CAT/C/55/D/555/2013 police had sought him out at his home, and replied that his wife had told him that the police had been to their home an unknown number of times to look for him. The police had come to his house both while he was detained and during the following month, when he was staying with the taxi driver. When asked why the police had tried to find him at his house even though he was in police detention at that time, the complainant stated that he did not know. When asked whether the police had come to his home after he returned there one month after his detention, the complainant stated that they had not and that he did not know why not. The complainant also stated that he feared he would have the rest of his fingers cut off if he returned to China, and that he assumed he would be killed. When asked why there would be a problem today, considering that the incident had occurred in 2005, he replied that the police would find him “when the terrorist had revolted”. 4.7 Concerning the grounds for the negative asylum decision dated 11 July 2013, the State party observes that the Refugee Appeals Board found that the complainant was not credible because he had made inconsistent and inadequate statements about his ethnicity, his place of birth, and the persecution he allegedly endured in China. Specifically, the Board reasoned that: (a) it appeared unlikely that the police would have detained the complainant for two months solely because, by virtue of his occupation as a taxi driver, he had driven an alleged terrorist suspect; (b) the complainant was unable to give further details about the taxi incident, such as the address to which he had driven the suspected terrorist; (c) it was unlikely that the police would have released the complainant unconditionally, while nevertheless persistently inquiring after him at his home address while he was staying with another taxi driver; (d) it was unlikely that the police would have inquired after the complainant at his home address at the time that he was being detained by the police; (e) the complainant provided conflicting statements regarding his ethnicity; (f) the complainant provided vague replies to questions about his home city and his life there; (g) a language analysis test carried out on the complainant indicated that his language usage was not compatible with that of the community in Urumqi, Xinjiang, but was, rather, associated with the usage prevailing in the central and/or southern regions of China; and (h) the complainant indicated at his second interview with the Danish Immigration Service on 4 March 2013 that he was unwilling to continue assisting in elucidating the facts of his case. 4.8 The State party considers that the communication is inadmissible as it is manifestly ill-founded because the complainant has not established that there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture if he were returned to China, for the reasons set forth by the Refugee Appeals Board and described in paragraph 4.7 above. Moreover, even if the complainant’s statement about his detention was considered a fact, the detention allegedly took place in 2005, which makes it unlikely that he is still of interest to the police today, as indicated by the fact that the police released him unconditionally, according to his own statement. Furthermore, his assertion that he is seeking protection from ill-treatment by the Chinese authorities is weakened by his failure to provide a compelling explanation of why he did not apply for asylum when he on entered Denmark in 2010, but waited until 2011 to do so when the Danish police stopped him and arrested him. The complainant has stated that he has never been a member of, or sympathized with, any political or religious party or other organization or association, and that he has never participated in any demonstrations or been otherwise involved in any political activities. 4.9 Regarding the complainant’s criticism of the Danish authorities’ failure to examine him for signs of torture, the State party observes that the Refugee Appeals Board has to use its discretion when deciding which asylum seekers to send for an examination for signs of torture. The decision as to whether such an examination is necessary will typically be made at a Board hearing and depends on the circumstances of the specific case, including the credibility of the asylum seeker’s statement about torture. An examination is deemed not to 6