CAT/C/56/D/591/2014
that regard, the State party notes that the complainant was present at the hearing of his
application for special leave and could have made oral submissions.
4.12 On 26 November 2013, the complainant filed a request for ministerial intervention
under sections 417 and 48B of the Migration Act. The claims made by the complainant
were assessed again in full, with consideration also given to the decisions of the Refugee
Review Tribunal and the Federal Circuit Court; however, his request for ministerial
intervention was rejected as he had not provided any further information to justify
ministerial intervention.
4.13 The State party further notes that, on 19 March 2014, the complainant made a
second request for ministerial intervention. His claims were again assessed and it was
concluded that the complainant had not made any new protection claims that had not been
raised already in his initial application, nor provided any new information that would
enhance his chances of making a successful protection visa application. Consequently, the
complainant’s request did not meet the guidelines for referral to the Minister and was
rejected.
4.14 In the light of the above, the State party maintains that all of the complainant’s
claims were considered and all evidence provided was verified by the domestic
authorities at every stage of the complainant’s review process. All of the processes
concluded that there are no substantial grounds for believing that the complainant is at a
foreseeable, real and personal risk of torture if returned to Sri Lanka.
4.15 Regarding the name of the church, the State party notes that the complainant
claims that one of the reasons the Refugee Review Tribunal “assumed” that his story was
not credible was because of the confusion about the name of the church in which he
allegedly sought refuge from mid-2011 to February 2012. In that regard, the State party
submits that it was reasonable for the Tribunal to reach those conclusions as the
complainant was present at the hearing and had the opportunity to clarify his statements
with the assistance of an interpreter. In any event, the Tribunal’s views with regard to the
complainant’s credibility were not founded solely on the matter of the name of the
church. The Tribunal relied on a culmination of factors in reaching that conclusion,
including the fact that the complainant re-entered Sri Lanka in 2011 without attracting
the attention of the Sri Lankan authorities, despite allegedly being of interest to the
Criminal Investigation Department.
4.16 The protection visa assessment and the subsequent ministerial intervention
assessments understood that the correct name of the church was the “St. John de Britto
Church”, as submitted by the complainant, and arrived at the conclusion that the
complainant’s claims were not credible. The complainant raised the issue in his second
request for ministerial intervention and it was similarly determined that the alleged
confusion regarding the name of the church was not the reason why the Tribunal did not
find his evidence to be credible.
4.17 In the light of the above, the State party submits that the complainant’s
submissions concerning the name of the church do not undermine the conclusion
consistently reached by all the authorities that the complainant is not at a foreseeable,
real or personal risk of torture in Sri Lanka.
4.18 As to the complainant’s claim regarding the data breach, whereby the personal
details of a number of individuals were inadvertently posted on the website of the
Department of Immigration and Border Protection, the State party submits that the
complainant was not affected by the data breach as the data pertained only to persons in
detention on 31 January 2014 and the complainant was not in detention at that time. As
such, the complainant’s personal details have not been released publicly.
7