CAT/C/37/D/288/2006 Page 4 The State party’s observations on admissibility 4.1 On 3 April 2006, the State party provided its submission on admissibility only. It explains that generally, applications for asylum are assessed and decided in the first, administrative, instance by the Directorate of Immigration (UDI). Administrative appeals are decided by the Norwegian Immigration Appeals Board (UNE). All asylum seekers are appointed attorneys by the State. The legality of an administrative act may be challenged in Norwegian courts. Thus, asylum-seekers who find their applications for political asylum turned down by the administration have the possibility of filing an application before the Norwegian courts for judicial review and thereby have the legality of the rejection examined. Such an application is not subject to leave by the courts; neither is an application for injunction. 4.2 A concerned party may apply to the courts for an injunction, requesting an order to the administration to defer the deportation of the asylum-seeker. According to the Enforcement of Judgements Act 1992, an order for injunction may be granted if the plaintiff (a) demonstrates that the challenged decision probably will be annulled by the court when the main case is to be adjudicated, and (b) shows sufficient reasons for requesting an injunction, i.e. that an injunction is necessary to avoid serious damage or harm if the expulsion were enforced without the court having had the opportunity to adjudicate in the main case. Where the contested decision is a denial of asylum status, the second requirement in practice merges with the first requirement, which means that in an asylum case an application for injunction depends on whether or not the plaintiff can demonstrate that the challenged decision probably will be annulled by the court in the subsequent main case. In reviewing the legality of administrative asylum decisions the courts have full jurisdiction. The judicial review covers all factual and procedural aspects, as well as interpretation and application of the law. 4.3 On the facts, the State party submits that on 21 February 2003, the UDI rejected the complainant’s asylum application, as there were insufficient grounds to demonstrate that he would be persecuted upon return. On 16 March 2004, the UNE rejected the complainant’s appeal after oral hearings, during which the complainant made extensive statements, and after examining all the documents provided by the complainant, including his brother’s statement and that of Ms. Garba Diallo, professor at the International People’s College (IPC), Elsinore, Denmark. According to the UNE, the FLAM was established in March 1983 and was forbidden the following year. During recent years it has mainly operated in exile, from its headquarters in Senegal. There are no reports indicating that the FLAM has either a prominent role in Mauritania or any political power. Neither are there any indications about persecution of ordinary FLAM members. UNE was familiar with the fact that the political opposition in Mauritania faces problems with the authorities, but there are no reliable reports subsequent to 2002 indicating arrests of political opponents, except for the arrest of one of the leaders of an organisation who was working against slavery and was released after two days. 4.4 The UNE highlighted the information provided by the complainant that was vague and inaccurate, regarding both his connection with the FLAM and his relations with the Mauritanian authorities. He had explained that he was wanted by the authorities mainly because he was suspected of being a member of FLAM and because his brother was also a member, but provided no further information. Thus, he was not found to have met the necessary conditions under article 1 (A) of the UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees to be granted asylum pursuant to section 16 of the Norwegian Immigration Act.