CAT/C/48/D/413/2010 department for identity, stated that the result of the comparison of the photos strongly suggested that they represented the same person. 2.7 On 6 June 2008, an additional interview with the complainant was held at the Migration Board, based on the information in the application for a visa that had come to light. During the interview, the complainant stated that she had never left Burundi. She had given her passport to a friend from the Congo, who studied in Algeria and whom she had met in Burundi. Somehow the passport had been used by this friend and the application for a visa had been submitted without her being involved or aware of it. The complainant did not know who had applied for the visa to Sweden. She confirmed that her correct name was A.A.M. and that the only real name in her passport was her first name. Being asked by the Board whether that meant that the passport was false, the complainant stated it was not but that someone else, John, had helped her to apply for the passport. Her motive for applying for the passport was to help her friend from the Congo. Asked by the Migration Board whether she could explain why her photo was on the application for a visa to Sweden, the complainant stated that it was the same photo as in her passport. When the Migration Board asserted that it was not the case, the complainant then stated that her friend might have used another photo but that she did not know. 2.8 On 23 August 2008, the Migration Board rejected the complainant’s asylum application, declaring that based on the written information in the file and the expert report from the Board’s department for identity, she was the same person who applied for a Swedish visa in Algiers. The Board further stated that the complainant had not been able to present a trustworthy and coherent explanation as to why an application for a visa together with her passport containing a photo of her, her date of birth and her first name, had been presented in Algeria. The Board also noted that even if the complainant had been in Algeria in July 2006 presenting the application for a visa, that did not rule out that she could have been in Burundi at the time of the murder of the brother. The Board considered that in the event of this alternative, there was no reasonable explanation presented by the complainant as to why she had not informed the Board that she had applied for a Swedish visa and that she had been abroad previously. Therefore, the Board questioned the claims presented by the complainant. The Board concluded that the complainant had not proved her identity, country of origin and citizenship, but decided to try the matter and her asylum application against Burundi. Apart from the lack of credibility in the details presented by the complainant, the Board considered that her claims were not such that she had substantiated that she risked being subjected to persecution, ill-treatment or punishment, as she had not been subjected to such acts while in Burundi. She had indirectly heard that she had been asked for by the militia but remained in the country for a relatively long time after her brother was killed without being subjected to threats or other harassments. 2.9 On 13 October and 14 November 2008, the complainant appealed against the decision by the Migration Board to the Migration Court, claiming that the latter should grant her a residence permit, refugee status and a travel document. She added that she had given a coherent and credible explanation as to why an application for a visa had been presented in Algeria. The complainant’s legal aid counsel pointed out that this issue should not overshadow his client’s grounds for requesting asylum. Since the Migration Board did not question the fact that her brother had been executed, the threats directed at the complainant herself should be taken seriously. Legal aid counsel argued that his client was vulnerable to abuse and persecution due to her brother’s high position within the Sans Échec. The threats directed at him also included the complainant. 2.10 The Migration Board was given a possibility to present observations on the complainant’s appeal. The Board stated that the complainant’s explanations in relation to her departure from Burundi were not trustworthy. Moreover, the Board considered that the lack of credibility in her information regarding the application for a Swedish visa reduced 4