CCPR/C/127/D/2276/2013 his rights under articles 23 (1) and 24 (1) of the Covenant, and it additionally notes that the author has no spouse or partner and no children – either in Canada or in Sri Lanka. 4.4 The State party notes that the author arrived in the United States on 13 August 2011. He was released from detention on or about 15 September 2011, in order to await a formal asylum hearing before an immigration judge. However, the author chose not to remain in the United States. Instead, he entered Canada by a land border crossing on 3 October 2011. The author has stated that he wanted to join his siblings who live in Canada. The author’s claim for protection was heard by the Refugee Protection Division on 2 November 2012. At the hearing, the author was represented by legal counsel and had the right to adduce evidence and make submissions. By a decision of 15 November 2012, the Division determined that the author did not have a well-founded fear of persecution. It noted that the author’s account had been inconsistent and contradictory on crucial elements, and therefore not credible. In his initial interview with United States immigration authorities, the author only mentioned the alleged threat of extortion in Sri Lanka. He also stated that he had never been arrested in Sri Lanka, only that he had been in a camp for internally displaced persons for several months. The Division noted that the account the author had given to United States authorities differed from the account he had provided to Canadian officials. First, the author had not informed United States authorities that he had been detained by the Eelam People’s Democratic Party; this alleged incident was only mentioned when the author filed his application in Canada. Second, the Refugee Protection Division noted that the author did not even mention the Eelam People’s Democratic Party in the account he initially provided to Canadian border officials immediately upon arrival. At that time, the account provided by the author had focused on the four alleged incidents of detention by the Criminal Investigation Department, the most recent of which had occurred in April 2010. When asked about the discrepancies, the author stated that he had initially forgotten to mention the incidents. The Refugee Protection Division determined that that explanation was not credible. Third, the Division noted that there were also discrepancies between the account submitted by the author in his asylum application and the account he provided during the asylum hearing. At the hearing, the author testified that he had moved from Nelliady in the Jaffna district to Colombo in January 2011. However, in his application he indicated that he had moved to Colombo in late April 2011, and that he had been detained in Nelliady by the Eelam People’s Democratic Party for five days in April 2011. When asked about this discrepancy at the hearing, the author indicated that as of January 2011, he was moving back and forth between Nelliady and Colombo. These discrepancies led the Division to determine that the claimant suffered no questioning, detainment or physical aggression after he was released from the internally displaced persons camp in January 2010. The claims made by the author regarding what had allegedly occurred between February 2010 and April 2011, namely that he had been detained by the Criminal Investigation Department in February and April 2010 and that he had been subjected to extortion and detention by the Eelam People’s Democratic Party in April 2011, were not found to be credible by the Refugee Protection Division. 4.5 The State party further notes that the Refugee Protection Division considered the author’s claim for protection in the light of the remaining aspects of his account and the other risk factors identified by him. Specifically, it considered whether returning to Sri Lanka as a Tamil male who had unsuccessfully sought protection in Canada would put the author at risk of being detained or tortured. The Refugee Protection Division examined country reports to determine what personal factors might draw the attention of the authorities of Sri Lanka to an individual returning to that country after unsuccessfully seeking asylum elsewhere. It noted that, according to a report from the border control agency of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the factors that would increase the risk of difficulties with the authorities, including possible detention, were an outstanding arrest warrant, a criminal record, a connection with LTTE, an illegal departure from Sri Lanka, an involvement with media or non-governmental organizations, and a lack of ID card or other documentation. 2 The Refugee Protection Division also reviewed information that had been compiled by the Immigration and Refugee Board of the Research 2 4 United Kingdom Border Agency, “Country of origin information report: Sri Lanka”, 4 July 2011, p. 146.