CAT/C/61/D/720/2015 detained upon return and, therefore, there was no real risk that he would be remanded in custody or significantly harmed while on remand. 4.16 On 13 August 2014, the Federal Circuit Court dismissed the complainant’s application for judicial review of the Refugee Review Tribunal decision. Through counsel, the complainant claimed before the Circuit Court that the Tribunal had erred in its procedure by failing to consider a claim or a component of a claim. The Circuit Court concluded that the Tribunal had dealt properly with the complainant’s claims. It recalled that omission to refer to a piece of evidence does not necessarily mean that it was overlooked, and concluded that, while there may have been a failure on the part of the Tribunal to refer to a piece of evidence, there was no failure in dealing with an integer of the complainant’s claims.19 4.17 On 3 September 2014, the complainant filed an application with the Federal Court of Australia to appeal the decision of the Federal Circuit Court. On 2 March 2015, the Federal Court dismissed the complainant’s application for judicial review of the Circuit Court’s decision. The complainant was present at the Federal Court hearing and was represented by counsel. The Federal Court upheld the Circuit Court’s decision and concluded that he had raised no new claim or integer of a claim that was sufficiently apparent in the material before the Tribunal for it to require separate consideration. 4.18 On 3 June 2015, the complainant requested Ministerial intervention under section 417 of the Migration Act and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection initiated action under section 48B of the Migration Act. Immigration and Border Protection determined that there was no credible new information provided in the request for Ministerial intervention to indicate that the complainant had an enhanced chance of making a successful protection visa application. Therefore, on 27 August 2015, Immigration and Border Protection determined that the complainant’s claims did not meet the criteria for Ministerial intervention under section 48B of the Migration Act and that his claims did not meet the criteria under section 417 of the Act. On 8 September 2015, the Assistant Minister for Immigration and Border Protection declined to exercise her power under section 417 of the Migration Act to intervene in the case. 4.19 The State party further clarifies a number of issues that were raised in the complainant’s submission. Concerning the complainant’s new claim in his submission to the Committee that, upon returning from Qatar in early 2009, he was detained and interrogated at Colombo Airport and released only after paying a bribe to the authorities, the State party submits that that claim was not raised in the domestic processes. The complainant indicated to the Refugee Review Tribunal that he had returned to Sri Lanka in late 2008, but did not mention that he had experienced difficulties upon his return. Rather, he claimed that when he attempted to travel to Qatar again, he was prevented from departing Sri Lanka by the Sri Lanka Army, which was accepted by Tribunal. Immigration and Border Protection assessed that new claim and does not accept it as being credible on the basis that the complainant had not previously claimed that he had had difficulty when he returned to Sri Lanka. His original and slightly different claim was that he was prevented from leaving Sri Lanka to return to Qatar, which was accepted by the Tribunal. The State party notes that the date on which the complainant returned to Sri Lanka was unclear and has been variously recorded as 2008 and 2009. The complainant has also been inconsistent about whether, when he did return to Sri Lanka, his visa was expired or nearing expiry. 20 In his submissions to the Committee, the complainant claims that he returned to Sri Lanka in early 2009 but does not explain how this point in time is connected to the expiry or not of his visa for Qatar. 4.20 As regards the complainant’s new claim that his membership in Tamil social groups and contact with members who departed Sri Lanka illegally and sought asylum in Australia 19 20 The Federal Circuit Court found that the complainant’s claim of risk from armed groups was not clearly made and apparent in the material before the Refugee Review Tribunal. It is noted that, during the protection visa assessment process, the complainant claimed that he had spent the period from 2006 to 2008 working in Qatar and returned to Sri Lanka from Qatar when his visa expired; however, he later claimed before the Tribunal that he was prevented from returning to Qatar because his visa was close to expiry. 7