CCPR/C/133/D/2510/2014 Advance unedited version 2.10 On 1 July 2015, the Refugee Appeals Board again upheld the refusal of the Danish Immigration Service to grant asylum to the author. The majority of the Board members 11 did not accept the author’s conversion as genuine. They considered the pastor’s assessment as an element in support of the fact that the author had become a Christian, but pointed to evasive responses by the author to several questions about his conversion to Christianity. They also noted that the author’s baptism took place very late in the asylum proceedings and only after refusal of his asylum application and of his request for reopening his case, as well as following his very energetic attempts to resist removal from Denmark. 12 2.11 Based on an assessment of the background information and the case law of the Refugee Appeals Board, the majority of the Board members held that, even if they accepted as a fact that the author left the Islamic Republic of Iran illegally, the circumstance that he did not possess valid travel documents did not amount to a sufficient basis on which to assume that the author would be subjected to persecution or abuse by the Iranian authorities. 2.12 As regarded the author’s fear that he will become a person of interest for the Iranian authorities, the majority of the Board members further noted that there was no information to indicate that anyone other than the author’s mother and sister and perhaps a few Iranian Facebook friends know about his baptism. Moreover, the author did not previously encounter any problems in the Islamic Republic of Iran because of his tattoos, which he acquired in the Islamic Republic of Iran and which are not directly visible. The author failed to substantiate why that would change in case of his return to the Islamic Republic of Iran. The circumstance that the author has uploaded Christian texts and photos to the private part of his Facebook account, which cannot be seen on the public part of his Facebook account, cannot lead to a different outcome. 2.13 On 4 May 2018, the author13 requested again that the Refugee Appeals Board reopens his asylum case. In support of his sur place claim for protection, the author has now declared that he has had more tattoos made in Denmark, that he has become a highly exposed convert whose name and photo have been reproduced in several newspaper articles, that he has been featured in a radio broadcast,14 and that today the Iranian authorities know for sure that he has converted because he has notified the representatives of the Iranian Embassy. He also stated that he had attended numerous Christian activities since 2015, including Bible cafes, Friday suppers and church services. On 22 May 2018, his counsel sent a copy of a police report made by the National Operational Aliens Centre of the North Zealand Police concerning a potential arraignment of the author at the Iranian Embassy from which it appeared that, according to the information provided by the author, he was a convert and that he wanted to become a pastor in Denmark. He therefore considered that there could be no doubt that the Iranian authorities are fully aware of the author’s apostasy from Islam. On 8 November 2018, the author submitted a brief in the case. 2.14 On 12 September 2018, the Refugee Appeals Board decided to reopen the asylum case and conduct a new oral hearing. It also decided to suspend the time limit for the author’s departure. 2.15 On 12 November 2018, the Refugee Appeals Board upheld the refusal by the Danish Immigration Service of the author’s application for asylum. The Board still could not accept as a fact that the author’s conversion to Christianity was genuine. The Board referred to the author’s 11 12 13 14 4 The decision does not mention the minority’s view. According to a memorandum of 29 April 2015, an attempt was made to return the author to the Islamic Republic of Iran from Gothenburg, but he fought back too much to be brought onto the plane. The State party also submits in its observations on admissibility and the merits that the author’s forced return was planned several times, but due to his strong resistance, the pilots refused having him on board. Represented by the same counsel as before the Committee. He produced a number of exhibits showing that he has been interviewed by various news media, disclosing his full name and photo, claiming that there was no longer a doubt that he has caught the attention of the Iranian authorities.