CAT/C/59/D/666/2015
2.3
In 2010, the complainant began volunteering with the Tamil National Alliance. He
was mainly engaged in helping S.Y.2 in his successful election campaign of that year. The
complainant was closely connected to S.Y., yet the motives for his political militancy and
his commitment were based on family and racial ties rather than on deep political
knowledge. The complainant began to be threatened in 2010 owing to his involvement in
the Alliance, as were other volunteers. His aunt was also subjected to threats because of the
complainant’s political activity.
2.4
In Sri Lanka, the complainant became known as a member of the Alliance, assisting
it in the political movement opposing the Government. The Alliance had in the past been
the target of political violence because of its lack of support for the ruling Sinhaladominated national Government.
2.5
After the complainant left Sri Lanka for Australia, members of the Tamil Makkal
Viduthalai Pulikal were still actively seeking him. He affirms that he has been and still is
suspected by the authorities of being a supporter and member of the Tamil National
Alliance.
2.6
On 17 May 2012, the complainant, travelling by boat, arrived in Australia from Sri
Lanka and was detained upon arrival. On 25 August 2012, he applied for asylum in
Australia.3
2.7
On 24 October 2012, the Department of Immigration and Border Protection found
that the complainant was not a refugee and was therefore not a person to whom Australia
owed protection obligations.
2.8
The complainant appealed the decision of the Department to the Refugee Review
Tribunal of Australia.4 On 28 May 2013, the Tribunal upheld the original rejection.
2.9
On 20 June 2013, the complainant applied for judicial review of the Tribunal’s
decision to the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. His appeal was dismissed on 21 October
2013.
2.10 On 2 December 2014, the complainant made an application to the Minister for
Immigration and Border Protection to request ministerial intervention under section 417 of
the Migration Act 1958. On 29 January 2015, following comprehensive consideration of
the case, including under section 48B5 of the Migration Act 1958, the Minister rejected the
complainant’s request for ministerial intervention. The rejection is part of the Minister’s
non-compellable powers and cannot be appealed.
The complaint
3.1
The complainant claims that there are substantial grounds for believing that he
would be tortured if returned to Sri Lanka. He asserts that he is at risk of torture and other
ill-treatment at the hands of the Sri Lankan authorities, notably for reasons of his previous
work for the Tamil National Alliance and his relationship with the Alliance politician S.Y.
1
2
3
4
5
2
The complainant claims that this was not random violence but extended automatic weapons fire,
which was a testament to the conditions of excessive violence and impunity in which the family was
living.
S.Y., Member of Parliament for the Tamil National Alliance, is well known to the complainant as he
is married to S.Y.’s cousin.
In accordance with section 65 of the Migration Act 1958, the Minister may grant a visa if the Minister
is satisfied that the criteria prescribed for that visa by the Migration Act have been satisfied.
The Refugee Review Tribunal is an independent statutory body that reviews the decisions of the
Department of Immigration and Border Protection to refuse to grant a protection visa.
Section 48B states that, among other criterion, the Minister may grant a protection visa to an
unsuccessful applicant if he or she thinks it is in the public interest to do so.