CAT/C/71/D/802/2017 officers beat her when she was unable to answer their questions satisfactorily. They also deprived her of food and water and threatened to transfer her to a prison. The complainant was released one week later, after her father had paid a bond of 10,000 renminbi. 2.2 The complainant continued to practise Falun Gong, including by distributing leaflets about the movement. In February 2011, fearing for the safety of her son, the complainant sent him to Australia to pursue his studies. Thereafter, on an unspecified date, the complainant’s husband also left China for Australia. 2.3 On 10 November 2012, the complainant arrived in Australia on a tourist visa. In February 2013, she applied for a protection visa in Australia, and obtained a temporary visa pending a decision on her application. She continued to practise Falun Gong, and she participated in related protests. 2.4 On 13 November 2013, the Minister for Immigration in Australia rejected the complainant’s application for a protection visa. On 15 April 2014, the Refugee Review Tribunal denied the complainant’s appeal of the negative ministerial decision. In its decision, the Tribunal emphasized inconsistencies in the statements of the complainant and her husband concerning the complainant’s practice of Falun Gong. The Tribunal considered that the complainant’s statements on that issue had not been truthful. 2.5 On 15 May 2014, the complainant applied for judicial review of the negative decision of the Tribunal. On 23 February 2016, the Federal Circuit Court dismissed her appeal. On 22 December 2016, the Federal Court dismissed her appeal against the decision of the Federal Circuit Court. When the Federal Court published its decision online, it did not redact the complainant’s name or the names of the three Falun Gong practitioners who had testified on her behalf. The publication of the decision therefore violated the Privacy Act and the Migration Act.1 On 6 April 2017, the High Court dismissed the complainant’s request for special leave to appeal the decision of the Federal Court. 2.6 On an unspecified date, the complainant filed a complaint to the Office of the Information Commissioner, which has jurisdiction in matters relating to the Privacy Act. The complainant is also preparing a complaint to the Chief Justice of the Federal Court. However, neither of those measures can eliminate the increased risk of harm that she would face upon removal to China as a result of the error of the Federal Court. 2.7 On 23 January 2017, the Minister for Immigration denied the complainant’s request for ministerial intervention under section 417 of the Migration Act. The complainant was requested to leave Australia within one week. She claims to have exhausted all available domestic remedies. Complaint 3.1 The complainant claims that the State party would violate her rights under article 3 of the Convention by removing her to China, where she would be subjected to surveillance, harassment and torture by government officials because of her adherence to Falun Gong. Reports indicate that Falun Gong practitioners in China have been tortured, imprisoned for extended periods, subjected to forced labour, and executed. The complainant provided evidence to that effect to the State party’s authorities.2 3.2 The national authorities erred in determining that the complainant was not credible. For example, the Refugee Review Tribunal assigned significant weight to the fact that the 1 2 2 According to the complainant, section 91X of the Migration Act states: “(1) This section applies to a proceeding before the High Court, the Federal Court or the Federal Circuit Court if the proceeding relates to a person in the person’s capacity as: (a) a person who applied for a protection visa; or (b) a person who applied for a protection related bridging visa; (c) a person whose protection visa has been cancelled; or (d) a person whose protection-related bridging visa has been cancelled. (2) The court must not publish (in electronic form or otherwise), in relation to the proceeding, the person’s name.” The complainant refers to a translation of an article entitled “More than a dozen Falun Gong practitioners kidnapped in Shulan City, Jilin Province” (17 October 2016), available at GE.21-11876

Select target paragraph3