1418638 (Refugee) - [2016] AATA 4646

1418638 (Refugee) [2016] AATA 4646 (21 October 2016)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER:  1418638
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Zimbabwe
MEMBER:Christine Cody
DATE:21 October 2016
PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection visa.

Statement made on 21 October 2016 at 6:19pm
Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other dependant.
STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS - APPLICATION FOR REVIEW
SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND[1]
[1] Background information is sourced from the applicant's written material, the delegate's decision record provided to the Tribunal by the applicant, her evidence to the Tribunal, as well as information put to the applicant pursuant to s.424AA of the Act.

The applicant applied to the Department of Immigration for a Protection visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act) [in] January 2014 and the delegate refused to grant the visa [in] October 2014. This is an application for review of the decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration to refuse to grant the applicant a Protection visa.
The applicant is [an age] year old female Zimbabwean national who seeks to be granted a Protection visa on the grounds that she is a refugee or entitled to protection under Australia’s complementary protection provisions. She claims that she fears harm from the authorities and associated groups in Zimbabwe, including as arising from the authorities’ views of her actual/imputed political opinions and activities (pro-MDC/ anti-government/local [Office Bearer]) in Zimbabwe. These and her other claims are discussed below.
The Tribunal has before it the Department’s file relating to the applicant which contains documents including her protection visa application, her accompanying statement (her “first statement”[2]), a copy of her passport identity page and pages showing past visas and her travel, a copy of her birth certificate, national registration, and her supporting documentation, and other material including the recording of the delegate’s interview with the applicant [in] September 2014 (to which the Tribunal has listened). The Tribunal also has had regard to the delegate’s decision to refuse to grant the visa dated [in] October 2014, setting out the reasons for refusal of the visa and country information.
[2] This has handwritten notes on it, recorded as changes (to dates) made by the applicant at interview.
The Tribunal’s file contains the application for review and a copy of the delegate’s decision record provided to the Tribunal by the applicant, as well as the applicant’s second statement (disagreeing with the delegate) and further supporting documents. [Details deleted].
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 18 August 2016 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Shona and English languages. The applicant provided additional country information. The Tribunal noted that it was not bound to follow the Department’s findings and that it would make its own findings on all matters.
The relevant law is set out in Annexure A. In accordance with Ministerial Direction No. 56, the Tribunal has also taken into account the country information assessment prepared by DFAT expressly for protection status determination purposes, DFAT Country Information Report Zimbabwe, 11 April 2016 (“the DFAT report”) as well as the relevant PAM.
The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason, nor that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Zimbabwe, there is a real risk that she will suffer significant harm. The Tribunal has accordingly affirmed the decision of the delegate to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa.
The applicant’s claims and background
According to the documents produced by the applicant to the delegate, the applicant’s background and claims are as follows:
·     The applicant was born in [Town 1], Zimbabwe in [year]. She is an ethnic Zimbabwean and her religion is Christian. She grew up in [Town 1]. She speaks, reads and writes in both English and Shona.
·     Her father worked as [an occupation] and her mother was a housewife. She has [siblings]. These family members remain in Zimbabwe.
·     She has [number] years of education, firstly in [Town 1], and then she attended high school in Harare until [year].
·     From June 2004 until February 2010, she worked at [a venue] in [Town 1]. From March 2011 until November 2013 she worked as [an occupation] for [a] company in Harare.
·     She married in June 2002 in Harare. She has [number] children, [names and ages specified]. Her husband and children remain in Zimbabwe.
·     She received no assistance with her protection visa application form, however her statement was declared in front of a solicitor. She noted in her application form that her claims are set out in that attached statement.
·     She experienced a number of problems in Zimbabwe, including because of her involvement with the MDC as a local [Office Bearer]. She was assaulted, and otherwise targeted, including ZANU-PF supporters came to her house and shouted slogans; that same night her family’s [house] was burned; and the applicant and her family moved to her friend’s house in [Town 2] to be in hiding. From that time onwards, she secretly continued to support the MDC. ZANU-PF supporters continued to come to her home to look for her. She continued to work because ZANU-PF did not know where she worked.
·     Her passport was issued [in] 2013. She had no difficulties in obtaining her passport.
