CAT/C/48/D/391/2009 engaged in political activity in his country of flight before the question of a residence permit had been resolved with final effect did not himself or herself view the risks upon return to his or her country of origin as particularly great. 2.26 The Migration Board further held that the fact that the first complainant was convinced that it was the Egyptian security police that was checking his website was a new fact that had not been cited before. The Board found, however, that no new grounds have emerged that presented impediments to the enforcement under chapter 12, section 18, of the Act. Furthermore, the new facts were not such that there could be assumed to be an impediment to the enforcement of the kind referred to in chapter 12, sections 1–3, of the Act with respect to the family. The Board, therefore, considered that there were no reasons to examine the question of the residence permits under chapter 12, section 19, of the Act. 2.27 On 3 November 2009, the complainants asked for a review by the Migration Board and requested residence permits, refugee status and travel documents. The grounds for the review included the presence of exceptionally distressing circumstances, for the children especially, but also for the rest of the family. The submission to the Migration Board stated that the family had applied to the Committee for a review of the expulsion orders and that the Committee had accepted the communication for review. The complainants added that if the family was granted a residence permit, the communication before the Committee could be withdrawn. On 4 November 2009, the Migration Board found that there was no reason to alter the previously issued decision. The complaint 3.1 The complainants claim that they remain of interest to the security police because the first complainant’s cousin, Khalid Islambouli allegedly assassinated President al-Sadat, that the Muslim Brotherhood linked to this assassination is today named Egyptian Islamic Jihad with links to Al-Qaida and that the first complainant’s other cousin, Mohammed Islambouli, is suspected of belonging to this group and of attempting to assassinate President Mubarak in 1995. The complainants maintain that the described family link together with the fact that the first complainant is known to be a “nasserist”, who is in opposition to the Egyptian authorities, and a member from an influential family exposes them to a personal risk of being tortured if they were forced to return to Egypt. They argue, therefore, that the enforcement of the orders to expel them to their country of origin would violate articles 3 and 16 of the Convention. 3.2 The complainants further submit that they should be treated as a family, i.e., if the first complainant has enough reasons to be granted asylum, his children should be granted asylum as well. In particular, the second and third complainants state that they have a wellfounded fear of persecution and of being subjected to serious abuse, both as a result of the first complainant’s previous political activity and of their family relationship with the alleged murderer of President al-Sadat. They add that no protection is available for them in Egypt and they fear being killed, tortured, raped or subjected to other inhuman or humiliating treatment or punishment. State party’s observations on the admissibility and the merits 4.1 By note verbale of 24 February 2010, the State party submits its observations on the admissibility and the merits. As to the admissibility, it states that it is not aware of the same matter having been or being subject to another procedure of international investigation or settlement. With reference to article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention, the State party acknowledges that all available domestic remedies have been exhausted in the present communication. 9