CCPR/C/118/D/2204/2012 that it was Y.B. who told her mother that she was wanted. The author was not able to describe in detail why she, who had not practised Falun Gong in public or carried out activities for the movement since her most recent release from detention, had allegedly again become of interest to the authorities, nor how Y.B. had found out about that. The author’s statement to the Board about her departure from China did not seem to reflect a personal experience. The Refugee Appeals Board also emphasized that the author had left China with a genuine passport and visa, and that it was not credible that she would have paid a large sum of money for such help with her departure without at the same time obtaining accurate instructions as to what to do when she reached the Netherlands and without any detailed information on the possibilities of seeking asylum in Europe. The Board therefore attached no importance to the author’s statements that it was out of fear of the European authorities that she had applied for asylum only upon her arrest in Denmark, more than one year after her entry into Europe, and found that her statement concerning her motive for seeking asylum was undermined by the length of the period from her entry into the Netherlands until she applied for asylum in a European country. 4.3 The Refugee Appeals Board found itself unable to grant asylum based on the author’s subjective fear of returning to China because of the outrages to which she had previously been subjected. In its assessment of this, the Board emphasized that the author had not left China until a good three years after her release from detention, that her departure was legal and that her fear was not supported by other objective circumstances. The Board therefore found that the author would not be at any concrete and individual risk of persecution falling within section 7 (1) of the Aliens Act if she returned to her country of origin. Similarly, the Board found that the author would not be at any risk of being subjected to matters falling within section 7 (2) of the Aliens Act. 4.4 The State party further submits that the Refugee Appeals Board observed in its decision of 16 November 2012 on the author’s request the asylum proceedings to be reopened, inter alia, that the author had been questioned about and had had the opportunity to describe her Falun Gong activities and their significance to her to the Danish Immigration Service and the Board during the asylum proceedings. In that context, the Board noted in its decision of 16 November 2012 that the author had stated during the interview with the Danish Immigration Service on 29 March 2012 that she had broken with the Falun Gong movement in 2003 and that she had not subsequently had any affiliation with or carried out activities for Falun Gong. Additionally, the author had stated both at that interview with the Danish Immigration Service and at the Board hearing that she had only carried out physical Falun Gong exercises in her home and a few times on strolls since 2007 and that she had experienced no problems in that connection. The author had further stated that, to her, Falun Gong did not concern the mind or politics, but was merely a way of improving her health. Accordingly, by her own description, the author’s practice of physical exercises known to her from Falun Gong was motivated neither by religion nor politics. 4.5 Against that background, the Refugee Appeals Board found that the author, who appeared not to stand out in any way whatsoever, except for the previous instances of deprivation of liberty, had not proved on a balance of probabilities that she would risk persecution falling within section 7 (1) of the Aliens Act or outrages falling within section 7 (2) of the Act as a consequence of activities for Falun Gong if she returned to China. 4.6 The State party proceeds to provide a detailed description of the tasks and composition of the Refugee Appeals Board, proceedings before it and the legal basis of its decisions.5 5 4 For a full description, see communication No. 2379/2014, Obah Hussein Ahmed v. Denmark, Views adopted on 7 July 2016, paras. 4.1- 4.3.