CCPR/C/114/D/2329/2014 [It] cannot accept the applicant’s statement as facts. The Board considers it unlikely that the applicant would bring flyers to school to distribute them at night, and that he had also used one of them as a bookmark with the obvious risk of discovery, considering the information given by the applicant himself that he had gone to school by car and could have left the flyers in the car. The Refugee Appeals Board finds that the applicant’s grounds for seeking asylum were fabricated for the occasion and should be set aside; see section 40 (1) of the Aliens Act. Accordingly, there are no substantive grounds for asylum, and the Refugee Appeals Board therefore finds that, if returned to the Islamic Republic of Iran, the applicant will not be at a real risk of abuse justifying asylum as set out in section 7 of the Aliens Act. 2.8 On 24 March 2010, the author requested the Refugee Appeals Board to reopen the asylum proceedings, alleging that there were no inconsistencies in his statements to the Danish Immigration Service and the Refugee Appeals Board. In letters dated 14 June 2010, 8 May 2012 and 13 July 2012, the author submitted further substantiation and supplementary information to the Refugee Appeals Board. In support of his request, the author maintained, inter alia, that he would not dare to leave the flyers at home, due to the risk that this could cause to his family; that he had not used the flyer as a bookmark, but had accidentally left it in his biology book; and that he had taken a taxi to go to school, therefore he could not have left the flyers in the car. The author’s request was accompanied by a fax from the French branch of the Kurdish Democratic Party of Iran, stating that the author was a sympathizer of the party and that his life would be in danger if he returned to the Islamic Republic of Iran. The author also referred to the zero-tolerance policy in the Islamic Republic of Iran under which the possession of a flyer with some political content may result in imprisonment for 10 years, and to the fact that capital punishments were actually carried out. He pointed out that the Refugee Appeals Board’s background material indicated that members of the Kurdish Democratic Party of Iran were oppressed by the Iranian Government. The author also submitted that he had a tattoo of Zartosht, which is the symbol of the Zoroastrian religion; that he had opened a Facebook account in June 2009 and shared links for the Kurdish Democratic Party of Iran, for example to its flag; that he was a friend of A.M., the secretary-general of the Komala Party of Iranian Kurdistan; and that he was a member of the open groups named “kurdland”, “Kurdish Democratic Party of Iran” and “Freedom and Democracy for Iran”. 2.9 On 20 September 2012, the Refugee Appeals Board refused to reopen the case. It considered that no substantial new information had been submitted by the author beyond the information available at the initial hearing, and it did not find any reasons for extending the deadline for the author’s departure. The Board relied on the reasoning behind its decision of 9 November 2009 and stated that the author’s grounds for seeking asylum had been fabricated for the occasion; for that reason, it could not accord any weight to the letter from the French branch of the Kurdish Democratic Party of Iran. Nor could the information about the author’s Facebook page or alleged tattoo lead to a different assessment. Concerning the tattoo, the Board noted that the author had stated throughout the proceedings that he was a Sunni Muslim and had not indicated any affiliation with Zoroastrianism. The complaint 3.1 The author contends that his deportation to the Islamic Republic of Iran by the State party would constitute a violation of articles 7, 18 and 19 of the Covenant. 4