CAT/C/62/D/722/2015 4.6 On 24 September 2013, the complainant requested that his asylum application be reviewed again, because he claimed that he had been armed with weapons by the Interahamwe, information which had not previously been provided. That request was rejected on 16 October 2013. In its decision, the Immigration Appeals Board stated that even if it were to believe that the complainant had played a more active role in the Interahamwe or FDLR, he still had not sufficiently substantiated his allegations that on return to his home country he risked persecution, from which he required protection under the Convention. The Board referred to the 2007 report by the Norwegian Country of Origin Information Centre on the human rights situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, according to which people seeking protection abroad and subsequently returning home were unlikely to get into trouble with the authorities, as long as they returned to the country via Kinshasa. 4.7 On 11 February 2014, the Norwegian Organization for Asylum Seekers informed the complainant that they would not offer legal help in his case, since the organization only takes cases where “there is a realistic possibility” of changing the decision of the Immigration Appeals Board. The organization had decided that the rejection of the asylum application did not raise “particular issues”. 4.8 On 24 June 2014, the complainant was arrested by the police to procure his return to his country of origin. After his arrest, he again requested that his asylum request be reviewed. At the same time, he gave notice of legal action to quash the 2013 decision whereby his asylum application had been rejected. The notice of legal action, however, “proved to be of little consequence”, since the complainant “did not institute legal proceedings”. On 1 July 2014, the complainant “was expelled from Norway”.6 He received an advance notice about his expulsion on 27 June 2014, to which he did not reply. 4.9 The complainant did not file an administrative complaint against the expulsion notice, although he was entitled to do so and had been informed of that possibility. On 1 July 2014, the complainant was granted a “deferred implementation” until the Immigration Appeals Board had considered its decision on the second request to reverse its 2013 decision rejecting the asylum application. On 27 November 2015, the Board rejected the second request as well, maintaining its previous conclusion that the author did not merit protection under the Convention. In its decision, the Board again stated that the complainant could “receive effective protection in Kinshasa”. 4.10 The State party refers to a new report prepared by the Norwegian Country of Origin Information Centre entitled “The Democratic Republic of Congo: internal migration”, published on 19 February 2015. The report describes the country and its capital city as “affected by a multifaceted crisis in which the State has collapsed, the health care is dysfunctional and only a small proportion of the population has regular access to electricity, clean water and sanitation systems” and that “sources indicate that personal networks are highly significant to coping in Kinshasa”. This was also confirmed by the recommendation of UNHCR in the report of December 2012. 4.11 The State party, however, considers that having a personal network is only one element of the comprehensive assessment and cannot be a determining factor. In other circumstances, applicants have been granted protection where there were other “exigent” facts, such as single women with children, or persons experiencing significant health issues. The Immigration Appeals Board considered the situation in Kinshasa to be difficult, but that it could not be claimed that it had worsened in recent years. The situation, the Board considered, “has been bad for a long time”, and had not “improved in recent years”. The Board also noted that Kinshasa was a large city, with inhabitants coming from different ethnic groups, and there was no evidence of conflict between those ethnicities. 4.12 The complainant claims to be a member of the Bashi ethnic group from Bukavu in South Kivu and that he speaks Mashi, Swahili and French. He has 15 years of schooling. There is no information about the complainant having “family or other networks” in Kinshasa. He has no mental or physical problems. He must “therefore be considered a 6 4 This seems to be referring to a decision to expel the complainant, not his physical removal, as he was removed at a later date.