CCPR/C/122/D/2753/2016 asylum. It considered the author’s statements on his alleged position and high profile within the pro-democracy movement as unlikely. 4.7 The Board accepted as a fact that the author had been detained in 2001 in connection with a case concerning overcharging at the State company at which he was employed, and the Board also accepted as a fact that, for several years, the author had carried out activities for an organization whose aim was to strengthen the democratic forces in China. By contrast, the Board could not accept as a fact that, in consequence, the author had attracted the attention of the Chinese authorities in a manner that would justify asylum. According to the author’s own statements, he left China lawfully five months after the arrest of several leaders of the organization for which he had carried out activities. Moreover, the Board considered it unlikely that the Chinese authorities would not come to the author’s home until eight months have passed after the arrest of the leaders, considering the author’s statement that he had held a crucial role in the organization. As appears from the author’s communication to the Committee, the case files relating to the asylum cases of the author’s sisters were taken into account by the Board. Furthermore, the Board considered that the author’s political and religious activities in Denmark had not made him a high-profile individual in the eyes of the Chinese authorities and that he would not risk persecution or abuse justifying asylum in case of his return to China. When making that assessment, the Board emphasized that the information on those activities had not been submitted to the Board until September 2015 — immediately before the scheduled forced return of the author — despite the fact that, according to the information provided, the author had been baptized about three months after the first Board hearing and despite the fact that the author’s most recent participation in a demonstration had been on 1 October 2014. 4.8 As regards his affiliation with the pro-democracy movement in China, the author stated to the Board that since 1998, when he became a member of the movement and had to promise that he would not disclose any details about the movement, he had been responsible for channelling funds from abroad for the movement by overcharging customers from 1998 to late 2000. From late 2001 until 2012, the author’s work for the prodemocracy movement had consisted in developing the disciples of the church and finding among those fellow believers pursuing democracy in China. The author admitted that, even though his work had been important, he had ranked low in the hierarchy. As regards the author’s statements on his departure from China, he applied for a passport which had been issued to him on 9 August 2012 and he subsequently obtained a visa from the Danish embassy in Guangzhou on 27 November 2012; hence he could leave lawfully without any problems. 4.9 The Board found that the author’s statement on his alleged conflicts prior to his lawful departure from China in December 2012 seemed incoherent and unlikely on essential points. The Board emphasized that the author’s knowledge of the organization for which he had worked from 1998 to 2012 seemed very limited and superficial; he had ranked low in the hierarchy of the movement; he had not been detained by the Chinese authorities apart from his detention in 2001 according to his own accounts; and the author continued to attend the meetings of the movement during which the authorities had previously taken photos of the meeting participants, despite the warning of attracting negative attention. Moreover, the author left China on lawfully obtained passport only on 17 December 2012 — five months after the arrest of Mr. Zhang. In the meantime, he stayed at his home without being contacted by the authorities, although the case against him had allegedly been reopened in July 2012. Furthermore, it was only in March and July 2013 that the authorities had contacted the author’s former spouse at her home, namely several months after the author’s lawful departure. Since the Board also found unlikely that the author had been able to work for a State company and the Chinese authorities for many years if the authorities had suspected that he supported the pro-democracy movement, it concluded that the author had failed to render probable that he had faced the risk of persecution justifying asylum prior to his departure. 4.10 The Board attached no weight to the new information provided by the author to the Committee in March 2016, according to which he had received a telephone call in December 2015 from the leader of the organization, telling him that the pro-democracy movement to which he belonged had been the Liberty Democracy Party of China founded 6