainant submits that in its general comment No. 1 (1997), the Committee makes clear that it is not bound by the State party’s finding of fact. He submits that the perceived inconsistencies are negligible or justified and should not have been given so much weight that official court documents corroborating his account were ignored. The complainant therefore requests the Committee to depart from the findings of the second reviewer and to accept the complainant’s account of his detention as being true. 5.12 The complainant states that the second reviewer never put to him that she did not accept the authenticity of the court document, in which his name is misspelled. He became aware of the discrepancy only after the second reviewer had issued her decision, at which time he asked his wife to obtain corroborating evidence from the court explaining the misspelling. His wife then obtained a letter from the Registrar of the Magistrates Court of Kalumnai certifying that the complainant had been suspected and charged with LTTE involvement in the past and explaining the misspelling of his name on the charge sheet. She also obtained a letter from a Member of Parliament verifying the complainant’s claims as to his detention and kidnapping. 5.13 The complainant therefore urges the Committee to verify the authenticity of these documents. He submits that they corroborate his claims and outweigh any minor inconsistencies leading to a finding that his account lacked credibility. Both of the documents mentioned above originate from credible and verifiable sources. There was no opportunity for them to be presented to the second reviewer. 5.14 As to the judicial review of the second independent merits review, the court only had jurisdiction to adjudicate errors of law, jurisdictional error or a denial of procedural fairness; it could not evaluate evidence or decide on the merits. The court could not consider new evidence that had not been before the reviewer, nor could it challenge the reviewer’s highly discretionary credibility finding. 5.15 The complainant submits that he had exhausted all domestic avenues when he lodged an application for a waiver under section 48B of the Migration Act to allow him to lodge a new application for a protection visa and a request to the Minister to issue a more favourable decision under section 417 of the Act on humanitarian and compassionate grounds and exceptional circumstances. Those were the only domestic processes that could take the new evidence into consideration. Decisions whether to refer applications to the Minister are wholly discretionary and apply no legal standard; hence, they are not reviewable. In fact, the application under section 48B was never considered by the Minister as it is within the delegate’s discretion whether to refer applications to the Minister and no reasons need be given. However, in its submission the State party indicated that the delegate of the Assistant Minister had found that the new evidence did not enhance the chance of making a successful protection visa application, and therefore the application was not referred. 5.16 In this connection, the complainant submits that the delegate erred in not referring the application to the Minister because the new evidence substantially corroborates his claims, comes from a credible source and could have been verified. The complainant adds that the delegate cannot justify giving the new evidence no weight on the basis of credibility issues because the evidence directly challenges any lack of credibility finding. The complainant therefore strongly asserts that the decision not to refer the application to the Minister removed the only chance for the new evidence to be considered and the entire testimony of the complainant to be reconsidered in the light of it. This resulted in the complainant being unjustifiably put in jeopardy of a return to Sri Lanka and consequently being subjected to persecution, including torture. 9