CCPR/C/125/D/2345/2014 2.11 On 1 November 2013, the Board refused to examine the author’s request to reopen his asylum proceedings under section 33 (8) of the Aliens Act because the author had failed to appear. 2.12 By letter of 11 December 2013, the Danish Refugee Council requested the Board to reopen the author’s asylum proceedings. In that connection, the Council referred to the author’s conversion to Christianity after the Board’s dismissal of his appeal. According to the Council, the author had stated when interviewed by them on 10 December 2013 that he felt that Christian culture in Denmark was very different from Islamic culture in Afghanistan. The author further stated that his interest in Christianity had developed during his stay in Turkey, where his friend had had a Bible. His friend had told the author about Christianity and replied to questions about it, and had also said that he himself had converted to Christianity. The author had started going to church six months after his arrival in Denmark. In June 2013, the author had started attending services regularly at the free evangelical Kronborgvejens Church Centre, and he had been baptized in that church on 13 October 2013. The author added that he now went to church every Sunday, that he prayed alone or with friends and that he read the Bible in Farsi every day. The author explained that he feared being killed upon his return to Afghanistan because he had converted to Christianity. He added that he and his friend 6 had experienced religious harassment at the asylum centre and had been called infidels by other asylum seekers. At the asylum centre, the author had also been subjected to physical violence committed by a Chechen and an Afghan.7 2.13 A certificate of baptism and a memorandum prepared by a minister of the Kronborgvejens Church Centre were enclosed with the request to reopen the author’s asylum claim submitted by the Danish Refugee Council. The Council further submitted that, in its opinion, the author met the conditions for being granted a residence permit under section 7 (1) of the Aliens Act. In that respect, the Council referred to the Board’s previous decisions in cases concerning Christian converts from Afghanistan, stating that, although it had not yet been established at that time whether the Afghan authorities had learned about the author’s conversion, it could not be ruled out that there was a risk that the Afghan authorities would learn about the author’s conversion if he was returned to Afghanistan. According to the Council, it would be difficult for the author, having converted, to conceal his new affiliation if he was returned to Afghanistan. Moreover, because he would return from a European country, his behaviour would attract more attention among the local population, so that even the smallest non-compliance with religions norms and principles would leave the author in a particularly vulnerable situation. The Council additionally submitted that, according to previous decisions made by the Board in cases involving Christian converts, the author could not be required to hide his religious beliefs to avoid problems in his country of origin. 2.14 In its decision of 6 February 2014, the Board stated on the basis of the above that it did not find any grounds for reopening the case, nor any grounds for extending the time limit for the author’s departure. In that connection, the Board took into consideration the fact that no substantial new information or views beyond the information available at the original hearing by the Board had been submitted. 2.15 The Board also found that, in the event of his return to Afghanistan, the author would not be at any risk of persecution falling within section 7 (1) of the Aliens Act due to his conversion because the Board could not accept as a fact that the author’s conversion was genuine. The Board observed in that respect that, during the original asylum proceedings, the author had not disclosed his interest in Christianity – which had arisen already during his stay in Turkey prior to his entry into Denmark, according to the request for the reopening of the case – whether to the police, the Danish Immigration Service, his legal counsel or the Board. In its assessment of the information on the author’s conversion, the Board also took into account, as appears from the reasoning of its decision of 16 January 2012, the fact that, during the asylum proceedings, the author had given elaborate and inconsistent statements concerning his grounds for seeking asylum, and he had also 6 7 4 First name is available on file. No further details provided by the author.