CEDAW/C/59/D/59/2013 1.3 On 20 June 2014, the Committee, acting through the Working Group, decided, pursuant to rule 66 of its rules of procedure, to examine the admissibility of the communication separately from its merits. Facts as submitted by the author 2.1 The author arrived in Denmark early in 2011 and sought asylum when she was arrested there on 17 June 2011. Her application was rejected by the Danish Immigration Service on 23 August 2011. That decision was upheld by the Refugee Appeals Board on 7 November 2011. 2.2 The author further contends that she is a Chinese Catholic. She participated in a church service in the city of Xinxiang and assisted a priest on a daily basis. A t some point, her employer forbade her to display religious items (icons and pictures) at her workplace and also checked the place where she slept, which was on the premises of her employer. The author explains that she had no problems with the authorities, but the priest whom she was assisting had been threatened by them, specifically that the church would be demolished. 2.3 Lastly, the author claims that she lived with a man and had a child with him; the child was about 13 years of age when the communication was submitted. Shortly after their son was born, the father took him away. He beat the author on six occasions when she sought to see the child and threatened to beat her again when she saw him for the last time, some two to three years before her dep arture from China. Subsequently, he married another woman. Complaint 3.1 The author claims that the Refugee Appeals Board did not challenge her assertion that she participated in a daily church service in her city and assisted the priest, nor that she had had problems with the father of her child and suffered violence at his hands. It noted that the author, even if she had had to exercise her religion discreetly, could not be regarded as concretely and individually persecuted by the authorities on religious grounds. It also found that the background information describing the general conditions of Catholics in Fujian Province could not lead to the author being considered at risk of persecution for the purposes of section 7 (1) of the Aliens Act. 3.2 Concerning the conflict with the father of her child, the author maintains that the Board decided that her relationship was a private relationship and did not believe that the conflict would mean that the author, upon her return, would risk persecution or abuse of a nature referred to in the Aliens Act (sect. 7 (2)) against which she would not be able to seek the protection of the Chinese authorities. The Board also noted the author’s statement that the father of her child had not sought her out. 3.3 The author claims that the State party would, by deporting her, breach her right to freedom of religion and that, having previously been beaten by her former partner when she sought to see her child, the lack of action on the part of the Chinese authorities has prevented her from making another attempt to do so. She suggests that any further attempt to see her son will result in fresh violence being inflicted on her by her former partner. With reference to paragraph 6 of the Committee’s general recommendation No. 19, the author notes that the notion of discrimination against 14-67404 3/10