1622047 (Refugee)

This decision concerns an applicant seeking a protection visa, who claims to fear persecution in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) due to her work with a non-governmental organisation (NGO) assisting victims of abuse, and due to an imputed political opinion. The applicant also raised claims under complementary protection provisions. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason, or faced a real risk of significant harm, thereby engaging Australia's protection obligations.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's membership in a particular social group, specifically as an employee of an NGO in the DRC. It applied the principles from *Chan v MIEA* and *MIEA v Guo* to assess the applicant's well-founded fear, requiring both subjective and objective elements, and a "real chance" of persecution. The Tribunal accepted the applicant's detailed and compelling evidence of being raped and assaulted by authorities, the subsequent disappearance of her brother, and the psychological impact of these events, supported by country information indicating widespread gender-based violence and harm to NGO workers in the DRC. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the applicant's advocacy against violence, including at international conferences, likely attracted the attention of authorities, leading to an imputed political opinion and a real chance of serious harm upon return.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution as a worker for an NGO, and due to her imputed political opinion, satisfying section 36(2)(a) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). It also found that the applicant faced a real risk of significant harm under the complementary protection provisions, pursuant to section 36(2)(aa). Accordingly, the Tribunal remitted the matter for reconsideration with a direction that the applicant satisfies section 36(2)(a) of the *Migration Act*.