CEDAW/C/71/D/101/2016 3.2 The State party further analyses the reasoning for the decision of the Refugee Appeals Board dated 1 December 2015. As grounds for asylum, the author cited her fear in relation to her family and her husband for having resisted the marriage. She claimed that, in early 2013, her uncle had arranged her ma rriage to his wife’s brother. About a week later, the marriage took place, in the author ’s absence. On the day of the wedding, she visited the shop of her friend S., but her uncle and his wife intruded, beat her and detained her at the family home for two days. She subsequently contacted S., who arranged for her escape a few days later. 3.3 The Refugee Appeals Board could not accept as a fact the author ’s statement on her grounds for asylum, as it appeared implausible and fabricated for the occasion; nor did her statement before the Board appear to reflect her own experience. The majority of the Board members emphasized that it did not seem credible that, both on the day of her alleged wedding and again, a few days later, she had contacted S. in his shop, nor that S. had remained in Somalia even though his life had allegedly been threatened. The explanation for why S. could not leave Somalia also lacked credibility, in particular given that he was, together with the author ’s paternal aunt, able to raise funds for the author’s escape to Europe. 3.4 Given that the author’s grounds for asylum could not be accepted as factual, a majority of the members of the Refugee Appeals Board could not accept as a fact that the author would be without a male network in Somali a and that, therefore, for that reason alone, she would be at risk of abuse falling within the scope of section 7 of the Aliens Act; nor could her having to travel to Baardheere lead to a different conclusion. The Board concluded accordingly that the author had not made a convincing case that she would be at specific and individual risk of persecution in Somalia. 3.5 The State party also provides detailed information as to the Board ’s organization, jurisdiction, composition, prerogatives, functioning, indep endence, the legal basis for its decisions and the decision-making process, the assessment of evidence and the availability of background information. 3.6 On admissibility, the State party believes that the author has failed to establish a prima facie case for the purposes of admissibility before the Committee. Accordingly, it has not been sufficiently substantiated that she would be exposed to a real, personal and foreseeable risk of serious forms of gender-based violence in Somalia. The communication should therefore be declared inadmissible, as manifestly ill-founded under article 4 (2) of the Optional Protocol. 3.7 On the merits, the State party first points out that, in the present communication, the author has not submitted any new information other than that submitted before the immigration authorities and the Refugee Appeals Board. The author ’s deportation would not amount to a violation of the Convention. In support, the State party observes with regard to the author’s credibility that the Board’s evaluation of the credibility of asylum seekers is based on an overall assessment comprising, inter alia, an assessment of the asylum seeker’s statements and demeanour at the Board hearing in conjunction with the other information in the case, including country background material and information gathered for the purpose of the case. If the asylum seeker ’s statements appear coherent, the Board normally accepts them as fact. If the statements are inconsistent, changeable, with expansions or omissions, the Board will seek clarifications. 3.8 According to the decision of the Refugee Appeals Board of 1 December 2015, a majority of the Board members found that the author’s statements on the grounds for asylum could not be accepted as fact. They emphasized in particular that it did not seem credible that, both on the day of the wedding and again a few days later, the author had visited S. in his shop, not far from the family home. The majority also emphasized that it seemed to lack credibility that S. remained in Somalia even though 4/12 18-20335