CCPR/C/114/D/2370/2014 is final and cannot be appealed in court. The author also states that he has not submitted a complaint before any other international instance. State party’s observations on admissibility and merits 4.1 On 1 October 2014, the State party submitted its observations on the admissibility and merits of the communication. The State party finds that the author has failed to substantiate the risk of irreparable harm as a consequence of his forced return to Afghanistan. For the same reason, the State party considers the communication to be inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded due to a lack of substantiation. 4.2 The State party recalls that the author entered Denmark on 1 August 2012 without valid travel documents and applied for asylum. On 14 December 2012, the Danish Immigration Service refused asylum to the author. On 21 May 2013, the Danish Refugee Appeals Board upheld that decision. The Board found that the applicant had failed to substantiate that he had been persecuted by the Taliban at his departure or that, in the event of his return to Afghanistan, he would be at a specific and individual risk of persecution justifying asylum and falling within paragraph 7 (1) of the Aliens Act, or at a real risk of inhuman treatment or punishment falling within paragraph 7 (2) of the Aliens Act. 4.3 The State party adds that on 29 July 2013 the Danish Refugee Council, acting on behalf of the author, requested the Board to reopen the asylum proceedings. In its decision of 17 March 2014, the Board refused to do so and stated, inter alia, that it had found no grounds for reopening the case or for extending the time limit for the applicant’s departure. The Board emphasized that no substantial new information or views had been added to the case beyond the information available at the original hearing by the Board. The Board stated the following: The Board finds that the applicant has substantially enlarged on his statement about his grounds for asylum in connection with the request for reopening since he had told neither the Danish Immigration Service nor the Board that he had moved house in Kabul about every two months and had three times stayed in a hotel and sometimes spent the night at his workplace, and since he had also failed to mention anything about the safety precautions taken by him when visiting his family every second month. He had stated to the Danish Immigration Service that he had regularly visited his family, while he had stated at the Board hearing that he had lived peacefully in Kabul. Even when taking into account that the applicant appears to be of unstable mental health, the Board finds that he has failed to provide a reasonable explanation for these substantial enlargements, which concern a crucial part of the asylum grounds relied upon. Consequently, the applicant must still leave Denmark in accordance with the time limit stated in the decision of 21 May 2013. As appears from the Board’s decision, the applicant may forcibly be returned to explanation for adding significant details that he had not mentioned earlier in the proceedings. The Board found that the documents presented by the author had apparently been constructed for the occasion, and that the author had not adequately explained how the police report had been procured or why it had not been presented earlier. The Board found it unlikely that the Taliban would seek out the leader of the author’s village more than a year after the author’s departure from Afghanistan, and more than three-and-a-half years after the author had left the village following the attempted kidnapping. The Board noted that it is easy to obtain all kinds of forged documents in Afghanistan, including threatening letters from the Taliban. The Board decided that there was no basis for finding that the author had had conflicts in Afghanistan due to his employment in the International Security Assistance Force from 2003 to 2007, or that he had the profile of someone subject to a specific and individual risk of persecution. 6