CCPR/C/117/D/2462/2014
consider the author as not a minor. It set his date of birth as 21 December 1992 and
amended his application accordingly.
2.3
On 31 July 2012, the author had an interview with the Immigration Service, during
which he referred to his homosexual relationship with a friend and maintained that he was
17 years old. On 28 August 2012, the Immigration Service rejected the author’s asylum
claim as not credible, considering that several aspects of his explanations were unreliable.
On an unspecified date, the author appealed to the Refugee Appeals Board, claiming that
the information he had provided was accurate, that he was at risk of persecution from the
local community and that he would not be able to seek protection in Bangladesh where
homosexuality is illegal. He further submitted that he could not be forced to hide his
homosexuality to avoid persecution and that as a member of a particular social group
exposed to persecution, he was in need of protection in accordance with article 1A (2) of
the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. On 4 December 2012, the Board
upheld the rejection of the author’s asylum application, finding his allegations to be not
credible.
2.4
On 12 April 2013, the author requested the Refugee Appeals Board to reopen the
asylum proceedings and submitted new documents in support of his claim: a newspaper
article alleging that the author’s mother had committed suicide because of problems related
to the homosexuality of her son6 and a copy of his birth certificate, stating that he was born
on 21 December 1994. In that connection, the author submits that his age has not been
reassessed since the production of his birth certificate and that the Board failed to take into
account that he was a minor at the time of the initial asylum proceedings. He further
submits that it is difficult for a minor who has grown up in a country in which
homosexuality is linked to stigma and shame to talk openly and elaborate on the grounds of
his asylum application when they are linked to his sexual orientation. On 4 March 2014, a
statement from a non-governmental organization, LGBT Asylum, confirmed that the author
had been a member of the organization since October 2013 and had been taking part in their
meetings. On 19 September 2014, the Refugee Appeals Board confirmed its decision of
4 December 2012, refusing to reopen the asylum proceedings, without examining the new
documents submitted by the author.7 The Board considered that it was not plausible that the
author would be at risk of persecution only because of his homosexuality since, even if
homosexuality is illegal in Bangladesh, the relevant legislation is not enforced. The author
asserts that the Board should have followed the procedure as applied in other countries. In
that connection, he refers to the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
of Great Britain and Northern Ireland when determining whether an asylum seeker is a
homosexual and whether, if returned to his country of origin, he risks persecution or abuse
that would make him entitled to asylum. 8
2.5
As part of the asylum procedure, the applicant stated that the authorities in his
country of origin were unable to protect him from the people of his village. The author
admitted he did not know about the law, but that he was clear that homosexuality was
unacceptable from a religious and social perspective. He also feared starvation in case of
his return to his country of origin, as he had no home and no clothing.
2.6
Since the decisions of the Board cannot be appealed before the Danish courts,9 the
author maintains that he has exhausted all available and effective domestic remedies.
6
7
8
9
The author only produced the document in its original language.
As of that date, the author’s expulsion to Bangladesh became imminent.
The author refers to the judgment of the British Supreme Court in the joined cases of HJ (Iran) and
HT (Cameroon) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department of 7 July 2010.
See article 56 (8) of the Danish Aliens Act.
3