CAT/C/60/D/708/2015 assessment interview on 27 April 2010, he stated that he had four sisters and two brothers. 17 The complainant also claimed that he would be accused of being an LTTE member, that his name would be on a list of people having escaped the camp and that he would be killed by the army or the Criminal Investigation Department if he returned to Sri Lanka. 4.9 The State party explains that during his refugee status assessment interview, the author denied ever having been an LTTE member and indicated that he was never forced to join it because he was the eldest child taking care of his family. He later claimed that he was not forced to join because he was married.18 The decision maker concluded that the complainant would not be viewed as an LTTE member purely on the basis of his ethnicity and place of residence. 4.10 The State party reports that on 4 May 2010, the complainant was interviewed on a second occasion after credible information came to light that he had previously travelled to Viet Nam but had not provided this information in his application. During that interview, the complainant denied that he had a passport and that he had travelled anywhere outside Sri Lanka before coming to Australia. Given those denials, the Department expressed serious concerns about the credibility of the complainant.19 4.11 The State party submits that considering the complainant’s lack of credibility, the lack of a personal history of harassment or a profile of interest, the Department concluded that the author was not someone to whom Australia owed protection obligations under the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees as amended by the 1967 Protocol. 20 4.12 The State party also submits that on 28 November 2010, at the interview that took place during the independent merits review, the claimant admitted that during 2007 he had left Sri Lanka, had travelled to Malaysia and Viet Nam for five months and one month respectively and had applied for a visa for the United States of America. 21 The complainant stated that he had not provided this information before out of fear and because he was told that if he admitted that he had been to another country, he would be deported. The reviewer considered that it would be more reasonable to believe that the complainant had not provided his passport and had not provided information as to where he had been, as it would have an impact on his claim of being detained in Sri Lanka at the end of the fighting in 2009. The reviewer considered it more likely that the complainant had fabricated his claim of detention and was not in Sri Lanka at the time. 4.13 The State party explains that the reviewer did not accept that the complainant had been of interest to the Sri Lankan authorities and noted that he had returned to the country through the international airport of Colombo once before without facing any problems. On 1 April 2011, the reviewer recommended that the complainant should not be recognized as a person entitled to benefit from the State party’s protection obligations. 4.14 The State party reports that on 29 September 2011, the Federal Magistrates’ Court dismissed the complainant’s application for a judicial review of the recommendation of the reviewer, considering that there was no legal error in that regard. 22 The State party also reports that on 1 May 2012, the complainant applied to the Federal Court of Australia to request an extension of time to appeal against the decision. The Federal Court found that as both the reviewer and the Federal Magistrates’ Court had acted properly, the complainant did not have sufficient prospects of success for an appeal. 23 4.15 The State party also reports that on 6 February 2013, the Federal Magistrates’ Court dismissed another complainant’s application to appeal the outcome of the independent merits review, as the complainant had failed to appear before the Court. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 The State party adds that these inconsistencies were later noted in the independent merits review (2011), paras. 10 and 12. See the refugee status assessment (2010), p. 8. Ibid., p. 11. Ibid., pps. 12-14. See independent merits review (2011), p. 4. SZQFU v. Minister for Immigration & Anor, 2011, FMCA 599, para. 50. SZQFU v. Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, 2012, FCA 477, paras. 10-15. 5