CAT/C/61/D/720/2015 claimed that he was held for 20 days, whereas in his protection visa application he claimed that he was held for a month and a half. The Tribunal provided the complainant with an opportunity to clarify the inconsistency; in doing so, he stated that he gave the wrong timeframe because he was confused and had forgotten. The Tribunal expressed doubts about the complainant’s claim that his memory was affected, given that he was able to detail the injuries sustained from the beating but did not explain how the beating may have affected his memory. The Tribunal did not accept that the complainant was held for a month and a half and found that he had exaggerated the time frame. 4.11 Furthermore, the Tribunal considered that the complainant’s evidence in respect of the reasons for his arrest and release were somewhat vague. The Tribunal did not accept that the complainant was suspected of being a member of LTTE and indicated to him that it was possible that his captors never suspected that in the first place, and may have just been looking for a bribe, which they eventually received. The Tribunal also noted the finding in the Immigration and Border Protection decision that, based on the evidence given by the complainant, his arrest was part of a routine roundup followed a bomb blast. Given that the incident took place in 2009, the Tribunal expressed doubts that it would result in the complainant attracting attention if he returned to Sri Lanka. 4.12 The Tribunal examined the complainant’s claim that when he returned to Sri Lanka in 2008, he had planned to remain for a few months then go back to Qatar, but was prevented from leaving by the Sri Lanka Army. The Tribunal accepted that it was plausible that the complainant would have been refused clearance to leave Jaffna in 2009 and that he was subsequently cleared to travel to Colombo for medical reasons. However, the Tribunal did not accept that the complainant was treated in hospital for the length of time that he claimed — every other day for a month — given that he could not remember the name of the hospital, its location or the address of the lodge where he stayed. 4.13 The Tribunal examined the complainant’s claim that the Criminal Investigation Department or the Sri Lanka Army went to his house after he had left Sri Lanka — twice when he was in Malaysia, on another occasion in July or August 2012, when they asked whether he was in Australia, and again, a month or two before the first Refugee Review Tribunal hearing on 6 December 2012. While the Tribunal accepted that the authorities visited his home after his departure for Malaysia, it found that those visits were in response to a report made by his family to the police that the complainant was missing; they were not an indication that he was of adverse interest in Sri Lanka. The Tribunal did not accept that he paid bribes to leave Sri Lanka for Malaysia in 2009 and noted that, if he were of interest, he would not have been cleared by the Sri Lanka Army to travel to Colombo for medical treatment in 2009. The Tribunal found it implausible that, after the complainant had arrived in Australia on 11 May 2012 — more than three years after leaving Sri Lanka — the authorities would have visited his home and asked whether he was in Australia. 4.14 The Tribunal, in affirming the Immigration and Border Protection decision not to grant the complainant a protection visa, also referred to relevant country information, including UNHCR Eligibility Guidelines for Assessing the Protection Needs of AsylumSeekers from Sri Lanka (5 July 2010), which supported the view that the complainant would not be harmed because he was a Tamil or specifically a Tamil from the North of Sri Lanka. The Tribunal explained to the complainant that the country information, which stated that the Government of Sri Lanka government was working to identify Tamil activists and supporters of Tamil separatism, may lead it to find that he was not at risk of harm as the evidence he provided did not indicate that he had such a profile. The complainant chose not to make any oral submissions in response to that explanation, but made a submission after the hearing, which contained different country information. The Tribunal considered that information, but concluded that the country information that it had, including the UNHCR eligibility guidelines, was preferable and of greater evidentiary weight. 4.15 In addition to the complainant’s protection claims, the Tribunal considered the claim put forward by the complainant’s migration agent that he was likely to be imprisoned and subjected to significant harm in custody, under the complementary protection criteria. As the complainant had departed Sri Lanka legally, the Tribunal found that he would not be 6