CCPR/C/121/D/2594/2015
The facts as presented by the authors
2.1
The father of K.S. was a high-ranking police official in the Najibullah administration
in Mazar-e Sharif, Afghanistan. After the fall of the Najibullah regime, K.S.’ father and
older brother were executed by the Taliban. 1 As a result, the authors fled to Pakistan on an
unspecified date. Having spent six or seven years in Pakistan, the authors returned to
Afghanistan on an unspecified date in 2010 owing to M.S.’ poor health.2 A few months
after their arrival, they were contacted by the Taliban, who ordered K.S. to travel to
Waziristan and join the jihad. The following day, the authors left Afghanistan for
Denmark.3
2.2
On 5 May 2010, the authors arrived in Denmark and applied for asylum on the same
day. The authors note that they have about 30 family members living in Denmark and none
left in Afghanistan.
2.3
Soon after their arrival in Denmark, M.S. abandoned K.S., who became an
unaccompanied child.4 As a result, the consideration of K.S.’s asylum case was suspended
for more than three years. M.S. returned on an unspecified date, and the consideration of
both asylum cases was resumed.
2.4
On 2 December 2013, the authors had their first interview with the Danish
Immigration Service. M.S. was unable to appear for the interview owing to health problems
but was represented by her eldest son, who resided in Denmark.
2.5
On 20 December 2013, the Danish Immigration Service rejected the authors’ asylum
application. Their case was referred to the Refugee Appeals Board. K.S. presented new
grounds for asylum before the Board, namely, that his family had been threatened by his
sister’s former husband in the United States of America, who belonged to the Afghan
diaspora and claimed to have been dishonoured by his sister’s divorce. K.S. claimed that
the former husband had sent an anonymous email to the Service stating that the authors had
given false testimony in their asylum claim. When asked about the reasons for not having
mentioned to the Service that he had a sister in the United States, K.S. stated that he had not
considered it to be of any relevance and had not wished to involve her in his asylum case,
and because he had been unaware of his sister’s divorce at that time.
2.6
On 23 June 2014, the Refugee Appeals Board rejected the authors’ asylum
application on two grounds. First, it considered that their conflict with the Taliban,
originating from K.S.’s father and brother, was too isolated and remote in time and that the
authors would therefore be considered of little importance to the Taliban. Second, it
rejected for lack of credibility the claim about the family conflict relating to the sister’s
divorce. The Board emphasized in that regard that the authors had intentionally given
incorrect information as they had stated before the Danish Immigration Service that they
had lost contact with K.S.’s sister even though they had contacted her shortly after their
arrival in Denmark, as stated before the Board. The Board found not credible the statement
by K.S. that they had given incorrect information because they had not wanted to involve
his sister in his case.
2.7
On 10 July 2014, the authors filed an application with the Refugee Appeals Board to
reopen the asylum process and submitted evidence of the alleged conflict between their
family and the sister’s former husband, consisting of a transcript of threats made by the
former husband on the telephone, in which he said that he would “find a way to have them
deported to Afghanistan, where he would deal with them the Afghan way”, and a
restraining order from a United States court against him. 5 On 6 August 2014, the authors
provided additional information, namely, that the former husband’s father was a high-
1
2
3
4
5
2
No further details are provided.
No further information is provided.
The information provided in this paragraph has been obtained from the Board’s decision dated 23
June 2014.
No further information is provided.
The authors attach a copy of a “temporary order of protection” given to K.S.’s sister against her
husband, issued by the municipal court of Missoula county, Montana, United States. In that order, she
is considered a “victim of stalking” and the husband is required to stay 1,500 feet away from her.