As part of his work with the National Intelligence Agency, the complainant was
assigned to the office of the general administrator as an assistant responsible for the
occupied territories during the war.2 In 2002, he was transferred to the counterintelligence
department as head of an operations office. From 2004 to 2009, he was assigned to the
Ndjili airport as team leader responsible for checks in connection with anti-drug efforts. He
also carried out general intelligence work.
The complainant entered Switzerland on 24 March 2012, with a visa, as part of a
family reunification procedure to join his wife, also from the Democratic Republic of the
Congo, who held a Swiss residency permit. However, owing to separation from his wife,
the Population Department of the Canton of Vaud revoked his residency permit on 17
December 2014. The divorce came through in Switzerland on 13 August 2015. On 17
September 2015, the cantonal court of Vaud dismissed the complainant’s appeal of the
Population Department’s decision and upheld the non-renewal of his residency permit as
well as his expulsion from Switzerland.
On 4 April 2017, the complainant filed an asylum application in Switzerland. On 17
May 2017, the State Secretariat for Migration denied his application after hearing his case. 3
Although it did not question the complainant’s history with the National Intelligence
Agency, the State Secretariat for Migration found that the complainant was never
persecuted prior to his departure from the Democratic Republic of the Congo; that he lived
in Kinshasa until March 2012, where he occupied various posts in the National Intelligence
Agency, without experiencing direct personal problems with the authorities; that his
activities with the National Intelligence Agency were not of a sensitive nature; and that he
was never politically active in the Democratic Republic of the Congo or involved in antigovernment activities. In addition, the State Secretariat for Migration noted that the
complainant was able to renew his passport at the consulate of the Democratic Republic of
the Congo in Geneva without any trouble on 2 December 2015, which was further evidence
that he did not face a tangible risk of persecution.
Furthermore, the State Secretariat found that the complainant’s claim that the
authorities visited his home three months after his departure from the Democratic Republic
of the Congo, while plausible, was not credible inasmuch as the visit did not have any
consequences and the complainant did not mention it at his initial hearing.
Regarding his political activities in Switzerland, the State Secretariat found that the
complainant did not hold a decision-making post or take part in political activities relating
to the Democratic Republic of the Congo likely to put him at risk. Furthermore, the State
Secretariat noted that there was no evidence that the authorities of the Democratic Republic
of the Congo are aware that the complainant joined the Armée de résistance populaire after
fleeing the country given that his activities in Switzerland can only be described as
marginal and with minimal exposure.4
The State Secretariat also noted that the complainant lived in Kinshasa until the age
of 37 and had worked since 2001 for the National Intelligence Agency without once having
trouble with the authorities; that he has a family network, specifically brothers, sisters and
his mother, able to support him if he returned; that he has no dependent children; and that
he has not mentioned any health problems. As to the general situation in the Democratic
Republic of the Congo, the State Secretariat stressed that, except the conflict areas
predominantly found in the east of the country, where various armed groups are active and
the governmental armed forces conduct operations against opponents, the country is not at
war, civil or otherwise, or experiencing widespread violence.





The complainant’s tasks consisted in sorting reports from across the country and bringing information
to his superiors regarding the security, political, economic and social situations.
A summary hearing on personal information, held on 6 April 2017, and a hearing on grounds for
asylum on 27 April 2017.
The complainant stated that he mustered support for the Armée de résistance populaire. He reportedly
worked on the Armée’s communication campaigns and, in that connection, was in contact with people
living abroad. He also took part in meetings in Lausanne, as well as small gatherings at the homes of
Armée members in Switzerland.

Select target paragraph3