CRC/C/86/D/83/2019- advance unedited version Ceelbuur and found that it is not of such nature as to, in and of itself, justify residence under section 7 of the Danish Aliens Act. The State party notes that the Board made its assessment on this matter based on its comprehensive collection of background materials on Somalia, including the aforementioned letter. 4.12 Regarding the proceedings before the Immigration Appeals Board concerning the revocation of residence permits of the author’s children, the State party notes its obligation to ensure that children are not separated from their parents against their will pursuant to article 9 of the Convention, and to take into account preservation of the family unit when assessing the best interests of the child in immigration and family reunification cases. 16 The State party also recognizes that, in certain cases where a child or his or her parents are not entitled to asylum in Denmark, the child can have developed sufficiently strong ties with the country so that the best interests of the child warrant that the child’s residence permit should not be withdrawn. The Immigration Appeals Board’s case law provides that, generally, children cannot be considered to have developed such sufficiently strong ties without at least 6 or 7 years of continuous and uninterrupted stay in Denmark, during which they have attended school or other childcare institutions. 17 However, the Board noted that, in the present case, the author’s daughter had held a residence permit only for one year and eight months. Therefore, in its decision dated 11 March 2019, the Board found no circumstances indicating that the revocation of residence permits of the author’s children must be assumed to be particularly burdensome, as their permits were solely based on family reunification with their mother who no longer held a valid permit. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 In her comments dated 24 January 2020, the author alleges that, despite the Committee’s Views adopted in I.A.M. v. Denmark (CRC/C/77/D/3/2016), the State party’s authorities have maintained its practice in cases involving the risk of female genital mutilation and failed to apply the principle of precaution formulated by the Committee in that decision. As was the case in I.A.M. v. Denmark, the author emphasizes her status as a single mother without any male network in Somalia. The author also contests the State party’s argument that she is a resourceful person who can resist the social pressure upon her return to Somalia, and claims that she has only had a little education at a local Koran school in Somalia and has never worked. 5.2 Regarding the State party’s contention that Ceelbuur is a big city, the author emphasizes that it is a town controlled by Al-Shabaab. She states that, in al-Shabaab controlled areas, it is illegal for women to have a job and she would thus have to completely depend on the community. In order to have necessary support from her surrounding community, the author argues that she would have to succumb to social norms, particularly female genital mutilation. State party’s additional observations 6.1 In its additional observations dated 1 July 2020, the State party contends that the author’s comments of 24 January 2020 do not provide any new information. 6.2 As regards the follow-up procedure for the Views adopted in I.A.M. v. Denmark, the State party notes that the Refugee Appeals Board found no basis for reopening the case, as the author and her daughter of that case had left Denmark and their whereabouts were unknown. It further notes that, on 15 February 2018, its Coordination Committee18 found that the Committee’s views expressed in I.A.M. v. Denmark were not in accordance with the case 16 17 18 6 See the Committee’s general comment No. 14 (2013) on the right of the child to have his or her best interests taken as a primary consideration, para. 66. The State party cites the European Court of Human Rights, Osman v. Denmark (application no. 38058/09). The State party informs that the Coordination Committee is composed of the chair of the Refugee Appeals Board (a High Court judge), a member serving with the General Administration Department of the Ministry of Immigration and Integration and a lawyer appointed by the Council of the Danish Bar and Law Society. The Coordination Committee is appointed inter alia to discuss general guidelines concerning the work of the Refugee Appeals Board.