CAT/C/59/D/652/2015 sent by R.M. and were looking for him. After that, he left Sri Lanka illegally and fled to Australia by boat, with the help of smugglers. 2.8 On 11 April 2012, the complainant arrived at Christmas Island, Australia, as an illegal maritime arrival and without a valid passport. He was detained upon arrival under the Australian Migration Act as an “unlawful non-citizen”. On 20 April 2012, he was transferred to an immigration detention centre in Queensland. 2.9 On 4 July 2012, the complainant filed an application for a protection visa before the Department of Immigration and Border Protection. He alleged that he was at serious risk of harm in Sri Lanka by R.M. and other members of Tamil Makkal Viduthalai Pullikal, that he would not be protected by the Sri Lankan police because of his Tamil ethnicity and that he would be accused of having links with LTTE. 2.10 On 16 August 2012, the complainant was granted a bridging visa by the Department of Immigration and Border Protection and released from detention. 2.11 On 27 September 2012, the Department of Immigration and Border Protection rejected the complainant’s request for a protection visa. It found that the complainant did not face a real risk of harm if returned to Sri Lanka on account of his ethnicity or any real or imputed connections to LTTE. Although he was detained by the police from 1993 to 1994 under suspicion of LTTE connections, the complainant was under no ongoing suspicion and had not experienced any difficulties since that time. In support of this finding, the Department considered relevant country information, 2 which did not indicate that Tamils in Sri Lanka faced persecution purely on account of ethnicity. While the complainant might have suffered abuse in the past, there was no evidence that he had personally experienced any problems since 1994. The Department further accepted as credible the complainant’s allegations that he had had a dispute with R.M. in early 2012. However, it was not satisfied that that continued to constitute a real risk for the complainant. It took into account that he and his family had remained in the area for some time after the incident without further harm, and that the incident was therefore a singular event rather than part of an ongoing plan to harm the complainant. Finally, it considered that he did not face a risk of torture owing to his position as a failed asylum seeker, because neither he nor his family possessed any real or imputed LTTE profile. In that regard, the Department noted that the complainant had been able to travel out of the country and to return in the past, without incident. 2.12 The complainant appealed the decision of the Department of Immigration and Border Protection before the Refugee Review Tribunal, reiterating his previous allegations. On the basis of the documents submitted by the complainant to the Committee, it appears that the Tribunal held a hearing on 5 December 2012 and asked several detailed questions concerning the complainants accounts and the evidence he had submitted. When asked by the Tribunal whether he had encountered any problems because he was Tamil since 2009, when he returned to Sri Lanka, the complainant replied in the negative. The Tribunal also referred to information raised by the Department that indicated that R.M. had been expelled from his position in Tamil Makkal Viduthalai Pullikal and that he would therefore have less 2 In its decision, the Department refers to the UNHCR Eligibility Guidelines for Assessing the International Protection Needs of Asylum Seekers From Sri Lanka, 5 July 2010; United States of America, Department of State, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2011: Sri Lanka, 24 May 2012; Danish Immigration Service, “Human rights and security issues concerning Tamils in Sri Lanka”, October 2010; United Kingdom Border Agency, Operational Guidance Note: Sri Lanka, March 2011; United Kingdom Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Human Rights and Democracy: The 2011 Foreign and Commonwealth Office Report, 2012; United Kingdom Border Agency, Sri Lanka — Bulletin: Treatment of Returns, 2012; and International Crisis Group, “Government promises, ground realities”, 1 March 2012. 3