CAT/C/56/D/591/2014 complainant’s appeal of the Federal Circuit Court’s decision before the Full Federal Court, and the review of his requests for ministerial intervention of 26 September 2013 and 19 March 2014. 4.7 In particular, the complainant lodged an application for a protection visa on 22 May 2012. He was granted a Bridging Visa on 3 July 2012 while his protection visa application was under consideration by the then Department of Immigration and Citizenship (now the Department of Immigration and Border Protection). On 17 August 2012, the complainant’s protection visa application was refused. 4.8 The State party submits that the authorities interviewed the complainant (with assistance of an interpreter) and also considered other relevant material, such as country information provided by the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. The authorities considered all of the claims made by the complainant in his submission to the Committee and found the claims that he was told to leave Sri Lanka by the Criminal Investigation Department, that he continues to be of interest to the Sri Lankan authorities, that he hid in St. John’s Church in Batticaloa, and that armed men from the Criminal Investigation Department had attacked his uncle were not credible. The authorities also concluded that the complainant does not have a significant profile that would draw particular attention of the Sri Lankan authorities and that as the majority of his family resides in Sri Lanka unharmed, his fear is based on a generalized or unsubstantiated fear. Therefore, given that it did not have substantial grounds for believing that the complainant would face a foreseeable, real and personal risk of harm, the authorities rejected his protection visa application. 4.9 The complainant subsequently filed an application for an external merits review with the Refugee Review Tribunal. Such review is normally carried out by a special external review body that provides a full and independent review of decisions concerning protection visas. On 14 May 2013, the Tribunal affirmed the Department of Immigration and Border Protection’s decision not to grant the complainant a protection visa. In that connection, the State party notes that the complainant was present at the Tribunal hearing and was represented by a registered migration officer. He was able to make oral submissions with the assistance of an interpreter. 4.10 The Refugee Review Tribunal did not accept as credible the complainant’s claims: that he left Sri Lanka in either 2010 or 2012 because he feared being harmed by the Sri Lankan authorities; that he was detained for the reasons he claimed in September 2010; that he left Sri Lanka because the Criminal Investigation Department had threatened him and told him to leave the country; that he was hiding at any time for the reasons claimed; or that his uncle was assaulted and his father was killed for the reasons claimed. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that if the complainant was of interest to the Criminal Investigation Department as claimed, he would not have been able to re-enter Sri Lanka in 2011 following his travels in Africa without attracting the authorities’ attention. The Tribunal concluded that there were no substantial grounds for believing that there was a real risk of the complainant being subjected to torture if removed to Sri Lanka. 4.11 The State party also notes that, on 3 September 2013, the Federal Circuit Court dismissed the complainant’s application for judicial review of the Refugee Review Tribunal’s decision. The complainant was present at the Circuit Court hearing and made oral submissions. In particular, the Circuit Court concluded that the complainant was not able to point to any procedural error on the part of the Tribunal. Thereafter, the complainant applied for leave to appeal the Circuit Court decision; on 20 November 2013, the Full Federal Court of Australia dismissed his application, stating that no error had been made by either the Refugee Review Tribunal or the Federal Circuit Court. In 6