CCPR/C/128/D/3032/2017 public television broadcaster (SVT1) had broadcast four church services in which he participated. The author further claimed that he had written Christian texts on Facebook and, as an ethnic Hazara, he belonged to a particularly vulnerable group in Afghanistan. In this connection, the State party notes that re-examination of an asylum case may only be granted where it can be assumed, on the basis of new circumstances, that there are lasting impediments to the enforcement of an expulsion order, pursuant to chapter 12 (1)–(3) of the Aliens Act, and that these circumstances could not previously have been cited, or the applicant otherwise provides a valid excuse for not having done so. In this regard, the Agency has a limited scope to take into account circumstances such as frustrated hopes, anxiety about returning to the country of origin, or social or financial issues. 4.5 On 23 December 2016, the Agency rejected the author’s application, finding that the author’s claims as to his Christian faith had already been examined. However, his statements about his appearance in the media were considered new. The Agency held that to be attributed Christian religious beliefs in Afghanistan can result in persecution, although mainly from private actors, therefore constituting a need for international protection. It concluded, however, that Afghanistan has neither the capacity to monitor its citizens’ actions abroad nor an interest in doing so. Since no evidence indicated that anyone in Afghanistan had noted the author’s texts on Facebook or in the Swedish television broadcasts, the Agency concluded that the author had not plausibly demonstrated his need for protection owing to attributed religious beliefs in Afghanistan. Moreover, the mere fact of being an ethnic Hazara in Afghanistan does not in itself qualify as a ground for international protection. 4.6 On 3 July 2017, the author reported the Migration Agency and the Agency’s Director-General to the police for improper exercise of public authority and obstructing the course of justice for rejecting his asylum application. The prosecutor considered that it could not decide on the matter, which contained an appeal of the Migration Agency’s decision and a request for immediate release from detention, and sent the report to the Agency. The Agency interpreted this report as a notification of impediments to the enforcement of the expulsion order and rejected it on 5 July 2017. 4.7 The author lodged a new application to the Agency on 10 July 2017 and claimed impediments to the enforcement of his expulsion order (para. 2.8). In the application, he claimed that prior to his detention, he had attended a Bible course and actively participated in the congregation’s activities. He also submitted that conversion was punishable by death according to Afghan law and that Afghanistan actively sought and prosecuted people who blaspheme against Islam. The Agency rejected this application on 12 July 2017, finding that the author had not plausibly demonstrated that his conversion was out of genuine personal religious conviction. Moreover, the Agency found no evidence indicating that his conversion had come to the attention of the Afghan public. Regarding the new claim about the Embassy’s knowledge about the author, the Agency noted that no supporting evidence had been presented. Nor did the author substantiate his claim of harassment at the detention centre. Accordingly, the Agency concluded that the cited new circumstances did not provide reasonable grounds for believing that the author had attracted the interest of the Afghan authorities or individuals in such a way that he would risk persecution upon his return. 4.8 As concerns the author’s claim that the Agency held that he had not proven that individuals were persecuted for blasphemy in Afghanistan, the State party asserts that the Agency has made no such or similar findings in its decision. In addition, the State party submits that it was the author who initially raised claims of conversion and that the author’s counsel repeatedly argued in the asylum application that the author’s conversion would put him at risk if returned to Afghanistan. Several of those references to conversion have been omitted from the author’s English translation of the asylum application. 4.9 On 20 July 2017, the Migration Court rejected the author’s appeal, holding that his claims were supplements to what he had previously stated about Christianity. Furthermore, even if staff members of the Afghan Embassy had been made aware of the author’s beliefs, this was not sufficient to constitute a need for international protection as there was nothing in the available country of origin reports to support the idea that Afghan authorities would contribute to such active persecution. 4