·     She claimed that she had held no other passport. However, her application form recorded that (prior to the issue of her current passport), she had travelled to [Country 1] [for] [number] days ([dates specified]) in January 2013, and for [number] days ([dates specified]) in May 2013. At hearing the applicant said that she had held two passports, and about 1-2 years after the expiry of her first passport she had obtained her current passport for the purpose of travelling to [Country 1] [for work purposes].
·     In October 2013 she decided to visit her friend in Australia. She thought that she was the [Office Bearer] of the MDC, ZANU-PF was focused on her and if she left, they would leave her family alone. She thought that if she left for a while, the situation would calm down and she could go back.
·     She applied for a [temporary] visa [in] November 2013[3]. [This] visa was granted [in] November 2013, and was valid until [January] 2014.
·     She left Zimbabwe [in] December 2013, legally, using her passport, from Harare airport. She arrived in Australia [in] December 2013 holding a [temporary] visa.
·     After she arrived in Australia she received a phone call from her husband, because they thought ZANU-PF had found out where the family was staying so her husband was looking for another place to stay.
·     She is in contact with her husband by phone; he tells her the present situation, namely that people are still looking for her.
·     If she returns to Zimbabwe, ZANU-PF will kill her. She cannot seek protection from the police, because they are the supporters of ZANU-PF.
[3] See the delegate's decision record provided to the Tribunal by the applicant.
The applicant’s supporting documents included a letter from an “[MDC] [official]”, and her MDC card.
The applicant’s background (her marriage and children and her work at the [company]) was confirmed in a Departmental printout relating to her offshore visa application contained in the Departmental file (relating to her protection visa application).
Interview and the delegate’s decision record[4]
[4] Sourced from the delegate's decision record provided to the Tribunal by the applicant.
The applicant discussed her claims and background with the delegate at interview. Some of her evidence is referred to in the delegate’s decision record provided to the Tribunal by the applicant. She claimed that:
·     In January 2009 she and her husband joined the MDC because they believed it would improve the economy, ensure a reduction in violence, and for democracy and freedom of opinion. She and her husband went to rallies and supported the MDC in [Ward 1], and by March 2009 she had been elected as [Office Bearer] of [Ward 2], which was closer to where they lived in [Town 1].
·     Two of the dates in her written statement were incorrect. Although she had claimed in her written statement to have been attacked by ZANU-PF supporters in April 2009, this should have been April 2013. Further, the claims relating to the burning down of the house/threats occurred after the July 2013 elections, not the July 2009 elections.
·     There was no personal attack on her between April 2013 and October 2013. Between April and July 2013, she and her party were concentrating on campaigning for the election and during that period she was only involved in skirmishes between the ZANU-PF and groups of MDC supporters.
·     Her husband, children and mother moved to [another town] in January 2014.
The delegate assessed the applicant’s claims on the basis of credibility, and against country information set out in the delegate’s decision record. The delegate considered it difficult to accept: that she would have been so quickly elected to the office of Ward [Office Bearer] (having joined in January 2009, she was elected in March 2009); and her reason given to the delegate for her quick ascension to this role (“commitment to the MDC”), especially as her claimed commitment to the MDC did not extend beyond an involvement in activities (such as attending rallies) which would have been expected of any ordinary member.
The delegate also found it difficult to accept that although she claimed to have been targeted by ZANU-PF in April 2013 (she claimed this was because she was an MDC [Office Bearer] and because ZANU-PF did not want any MDC supporters to campaign for the election), they left her alone until October 2013. When asked about this, she said that they were still interested in her, but she was only doing low-level campaigning, so if she heard a rumour that a particular meeting might be attacked by ZANU-PF, she would not attend.
The delegate was also concerned that the applicant had corrected two dates in her statement (April 2009 April 2013, and July 2009 to July 2013), but she had not corrected the date of second attack from October 2009 to October 2013. In response, the applicant said that she had not noticed. When asked, she said that she had read the statement before signing, but she did not notice that the dates were incorrect.
