CAT/C/71/D/802/2017
4.3
The national authorities also considered that the complainant’s allegation of having
been detained in 2008 was not credible. The complainant was unable to plausibly explain
how the Chinese authorities learned of her involvement in Falun Gong, or how they knew
that she possessed Falun Gong materials in her home. She failed to explain why the
authorities had targeted her in 2008, whereas she had been involved with Falun Gong since
2006. When the complainant was presented with those concerns, she replied that she did not
know.
4.4
The national authorities also considered information pertaining to a register of
individuals in China who had been released from prison, detention and re-education centres.
In view of the information relating to this register, the national authorities considered that it
was implausible that the Government of China had not noticed that the complainant had
visited her aunt after her release from detention. The national authorities also considered it
implausible that the complainant was able to maintain her employment after her arrest.
4.5
The complainant’s claims were thoroughly examined by the national authorities
during six robust procedures. The complainant was assisted by an interpreter during the
interview concerning her protection visa application, and during the hearing before the
Refugee Review Tribunal. The complainant’s claims have been assessed under the
complementary protection provisions established in paragraph 36 (2) (aa) of the Migration
Act, which incorporates the State party’s non-refoulement obligations under both the
Convention and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Material considered
by the national authorities included country information published by Amnesty International,
Human Rights Watch, the Home Office of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland, the Department of State of the United States of America, and the State party’s
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. The State party takes its non-refoulement
obligations seriously, and implements them in good faith. The State party acknowledges that
complete accuracy is seldom to be expected from victims of torture, and assures the
Committee that the national authorities take this into account when examining cases.
However, in the present case, neither the complainant’s allegations of her involvement in
Falun Gong nor her allegations of torture were deemed credible.
4.6
The decision maker who examined the complainant’s application for a protection visa
considered that she had either embellished or entirely fabricated her material claims, and that
she had not been truthful. The decision maker described several inconsistencies in her
testimony, and concluded that she had not experienced any interference with her employment
or her right to freedom of movement. For example, the decision maker observed that the
complainant had remained in China after her release from detention in 2008. The complainant
could have left China in 2011 with a student guardian visa, but chose to remain in China at
that time. Instead, she sent her husband to Australia, despite the fact that he was not of adverse
interest to the Government of China. The complainant did not leave China until 2012, despite
having had the means to do so before. Although the complainant’s tourist visa for Australia
was issued on 23 October 2012, she left China 18 days later, on 10 November 2012. The
decision maker reasoned that those facts were not consistent with the behaviour of an
individual who feared imminent arrest and torture by officials of the Government of China.
4.7
The Refugee Review Tribunal accepted that the complainant had participated in a
number of Falun Gong activities in Australia and had attended Falun Gong classes. However,
the Tribunal considered that she had only done so in order to strengthen her claim for asylum.
The Tribunal determined that she was not credible, and that her testimony had been
inconsistent and unpersuasive. When the Tribunal raised the issue of her delay in leaving
China, the complainant responded that she had not known that she could practise Falun Gong
abroad. At that time, the complainant did not raise the claim that she has presented in her
communication, namely, that she delayed leaving China because she was the primary earner
in the family, and because her initial application for a visa had been denied.
4.8
The complainant has not substantiated her broad allegation that the findings of the
national authorities were outrageous. The complainant specifically contests the finding of the
Refugee Review Tribunal that the official document that she had presented to attest to her
detention in China was inauthentic. However, the Tribunal’s concerns regarding the
genuineness of this document were valid. The document, entitled “Public Security Detention
Centre of Jilin City Public Security Bureau Certificate to Conclude Detention” stated that the
4
GE.21-11876