CAT/C/47/D/347/2008 in the case file; the applicant’s allegations must be verified. In asylum proceedings, most refusals to exempt a person from payment of fees are motivated by the fact that the application appears doomed to failure from the outset. In practice, when the Federal Office for Migration sends a letter to the applicant requesting advance payment of fees, it sets a deadline of 15 days from the date the letter is posted; this deadline is not extended, even if the applicant is late in collecting the letter from the post office. If the advance requested — which corresponds to the expected cost of the proceedings — is not paid, the Federal Office for Migration does not take up the application. The applicant has 30 days to appeal against this decision to the Federal Administrative Court. 7.4 In the specific case of the complainant, the State party points out that no fees were charged for the first decision of the Federal Office for Migration, issued on 13 June 2002. Nor did the Office charge a fee for informing the complainant that her application for reconsideration, filed on 15 August 2005, provided no grounds for it to reconsider its decision of 13 June 2002. The Office did, however, charge a fee of 600 Swiss francs for processing the complainant’s application for review dated 9 April 2008, which it rejected by decision of 4 June 2008. 7.5 On 12 July 2002, the complainant appealed against the aforementioned decision of the Federal Office for Migration to the Swiss Asylum Appeals Commission (which was later replaced by the Federal Administrative Court). By registered letter of 24 July 2002, the Commission gave her until 8 August 2002 to make the advance payment of the procedural fee of 600 Swiss francs, telling her, as is standard practice, that, as a rule, payment by instalments was not allowed, and that her appeal would be declared inadmissible if the advance was not paid in time. A letter from the complainant dated 6 August 2002 on her precarious financial situation was interpreted by the Commission as a request to waive payment of the procedural fee, which it rejected by decision of 23 October 2002, after examining the decision of the Federal Office for Migration and the complainant’s arguments and concluding that, on the face of it, her appeal appeared to be doomed to failure. The Commission gave the complainant another three days to pay the procedural fee. When she failed to do so, the Commission declared her appeal inadmissible by decision of 14 November 2002. A fee of a further 200 Swiss francs was charged for this decision. On 2 December 2002 she contacted the Commission to say that she had not received any notification that the decision of 23 October was ready for collection at the post office, and that she had that very day made the advance payment requested. She also requested, by letter of 12 December 2002, an extension of the deadline. By decision of 23 December 2002, the Asylum Appeals Commission declared this request inadmissible, on the grounds that the deadline extension was set at 10 days from the cessation of the impediment that led to the failure to observe the deadline. A fee of 200 Swiss francs was charged for this decision. 7.6 On 16 January 2003, the complainant, through a lawyer, asked the Asylum Appeals Commission to reconsider this decision, on the grounds that she had not received the decisions of 23 October 2002 and 14 November 2002 in time to prepare an appeal. By letter of 3 February 2003, the Commission sent the complainant’s representative various documents attesting to the fact that the decision of 14 November 2002 had been mailed to her on 15 November 2002 and that it had been received at the post office before 25 November 2002. In a letter dated 6 February 2003, the complainant’s representative refused to comment on this point. On 27 February 2003, the Asylum Appeals Commission consequently declared the complainant’s second request for an extension of the deadline to be inadmissible, and a fee of 400 Swiss francs was charged for this decision. 7.7 On 12 September 2005, the complainant appealed against the decision of the Federal Office for Migration of 19 August 2005, in relation to her first application for review. By interlocutory decision of 1 November 2005, the Asylum Appeals Commission gave her 8 GE.12-40160