The delegate noted the claims that the applicant was active as MDC ward [Office Bearer], attending rallies, organising the distribution of T-shirts, [meetings] which were attended by [number] to [number] persons, between 2009 and 2013, but that she did not experience any personal threats or attacks until April 2013, four years after being elected to office. The delegate referred to country information indicating that the more prominent and outspoken the MDC member is, the more likely they are to attract adverse attention or harassment from the ZANU-PF authorities[5]. Given such considerations, the delegate put the applicant that it was strange that she was effectively left alone until April 2013. In response, she said that torture and killing was occurring in Zimbabwe. The delegate considered that her claimed four year period of serving as [Office Bearer] without being personally targeted by ZANU-PF seemed to be not credible.
[5] The delegate referred to the DFAT country report, 25 February 2014, page 10, delegate's decision record.
The delegate found it to be coincidental that while she was in hiding for three months with her family, ZANU-PF could not locate her, but shortly after her arrival in Australia, they found out where the family was staying.
The delegate referred to an advice from DFAT that only the office of the Secretary-general of the MDC-T is mandated to write supporting letters for asylum seekers when needs arise. The delegate noted that the letter provided by the applicant (from the “[official]” was not the Secretary-General. The delegate also said that the letter appeared very unprofessional in its presentation, containing inconsistent [spelling]; and irregular word spacing. The delegate considered that the applicant or another person had fabricated the document, and gave it no weight. The delegate referred to other country information indicating the prevalence of document fraud in relation to documents claimed to have been issued by the MDC.
The delegate did not accept that: the applicant was actively involved in the MDC; she was a member or ward [Office Bearer] of MDC; she was the victim of an attack in April 2013; her house was burnt down in October 2013; she and her family went into hiding in October 2013; or that ZANU-PF are currently searching for her or her family. The delegate did not accept that the applicant left Zimbabwe on account of any harm she and her family experienced because of her support for the MDC, or a fear of such harm in the future.
The delegate considered that at interview, the applicant was able to explain her reasons for supporting the MDC (to improve the economy, and to ensure a reduction in violence and democracy and freedom of opinion) and on that basis, the delegate was prepared to accept that the applicant supports MDC and its policies, and would continue to hold that opinion upon return. The delegate then considered country information in order to assess whether the applicant, as a low profile supporter of the MDC, would face harm. The delegate considered that while there is still a significant level of political violence against MDC members, especially around election time, the applicant is only a low profile MDC supporter who has never been outspoken in her support and comes from an urban area, and does not face a real chance of such politically motivated persecution, or a real risk of significant harm for that reason.
The Tribunal
The applicant provided to the Tribunal, in addition to the delegate’s decision record, a statement addressed to the Tribunal (the second statement) dated 16 February 2015. In it, she claimed that if she was forced to return to Zimbabwe, she will be seriously harmed due to her political opinions. She also responded to the delegate’s concerns as follows:
·     The reason for her quick rise was her heavy involvement with the MDC. She was more actively involved than other members including organising meetings, calling for rallies and [meetings], which other low level members would not do.
·     January 2009 was not her first involvement with the MDC; she had already been attending meetings in 2007 and 2008, she just hadn’t joined at that time. Because she had been going for such a long time, she already knew members of the MDC when she joined and that is how she achieved the role of [Office Bearer] quickly. Further, because they were focused on women’s rights, she strongly supported this by carrying out rallies for women and organising study groups for [women], and this is another reason why she was made [Office Bearer].
·     She confirmed that she was not attacked for the four year period from 2009 until 2013, stating that she did constantly hear about and witness ZANU-PF intimidating and killing other members of the MDC during that period. The reason why she was not attacked until April 2013 was because 2013 was the year of the elections; the time when the most violence occurred.
·     She confirmed that her family was found shortly after she left for Australia. She said that ZANU-PF is a powerful party, with people everywhere. Also in Zimbabwe the government, as ZANU- PF and the ZANU-PF supporters are spread out and well-connected around the country. They are good at finding people who they are targeting. It is also possible that someone may have seen her leave or seen her around her house just before she left. She said that when she was in hiding they were always looking for her and were outside her home. The ZANU-PF supporters have repeatedly placed notices on her former home stating they will kill her and her family if they find them.
·     Concerning the letter from the MDC [official], she had been unable to obtain a letter from the Secretary-General because it is very difficult given his high status within the MDC. However, she organised for this to occur. The spelling mistakes in the first letter can be explained because English is a second language in Zimbabwe. The letter looked unprofessional because he is [an official] in the MDC, not the Secretary-General and he didn’t have access to the letterhead of the Secretary-General. The letter had a stamp on it and the applicant said one cannot easily get this stamp without being [an official] in the MDC and she knows the letter is genuine.
