CEDAW/C/73/D/86/2015 State party’s immigration authorities have specifically focused on clarifying the author’s fear of gender-related persecution upon her return to Jordan. 4.11 The State party observes that due weight was accorded to the fact that the author did not apply for asylum 9 until five months after her departure from her country of origin and that she decided to destroy her passport and provided no other documents to substantiate her statements. 4.12 The State party considers that the overall situation in Jordan cannot independently justify the granting of asylum. The State party has taken into account the background information available on Jordan, 10 which could not provide justification for the author’s asylum request in terms of the alleged risk of persecution. 4.13 The State party concludes that the Refugee Appeals Board, a collegial body of a quasi-judicial nature, made a thorough assessment of the author ’s credibility, all the background information available on the particular country and the author ’s specific circumstances. They led to the conclusion that the author had failed to render it probable that upon their return to Jordan, she and her daughters would risk persecution or abuse justifying their request for asylum. The author ’s communication merely reflects her disagreement with the assessment of her case by the Board, and she has failed to identify any irregularity in the decision -making process or any risk factors that the Board failed to duly consider. The author attempts to use the Committee as an appellate body to have the factual circumstances in support of her claim for asylum reassessed by the Committee. The State party submits that the Committee must give considerable weight to the determination of the Board, which is better placed to assess the factual circumstances of the author’s case. It is therefore the view of the State party that there is no basis for doubting, let alone setting aside, the assessment made by the Board, according to which the author failed to establish that there are substantial grounds for believing that she would be at risk of being subjected to a real, personal and foreseeable risk of persecution if she and her daughters were returned to Jordan. It would therefore not constitute a breach of articles 1 and 2 (d), read in conjunction with article 2 (e) and (f), or article 15 (4) of the Convention to return the author and her children to Jordan. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 5.1 On 26 January 2016, the author contested the State party’s arguments on both the admissibility and merits of her case. 5.2 With regard to the author’s credibility, she claims that the threshold for accepting asylum applications should be measured not against the probability, but against the reasonable likelihood, that the claimant has a well-founded fear of persecution or that she would be exposed to persecution upon return. 11 She argues that, in the assessment of her credibility, the State party failed to adopt a gender sensitive approach and gender-sensitive procedural safeguards. She asserts that the background material submitted in her initial complaint should have been taken into account irrespective of the State party’s assessment of her credibility. She submits that the State party failed to consider the cumulative effects of the presented facts and to address significant issues such as: (a) her grievances experienced throughout her marriage in the past; (b) her fear for her daughters, especially her middle daughter, __________________ 9 10 11 19-15427 She applied for asylum in Sweden first, in April 2013. In addition to the background materials cited in her initial complaint, she refers to the country reports on human rights practices issued by the Department of State of the United States of America in 2014. In that regard, the author refers to the Committee’s general recommendation No. 32 and its views in A. v. Denmark (CEDAW/C/62/D/53/2013). 7/13