CAT/C/61/D/720/2015
Airport. He was released after bribing some officials. After his release, he went to Jaffna
and worked as a delivery driver for Tamil merchant who sold soft drinks.
2.2. The complainant alleges that, in early 2009, 1 he was abducted by soldiers while
unloading soft drinks at his workplace in Jaffna. 2 There had been a bomb blast in the area
that morning and the police thought that he had connections with LTTE since he was
driving a delivery truck. The complainant claims that he was blindfolded and taken to what
he assumes was an army camp. Over the first two or three days, he was kicked and punched
and several bones in his hand were broken. 3 He alleges that he was interrogated and
physically assaulted by a Tamil-speaking soldier, who repeatedly accused him of being a
member of LTTE. He did not receive appropriate medical care for his injuries and was kept
in isolation, in a small, dark, underground room. The complainant believes that he was held
there for a month and a half, during which he was regularly beaten. As a result, he suffers
memory loss. The complainant states that he was released after his mother paid a bribe of
30,000 rupees, as demanded by the soldiers. After his release, he was allowed to travel to
Colombo to get his injuries treated at Sri Ganesha Dispensary, a private hospital. After that
incident, the complainant’s mother was afraid for his life and encouraged him to leave Sri
Lanka. He left the country by air, using his own passport, and went to Malaysia, 4 where he
stayed for 15 months. The complainant asserts that, after his departure for Malaysia, the
Criminal Investigation Department or the Sri Lanka Army came to look for him at his
house several times. 5 The complainant later went to Thailand, then to India, where he
applied for a visa and remained for approximately one year before travelling to Australia by
boat.
2.3. The complainant arrived in Australia on 11 May 2012. He applied for a protection
visa on 6 August 2012. His application was refused on 11 September 2012 by the
representative of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection further to section 65
of the Migration Act. The representative refused the application because, while he found
that the applicant was credible and accepted his claims, he did not consider that there was a
real risk that he would be prosecuted or suffer significant harm if returned to Sri Lanka as
the security situation had improved since 2009. The complainant applied to the Refugee
Review Tribunal and appeared before it on 6 December 2012, 2 August and 12 September
2013. On 4 October 2013, the Tribunal upheld the Ministerial decision. 6 The Tribunal
considered that the applicant was not a person with respect to whom Australia had
protection obligations under the “refugee” criterion because, after considering the evidence,
it found that there was no real chance that the applicant would be subjected to serious harm
amounting to persecution because he is of Tamil ethnicity, because of his real or imputed
political opinion, or for being a failed asylum seeker. The Tribunal did not find substantial
grounds for believing that the complainant would be at real and foreseeable risk of
suffering significant harm, if returned to Sri Lanka.
2.4. The complainant appealed the Tribunal’s decision to the Federal Circuit Court of
Australia, submitting that the Tribunal failed to take into account his claim that he feared
abduction and extortion by armed groups. 7 The appeal was dismissed on 13 August 2014.
The Federal Circuit Court upheld the Refugee Review Tribunal’s decision and found that it
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
2
The complainant does not provide a specific date.
According to the complainant, Jaffna was heavily militarized at that time owing to the establishment of
a Security Force Headquarters in the district.
The complainant provided an undated medical certificate from a dispensary, in which it is indicated
that the complainant was treated for a wound in his hand on 5 January 2009 (the rest of the section on
treatment is illegible).
The complainant does not provide a specific date.
The complainant claims that the Criminal Investigation Department visited his house twice while he
was in Malaysia. In July or August 2012, the Army came to his house again and asked if he was in
Australia. They came again one or two months before the Refugee Review Tribunal’s hearing on 6
December 2012. The complainant claims that, after he had left for Malaysia, his family reported him
missing in order to avoid the Army coming to look for him. However, Army officers kept coming to
the house to look for him.
The complainant provided a copy of the decision.
The complainant does not provide further details.