CCPR/C/122/D/2642/2015 him in Bangladesh were not genuine. The Immigration Service concluded that the author had not been persecuted at the time of departure and that he did not risk persecution upon his return. It also concluded that the author did not face a risk of being subjected to abuse if returned to his country. As he had an offer of employment that met the minimum requirements, the author was advised by the Immigration Service, in its decision, that he could apply for a residence permit. 2.9 The author appealed the decision of the Immigration Service and, on 7 January 2014, the Danish Refugee Appeals Board upheld the decision. The Board considered that the author had given vague and inconsistent statements during his asylum proceedings in relation to: (a) the course of events prior to his departure from Bangladesh, as on one occasion he indicated that he had left Bangladesh in July 2008, while on other occasions he stated that he had left the country in December 2007 or early 2008; (b) his membership with Jamaat-e-Islami, as he first stated that he had become a member in 2002 and then indicated that he had started sympathizing with the party in 2004 and become a member in 2006; (c) his attendance at the Qur’an school, as he first indicated that he had attended it from 1998 to 2000, then stated that he had attended it from 2000 to 2004, and on another occasion indicated that he had attended it from 2004 to 2006; (d) his employment in Bangladesh, as while on one occasion he indicated that he had worked as a hairdresser and at a furniture factory from 2003 to mid-2006 and that he had not worked prior to that, on another occasion he stated that he had worked both at a furniture shop and as hairdresser from 2000 to 2006; (e) the conflicts with the Jamaat-e-Islami, as while on one occasion he stated that he had been threatened by members of the party in January 2007 because of his refusal to participate in some of the party’s activities, he later stated that he had been threatened in October 2007 and subsequently assaulted by leaders of the party; (f) the charges against him in Bangladesh, as while the author initially indicated that he had been charged only in relation to one incident in which two persons had died following a demonstration during which some cars were burned, he later stated that he had been charged in connection with a demonstration in October 2007 during which two members of the Jamaat-e-Islami and two police officers had died as a result of violent clashes, and subsequently indicated that he had been charged in relation to three different incidents, including the first incident referred to above, plus an incident in 2007 in Dhaka in which a person had been killed in an explosion and another incident about one year before his departure from Bangladesh in which a university professor had been killed; (g) the way in which he had obtained the court documents submitted to the Danish authorities, as while he first stated that the court had sent the documents to the police and that the police had subsequently sent them to his cousin’s address, on another occasion he indicated that he had received the documents from his attorney, who had procured a copy of them from the authorities and then forwarded them to the author’s cousin, who had subsequently forwarded them to the author; (h) the way in which the newspapers had learned about the charges against him — or the person whose name is very similar to that of the author, but with a slightly different spelling — as when asked how the newspapers had learned about the charges, the author indicated that journalists were entitled to receive that kind of information if they requested it from the police, but when informed that the printing of information on an ongoing investigation would obstruct an investigation, the author indicated that the case had been investigated for a long time and that everyone knew who the suspects were. 2.10 The Board’s decision also indicates that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs had requested verification of the court documents provided by the author and that it had issued a memorandum on the matter. According to the Ministry’s memorandum dated 30 August 2013, those documents were verified and it was concluded that they were not genuine and did not prove the charges against the author in Bangladesh. The Ministry’s memorandum indicates that the verification involved a visit to the court in order to compare the documents provided and the originals, and that the documents referred to two different cases. The author’s name did not appear in any of the documents related to the two cases referred to in his asylum application. Nor did his name appear in the list of names of the accused persons or the list of persons who had been arrested without being charged. When asked about these findings, the author replied that he did not know how the Ministry had 4