CCPR/C/115/D/1895/2009 contends that he and his family were discriminated against by the State party during the asylum and regularization application process. Additional comments by the author 4.1 On 3 September 2014, the author informed the Committee that on 1 September 2014, on the basis of his adoption by a Belgian national, he had filed with the Immigration Office an application for a residence card for family members of European Union citizens pursuant to the Act of 15 December 1980 on the entry, temporary and permanent residence and removal of aliens. The application remains pending. 4.2 He also points out that on 28 April 2014 a similar application was rejected by the Immigration Office on the ground that he had failed to show that his material circumstances were such as to confer a right of residence. Accordingly, he was issued with an order to leave the country within 30 days after the decision. 4.3 On 5 December 2014, the author informed the Committee t hat he had left Belgium on 11 October 2014 for Switzerland, where he lodged an asylum application on 13 October 2014. On 18 November 2014, the Swiss Federal Office for Migration rejected his application and ordered his removal to Belgium, as the “responsible Dublin State”, by the canton of Lucerne. On 4 December, the author was placed in detention with a view to his deportation to Belgium. 4.4 The author reiterates that he would face a real and imminent risk of death if he were returned to Belgium because the Belgian authorities, acting in “collusion” with the Rwandan authorities, intend at all costs to deport him to Rwanda, where he would be at risk of torture or death. 4.5 On 22 July 2015, the author informed the Committee that he had resided in Switzerland for three months, including two months in detention following his asylum application and the Federal Office for Migration’s decision of 18 November 2014 to dismiss that application. The author points out that in the asylum proceedings in Switzerland he emphasized the reasons for his persecution by Belgium, not Rwanda. 4 On 15 December 2014, the Federal Administrative Court rejected his application on the ground that the author had failed to establish that the Belgian authorities were incapable of assessing his application for protection. The Court therefore concluded that Belgium remained the country responsible for assessing his asylum application under the Dublin Regulation. 4.6 The author states that on 18 December 2014 he was deported by Switzerland to Belgium, where he was placed in detention for a short period, and then placed under electronic surveillance for three months. 4.7 The author adds that since his return he has had no valid residence permit in Belgium. He recalls that an application for a residence permit on the basis of his filiation (by adoption) with a Belgian national is still pending (see paragraph 4.1 above). In addition, he points out that he has been unjustly struck off the roll of the French Section of the Brussels Bar. On 19 November 2012, he was sentenced in his absence by the Nivelles Criminal Court to 8 months’ imprisonment and a fine of 550 euros for publicly and fraudulently using the title of lawyer without being registered at the Brussels Bar. The Brussels Court of Appeal and the Court of Cassation of Belgium dismissed his appeals against the decision of the Nivelles Criminal Court on 22 May 2013 and 4 June 2014 respectively. __________________ 4 GE.15-21844 The author claimed, in particular — as he had before the Committee — that the Belgian authorities, acting in collusion with the Rwandan authorities, intended to deport him to Rwanda and were therefore unable to ensure his protection from persecution in Rwanda. 5/7