CCPR/C/117/D/2469/2014 interpreted for United States forces in Afghanistan and, as a result, had obtained intelligence information. In that connection, the applicant had become aware that the colonel had been suspected of collaborating with the Taliban. In a specific incident in June 2011, the colonel in question had contacted the applicant and had threatened to kill him if he did not pass on the intelligence information. The applicant had declined to pass on the information and the colonel had been arrested by American forces four or five days later. In July 2011, the applicant had learned that the colonel had been released. The applicant’s brother-in-law had been killed the same day by persons unknown to the applicant. Those persons had asked as to the whereabouts of the applicant. 4.7 The refugee appeals board accepted as a fact that the author had acted as an interpreter for international security forces, but determined that, viewed in isolation, this did not form a basis for asylum. The board rejected the author’s account of his alleged conflict with A.M.W. and his statement that his brother-in-law had been killed because of the author’s conflict with the A.M.W. The board further determined that the author had made inconsistent statements on significant circumstances, including his attempts to establish contact with the American intelligence officer M.W. and the date on which he had learned about the imminent arrest of A.M.W. The author has persistently stated that the A.M.W. was arrested at the end of June 2011 and that he (the author) went on vacation with his sister in Kandahar at the beginning of July 2011. 4.8 The refugee appeals board deemed the author not to be credible as, in response to a query from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Mission Essential Personnel had stated on 12 June 2012 that the author’s last day at work had been 1 May 2011, and that he had resigned from his position for family reasons. The board also found that the killing of the author’s brother-in-law had not had been sufficiently substantiated as related to the applicant’s conflict with A.M.W. Against that background, the board upheld the decision of 13 July 2012 of the Danish immigration service to refuse asylum to the author. 4.9 The refugee appeals board questioned a document produced by the author emanating from the police authorities in the Kandahar province that had confirmed that the author’s brother-in-law had been killed because terrorists had been looking for the author. The board first noted that, owing to its form and contents, the document appeared to have been fabricated for the occasion. The board also found it conspicuous that, after having been refused asylum by the board, the author had contacted a lawyer who had requested, on his behalf, that the police investigate a killing that had taken place in 2011. No explanation was provided as to why the alleged killing of the brother-in-law had not previously been reported to the authorities. The State party notes the board’s observation that it is possible to purchase all kinds of forged documents in Afghanistan. 4.10 The State party further recalls that the refugee appeals board questioned the production by the author of a statement from a major J.S. The board wondered why a statement had not instead been produced from M.W., to whom he author had referred several times and who was allegedly his main contact person. The letter of recommendation from J.S. stated that the author had worked as an interpreter for international security forces at Qalat police headquarters in Zabul from 1 July 2010 to 31 May 2011. During the interview conducted on 13 January 2012 by the Danish immigration service, the author had stated that he had started working for the intelligence service around March 2011 and therefore no longer worked with J.S. Therefore, it seems peculiar that J.S. should be able to confirm that the author had been employed until 31 May 2011 as the author no longer worked for him at that time. For the above reasons, the board did not give any evidentiary value to the statement, which was considered fabricated for the occasion. 4.11 The refugee appeals board further noted that the author had provided inconsistent statements on the period of his employment with Mission Essential Personnel. In his asylum registration report of 30 September 2011, the author had stated that his employment 5