CCPR/C/125/D/2494/2014 6.2 The State party reiterates that the author has not submitted any new information on his personal situation. In its decision of 28 July 2014, the Refugee Appeals Board could not consider as a fact that the author’s conversion was genuine. The Board found that the conversion reflected grounds for asylum that had been fabricated for the occasion. In its decision, the Board made a specific and individual assessment of the information available on the author’s alleged conversion and exposure, including the information provided by the author on his conversion, and took into account the certificate confirming his baptism. However, the circumstance that a person claiming to have converted has been baptized does not independently render it probable that such person has in actual fact converted. The Refugee Appeals Board makes an overall assessment of all the circumstances of a case when a person claims to have converted.19 6.3 The reference to the judgment in the case of F.G. v. Sweden cannot lead to a different assessment because the author did not render it probable that he was risking persecution if returned to the Islamic Republic of Iran, thus justifying his claim for asylum. The Refugee Appeals Board has not accepted the author’s conversion as a fact. Furthermore, in its decision of 28 July 2014, the Board made an assessment of the consequences of the author’s alleged conversion in the event of his return to the Islamic Republic of Iran. The State party also points out that in any event, the reasoning of the European Court in F.G. v. Sweden does not impose a general obligation on the Refugee Appeals Board to reopen asylum cases whenever it is made aware of a new sur place claim. 6.4 The power to decide on the reopening of an asylum case is vested in the Chair of the panel which originally decided the appeal when, according to the contents of the request for reopening, there is no reason to assume that the Refugee Appeals Board will change its decision.20 The Chair must be a judge who is also a member of the Executive Committee of the Board. The Secretariat of the Refugee Appeals Board assists the Executive Committee in drafting decisions and after the Chair of the original panel has made a decision, it is signed by an employee of the secretariat and delivered to the asylum seeker. Accordingly, both formally and in practice, decisions on reopening requests are always made by the Chair of the original panel, or in certain cases by all the members of the original panel. The fact that a decision is signed by an employee of the secretariat does not alter this fact. The legislation on the consideration of requests for reopening of asylum cases is thus clear and leaves no doubt about the competence of the Refugee Appeals Board, and therefore there is no basis for claiming that decisions refusing requests for reopening are made by the secretariat of the Refugee Appeals Board. Accordingly, it is not correct to assume, as submitted by the author, that the issue of the new sur place asylum motive was handled only by a staff member who acting on behalf of the Board denied the request. 6.5 The Danish Refugee Appeals Board has reopened other cases when essential new information has come to light after the initial Board hearing. The author’s communication to the Committee has not brought to light any essential new information. He has not identified any similarities between the cases that he cited and his own case, nor has he pointed to any errors or omissions in the examination of his case or in the assessment of evidence by the Refugee Appeals Board. 6.6 When rendering its decision, the Danish Refugee Appeals Board took into account all relevant information. According to the Committee’s established jurisprudence, 21 considerable weight should be given to the assessment conducted by the State party, and it is generally for States parties to review and evaluate facts and evidence, unless it is found that the evaluation was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice. In the present case, the author is trying to use the Committee as an appellate body to have the factual circumstances advocated in support of his claim for asylum reassessed by the Committee. The author has also failed to identify any irregularity in the decision-making process or any 19 20 21 8 See X v. Norway (CCPR/C/115/D/2474/2014), para. 7.6. See section 53 (12) of the Aliens Act and rule 48 of the rules of procedure of the Refugee Appeals Board. See P.T. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/113/D/2272/2013), para. 7.3; N. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/114/D/2426/2014), para. 6.6; K. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/114/D/2393/2014), paras. 7.4–7.5; Mr. X and Ms. X v. Denmark, para. 7.5; and Z v. Denmark (CCPR/C/114/D/2329/2014), para. 7.4.