CCPR/C/117/D/2559/2015 concerning the revocation of or refusal to renew a residence permit granted under section 7 and the first sentence of section 19 (6) of the Act. The provision does not apply to asylum cases falling within section 7 of the Act. Accordingly, the provision does not apply to the author’s case. 4.14 The State party notes that the fact that the author’s whole family, except for his sister, live in Denmark, that the author speaks fluent Danish and that the author has close ties with Danish society because of his family are not relevant for asylum purposes. It also notes that the fact that the author will have no close family in Somalia in case of his return because his uncle has died does not independently justify asylum. The Government observes in this respect that it appears from page 4 of the report on the asylum screening interview conducted by the Danish Immigration Service on 30 October 2014 that the author, who is now a 29-year-old man in good health, has stated that he has distant clan and family relations in Galkayo and that he maintains contact with his friends in Galkayo through Facebook. 4.15 The State party maintains that the Refugee Appeals Board included all relevant information in its decision and that the communication has not brought to light any information substantiating that the author will be at such a risk of persecution or abuse upon his return to Somalia as to justify asylum. It refers to the Committee’s Views in P.T. v. Denmark10 and in Mr. X and Ms. X v. Denmark11 and maintains that the same guarantees of due process apply to the author in the present case. 4.16 The State party submits that the author’s communication to the Committee merely reflects the author’s disagreement with the assessment of the background information made by the Refugee Appeals Board and that he failed to identify any irregularity in the decisionmaking process or any risk factors that the Board has failed to take properly into account. Therefore, it maintains that the author was trying to use the Committee as an appellate body to have the factual circumstances advocated in support of his claim for asylum reassessed by the Committee. The State party submits that the Committee must give considerable weight to the findings of the Board, which is better placed to assess the factual circumstances of the author’s case. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 In his comments of 24 September 2015, the author submits that he has at all times “lifted the burden of proof” by describing and documenting every claim and statement he has made. He has established that there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be at risk of being subjected to persecution and mistreatment. The author denies trying to use the Committee as an appellate body to have the factual circumstances in support of his claim for asylum reassessed by the Committee. He maintains that the Refugee Appeals Board did not take his extraordinary conditions in consideration and did not apply correctly section 26 of the Aliens Act. 5.2 The author reiterates that he has close ties to Denmark. His entire family lives there and he speaks the language fluently. His parents and eight of his siblings live in Aarhus, Denmark. He fled from Somalia because he fears the militia Al-Shabaab, and fled to Denmark to be reunited with his relatives. He maintains that the Refugee Appeals Board failed to consider his close connection to Denmark. Pursuant to section 26 of the Aliens Act, if a person has a close connection to Denmark, that fact must be take into account in considering whether he or she should be allowed to stay. Furthermore, the author does not have any relations left in Somalia. He argues that the State party would violate section 26 of the Aliens Act and article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 10 11 6 See communication No. 2272/2013, Views adopted on 1 April 2015, para. 7.3. See communication No. 2186/2012, Views adopted on 22 October 2014, para. 7.5.