CAT/C/60/D/648/2015 Department in 2006, the reviewer found it far-fetched that the complainant, a goldsmith seeking to apply for a tourist visa for Australia, would be suspected of being an LTTE member or agent, and saw no other plausible reason for his detention. The reviewer noted inconsistencies in the reasons given by the complainant for leaving Colombo and found his account of the kidnapping by the Karuna group to be similarly inconsistent. Of particular concern was the fact that the complainant stated that the operators of the camp “pressed” him to join their group but also claimed that they did not tell him the name of the group during the three months he was held there. He also provided two different explanations of how he guessed the identity of the group. 14 4.8 The reviewer found the claim that upon being deported from Singapore the complainant managed to avoid attracting the attention of the Sri Lankan authorities by having his agent friend bribe immigration officials to be lacking credibility. The reviewer also believed the claim regarding the ex-police officer interpreter lacked factual merit. Further, status as a failed asylum seeker was found not meet the criteria for granting refugee status. 4.9 The Federal Magistrates Court found that the reviewer did not make any error of law. In the complainant’s appeal of this decision to the Federal Court of Australia he cited first as ground for the appeal a lack of procedural fairness; this was denied. However, the second ground for appeal — that the reviewer had failed to specifically consider the complainant’s claim that he was a member of a particular social group 15 — was allowed. While the reviewer had considered the complainant’s claim of past harm, he had not considered the more general risk. The Federal Court remitted the complainant’s case to the independent merits reviewer for reassessment. 4.10 In the second independent merits review, the complainant was able to make written submissions and attend an interview. Again it was recommended that the complainant not be recognized as an individual to whom the State party owed protection obligations. The reviewer did not find the complainant to be a reliable, credible or truthful witness. In particular, the reviewer took into account the complainant’s submission that his ability to present his claims and evidence had been hindered by a range of factors, including interpretation services and the psychological effects of his perilous journey; the guidance given by the UNHCR Handbook and Guidelines on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status, advising that no undue weight should be placed on a degree of confusion and omission in accounts given at various stages of the refugee status assessment; a torture and trauma report which assessed the complainant’s cognitive functioning as normal; the complainant’s interviews and written submissions in which no reference was made to errors by interpreters; and, finally, the complainant’s presentation at the interview for the second independent merits review, in which he was articulate and demonstrated a clear understanding and in which he was able to participate effectively. The reviewer did not give any weight to, or even raise, the inconsistencies in the entry interview and subsequent communications, in the light of advice from UNHCR. 16 Nonetheless, the reviewer considered that the complainant had tailored his evidence to suit his needs and that inconsistencies remained regarding central issues while many key claims were implausible and inconsistent. 4.11 The reviewer did not accept the complainant’s claim that he was arrested by the Criminal Investigation Department on suspicion of being an LTTE supporter after he had applied for Australian visa. The complainant’s changing evidence about how he came to apply for a visa, with one story being repeated three times in previous interviews and then changing, is not consistent with his claim that previous decision makers had misunderstood his evidence. His revised version of events contradicted his claim that a member of staff at the High Commission must have been a Department informant. His evidence was also 14 15 16 The type of work he was asked to do in one account and the identity of the leader in another. That is, the category of young Tamil males from the east of Sri Lanka, whom the authorities generally suspect as having links to LTTE. Including inconsistent evidence concerning his wife’s attempts to arrange for his release from the paramilitary camp, how his wife managed to visit him at the camp and how he was able to depart Sri Lanka again so soon after having been deported from Singapore in 2008. 5