CAT/C/49/D/417/2010 Refugee Review Tribunal. The privative clause of the Migration Act therefore removes from the courts the power to decide whether the Tribunal has made a fair decision about persecution claims or to remedy credibility issues. Time limits of 35 days to apply to the Federal Magistrates Court for review of a Tribunal decision exclude asylum seekers whose agents did not inform them they had been refused a Protection Visa by the Tribunal or who have no one to explain how to apply to a court or how to get a waiver of fees if they cannot afford the court costs. 5.5 Counsel further submits that ministerial intervention requests are discretionary and cannot be appealed in court. Adverse ministerial decisions do not include the reasons why the Minister or officers in his Ministerial Intervention Unit have declined to intervene, and merely state that “the request did not meet the guidelines” or “the Minister declined to intervene”. The reasons for these decisions can be requested under freedom of information legislation, but this takes time and the delay often puts the asylum seeker in danger of removal. Those assisting asylum seekers to write ministerial intervention requests are often reduced to guesswork in the haste to submit a request to stop removals. Any request the Ministerial Intervention Unit refers to the Minister lists the history of decision-making and reasons why the different parties make their different claims as to why the Minister should or should not intervene. The Minister may decline even when there are strong reasons presented for his intervention. The Minister’s guidelines specify that all first requests for ministerial intervention under section 417 are referred to the Minister for possible consideration (counsel’s emphasis). This lack of ministerial accountability has been highlighted in many Parliamentary reviews. 17 Although the Minister intends to change this system of discretion in future, such changes were not available for the complainant. Counsel claims that the complainant’s allegations have never been properly heard because of limitations in the ministerial intervention process, and reiterates that the complainant’s allegations are corroborated by the evidence supplied. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering a claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide whether it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22, paragraph 5 (a), of the Convention, that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 6.2 In accordance with article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention, the Committee does not consider any communication unless it has ascertained that the complainant has exhausted all available domestic remedies. In the absence of any objection from the State 17 Counsel submits that the most thorough review by the Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee, in its June 2000 report A Sanctuary under Review: An Examination of Australia’s Refugee and Humanitarian Determination Processes, refers to the shortcomings of ministerial discretion, indicating that some aspects of the present structure of ministerial discretion under section 417 seem to run counter to the absolute nature of the non-refoulement obligation under the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The Minister may choose to exercise his discretion to allow a person who has established a case under the Convention to stay, but equally he or she may not. Furthermore, the discretionary power granted to the Minister is to be exercised only “if the Minister thinks it is in the public interest to do so”. Theoretically, the Minister could decide that it is not in the public interest to exercise his discretion so as to allow a person fearing torture in his or her home country to remain in Australia. 9