CCPR/C/130/D/2946/2017 younger brother’s legal residence in Denmark (extended to him as a minor), the fact that he does not have a firm belief in Islam, the tattoo of a cross on his arm and his sympathy for Christianity. Referring to the Committee’s Views in A.A.S. v. Denmark, he argues that the State party’s authorities did not accord sufficient weight to the cumulative effect of these circumstances.4 State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 In a note verbale dated 1 August 2017, the State party submitted its observations on admissibility and the merits. It submits that the communication is inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded and that the author’s removal to Afghanistan would not constitute a violation of article 7 of the Covenant. 4.2 The author arrived in Denmark and applied for asylum on 7 September 2015. The Danish Immigration Service rejected his application on 17 July 2016. That decision was upheld by the Refugee Appeals Board on 5 January 2017. The Board accepted the author’s account of what had happened to him but noted that he had never experienced any conflict in Afghanistan and that it was his own assumption that he would be pursued there due to his father’s past conflict, which occurred before his birth. Likewise, it was his own assumption that the unknown individuals who had called on his family’s home in the Islamic Republic of Iran were the same as those who had kidnapped his father. His invocation of socioeconomic circumstances, including the general situation in Afghanistan, the fact that he had never been there and lacked a social network, did not lead to a different assessment, as the Board observed that he is a young man in good health and fit for work and the circumstances raised fall outside the scope of the assessment. 4.3 The author’s request of 13 January 2017 to have his case reopened, in which he referred to a rose and cross tattooed on his arm and his interest in Christianity, was rejected by the Refugee Appeals Board on 11 April 2017. The Board found that no new essential information had been presented and that his sympathy for Christianity and his tattoo could not lead to a different conclusion. The Board noted that he had stated in his screening interview with the Danish Immigration Service of 13 November 2015 that he was a Sunni Muslim, fasted during Ramadan, did not pray much and had no particular reason to pray or to abstain from praying. The Board also noted that he had not mentioned his tattoo, which he claims is of a Christian symbol, at the Board hearing and that he had raised his interest in Christianity only in his request for the case to be reopened. As he did not consider himself a Christian, the Board considered that the tattoo of what he claims is a cross did not by itself render it probable that he would be perceived as a Christian in Afghanistan. 4.4 The State party observes that, according to section 53 (a) of the Aliens (Consolidation) Act, rejections of asylum applications by the Danish Immigration Service are automatically appealed to the Refugee Appeals Board and that such appeals stay the execution of the decision. The Board is an independent, quasi-judicial body. Its chairperson and deputy chairperson are judges and the other members must be attorneys or serve in the Ministry of Immigration and Integration. Under section 53 (1) of the Aliens (Consolidation) Act, Board members are independent, cannot accept or seek directions from the appointing or nominating authorities and decisions to suspend or dismiss them, as with judges, are made by the Special Court of Indictment and Revision. The Board’s decisions are final. Nevertheless, under the Constitution, aliens may appeal to ordinary courts, which can adjudicate matters relating to the limits of competence of public authorities. Judicial review of Board decisions is thus limited to points of law. 4.5 The State party observes that aliens are granted a residence permit under the Aliens (Consolidation) Act if they have refugee status under the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees or if they are at risk of being subjected to the death penalty or to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The Act provides for the application without exceptions of the non-refoulement principle and a number of memorandums on the legal protection of asylum seekers under international law ensures that the authorities must decide in accordance with these obligations. 4 CCPR/C/117/D/2464/2014. 3