2014360 (Refugee)

This matter concerns an application for review of a delegate's decision to refuse protection visas to the applicants, who are citizens of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). The applicant, a Christian pastor, claimed to have engaged in advocacy for his community and church members, which included denouncing atrocities and abuses by local civil and military authorities. His advocacy involved organising protests against child soldier recruitment, lobbying against illegal detentions, and writing letters condemning unlawful killings. He also provided support to former child soldiers and victims of sexual assault. The applicant alleged he was arrested, tortured, and detained on multiple occasions due to his activities, and that he was forced to flee to various locations within the DRC and eventually to Australia. His wife relies on her membership of his family unit for her protection claims.

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) was required to determine whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution based on his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, or alternatively, whether there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal from Australia to the DRC, he faced a real risk of suffering significant harm. The Tribunal also considered the delegate's assessment, which had not accepted the applicant's claims of political activity, arrests, torture, or the genuineness of supporting documents, and consequently found that the applicant did not face a real chance of serious or significant harm if returned to the DRC.

The Tribunal, having considered the applicant's detailed statement, oral evidence, further submissions, and supporting documentation, determined that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration. The Tribunal accepted the applicants' nationality as Congolese and the DRC as the receiving country. While acknowledging the delegate's concerns regarding the authenticity of some documents, the Tribunal found it necessary to remit the decision for further consideration based on its assessment of the applicant's claims and the evidence presented. The Tribunal noted that it had taken account of relevant guidelines, including those on refugee law and complementary protection, as mandated by Ministerial Direction No. 84.

The Tribunal ordered that the decision under review be remitted to the delegate for reconsideration.