CCPR/C/115/D/2344/2014 4.4 On 13 July 2012, the immigration service recommended to the Danish Refugee Council that the authors’ asylum applications be considered manifestly unfounded and thus ineligible for appeal to the refugee appeals board. On the same day, following a personal interview with the authors, the Council endorsed that recommendation. Accordingly, in two decisions dated 18 July 2012, the immigration service rejected the authors’ asylum application as manifestly unfounded under section 53 (b) (1) of the Aliens Act. 4.5 Cases examined under the “manifestly unfounded” procedure are, however, systematically reported to the refugee appeals board. Accordingly, the refusal of asylum issued to the authors by the immigration service was reported to the board, together with the other cases determined as manifestly unfounded in the third quarter of 2012. That report, which contained a specific description of the case, was considered at the meeting on 30 January 2013 held by the coordination committee of the board and did not give rise to comments from the board or to the application of the so-called call-in powers, according to which the board may decide that certain groups of cases can be appealed to it. 4.6 When served with the refusal of asylum, the authors applied to the Ministry of Justice for residence on humanitarian grounds under section 9 (b) (1) of the Aliens Act. The Ministry stayed the execution of the return of the authors from Denmark pending the determination of the applications. On 7 June 2013, the Ministry refused to grant residence on humanitarian grounds. 4.7 The State party recalls the authors’ factual grounds for seeking asylum and states that the immigration service considered in this respect that even if those grounds were to be admitted as facts, they could not lead to the recognition of asylum or protection status in Denmark. The immigration service determined that the grandfather of E.P. only received verbal threats and that E.P. had not been subjected to physical abuse; that there had been no search for E.P. during the conflict with the Shtjefni family, except on one occasion, two years ago, when two men reportedly asked for him; that the immigration service qualified the incident as isolated and now obsolete; as that F.P. was able to pursue her job as a schoolteacher between 2008 and 2012 without any search being made for her. 4.8 Furthermore, the immigration service determined that, if the authors felt persecuted, they could take up residence somewhere else in Albania where it can be assumed that persons from the Shtjefni family would not be able to locate them. The immigration service concluded that the severity and nature of the conflict did not amount to persecution, within the meaning of section 7 of the Aliens Act. 4.9 According to the State party, the authors’ statement that the potential risk for their lives in case of return to Albania was only assessed by one administrative authority, without the possibility of judicial review prior to the implementation of the return, is inaccurate. The non-refoulement aspect of the case was first assessed by the immigration service. Following a specific assessment, the Danish Refugee Council endorsed the examination of the asylum application in accordance with the “manifestly unfounded” procedure. Moreover, the referral of the case to the refugee appeals board by the immigration service, as per standard procedure, did not give rise to any comments from the board or to any application of its call-in powers. 4.10 The State party adds that the issue of the risk in case of return was again considered as part of proceedings introduced by the author for a stay of execution before the District Court of Copenhagen and the High Court of Eastern Denmark. Therefore, the issue of their • The circumstances invoked by the applicant must be deemed manifestly to lack credibility, including as a consequence of the applicant’s changing, contradictory or improbable statements (para. (vi)) 5