CCPR/C/112/D/2341/2014
Factual background
2.1
The author was born in Myanmar in 1976. In 1982, his parents were shot dead by
the army of Myanmar. At that time, given his young age, he did not know his parents’
origins and religion, nor why they were killed. In 1983, he was taken to Bangladesh and
placed in the care of a family of Bengali farmers. In 1994, his application for a national
identification card and a passport was rejected on the grounds that he was not born in
Bangladesh. The author appealed the refusal to the court. The court decided to issue him
with a refugee card.2 In 2007, the author’s foster parents lost his identity documents and the
court decisions during cyclone Sidr in Bangladesh.
2.2
On an unspecified date, the author left Bangladesh because he could not work there
as a refugee, and travelled to India, Pakistan, the Islamic Republic of Iran and Turkey.3 He
lived in Turkey for five years, where he applied unsuccessfully for citizenship. He moved
to Greece for one year, where he applied unsuccessfully for asylum. In 2012, he arrived in
Norway, where he applied for asylum on 23 April 2012.
2.3
On 7 June 2012, the author was interviewed by the Norwegian asylum authorities.
He submitted that he had left Bangladesh because his application for citizenship had been
rejected and he could not find a job there. He feared deportation to Myanmar because he
did not have any knowledge of the country or his relatives’ whereabouts. He also feared
that the Burmese authorities would abuse him as they would assume that he was connected
to Al-Qaida.4
2.4
On 15 June 2012, the Directorate of Immigration rejected the author’s asylum
application on the grounds that he had not substantiated a well-founded fear of persecution
to a sufficient degree. The Directorate has not been able to reach a conclusion concerning
the applicant’s identity, including his nationality, and could therefore not assess his need for
protection. On 14 October 2013, the Immigration Appeals Board confirmed the decision of
the Directorate. The Board did not find the author’s submissions that he was a Rohingya
from Myanmar adequately substantiated. The Board concluded that the conditions of
recognizing the author as a refugee had not been met and that he had not substantiated that
he came from a country or an area where he would risk abuse on an individual or a general
basis.
The complaint
3.
The author claims that his forcible removal from Norway to Myanmar would put his
life at risk and expose him to torture, in violation of his rights under article 7 of the
Covenant.
State party's observations on admissibility
4.1
On 19 March 2014, the State party submitted its observations on admissibility. It
maintains that the communication is inadmissible under article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the
Optional Protocol, for a failure to satisfy the requirement of exhaustion of domestic
remedies, and requests that the Committee lift its request that the State party refrain from
deporting the author from Norway.
4.2
The State party submits that the author has not instituted legal proceedings in court
to challenge the lawfulness of the decision taken by the Immigration Appeal Board.
Pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure of 17 June 2005 No. 90, a decision by the Board
2
3
4
No copy of the court decision was provided.
The author does not specify the duration of his stay in these countries.
No further information is provided in this connection.
3