In her statement, she also stated that since ZANU- PF found her family the last time, they had been moving around to various friends’ houses. She does not know exactly where they are living. The ZANU- PF continued to place notes on her former residence and have continued to chant. Her husband told her that as ZANU- PF plans to kill all of the opposition parties before the upcoming election; that there were plans to poison members of the opposition; and there had been political violence in Epworth in May 2014 (where the police only arrested MDC supporters, not those from ZANU- PF). She submitted that the police, army and authorities in general in Zimbabwe are part of the ZANU- PF and there is discrimination and persecution across all levels of authority in Zimbabwe concerning opposition political parties and their members/supporters. She fears that if she returns, no one, including the police, could protect her, and the authorities would assist ZANU- PF to find her and kill her and her family. The political violence is well-documented and applies to lower-level MDC supporters such as herself.
The hearing invitation requested that the applicant provide any documents upon which she sought to rely to the Tribunal one week prior to the hearing. This was not done, however she attended the hearing on 18 August 2016 with a bundle of documents (including one letter which stated that she currently works in a [workplace]). The applicant said the country information documents support her claim that she might be attacked and killed if she goes back; as they show that the brutality of police officers is getting worse; the documents contained general country information and were not specific to her.
Concerning the applicant’s first statement, the applicant said that she read the statement, which was witnessed by a solicitor, before signing it, and that she initially thought it was alright but when rereading it at home she discovered some of the dates were not as she expected. She said apart from dates, there were no other errors and nothing missing. She also said that the application form is true and correct.
The Tribunal asked the applicant about her addresses and the [home] in Zimbabwe. The applicant said that she was born and resided at [address in Town 1]. That was her parents’ house. She said that she purchased it from them three years ago. Then she said it was seven years ago [2009]. The purchase price paid was the equivalent of USD [amount]. When the Tribunal asked where she got the money to purchase her parents’ house, she said that she was [an occupation], going back and forth to [Country 1], and accumulated the funds. The Tribunal noted that she had given evidence that she started travelling to [Country 1] for [work] purposes in 2009, so it did not understand how she had accumulated such money so quickly. She then said that before she went to [Country 1], she had been [working] in Zimbabwe with her boyfriend (who became the husband).

She said that she lived at [Town 1 address] until July 2013, at which time she went to [Town 3], which is about [distance] away. When asked whether, before she moved to [Town 3], had she ever lived in any other house, she said no. The applicant confirmed that apart from her parents’ house (which she purchased) in [Town 1], and the house she lived in in [Town 3], she had never lived in any other place.
She told the tribunal that she has [siblings], including [one] who is [an occupation], [who] goes to [Country 1] [for work purposes]. [This sibling resides in a specified town.]. [Another sibling] lives in [Town 1] and [is an occupation]. [Another relative] has a [business] where [they] [provide specified services]
The applicant initially said that her parents live in [Town 1], by themselves in the family home, and that her husband and children remain in hiding.
The applicant used the services of the interpreter, and sometimes spoke in English. The Tribunal was concerned on occasions that the applicant was not responding to questions. The Tribunal would repeat its questions and, and noted with concern that she was not answering the question. On one occasion, the applicant said that she thought that the interpreter was not explaining what she was saying. The Tribunal stated that the applicant should always tell the Tribunal if she thought the interpreter had not explained what she had said. On this occasion, the Tribunal was asking the applicant to explain why she had made no mention in her statement of any involvement with the MDC until 2009. The applicant then told the Tribunal that she admitted that she had only included in her statement her involvement as of 2009. It did not transpire that the interpreter had incorrectly interpreted her evidence. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant was able to adequately provide evidence and arguments at the hearing.
The Tribunal put to the applicant concerns about the credibility of her claims as well as information pursuant to s.424AA of the Act.
Relevant evidence and information is set out further below.
FINDINGS AND REASONS
Country of reference
According to the application form, the applicant is a Zimbabwean citizen. She provided a passport issued by the Republic of Zimbabwe, and other supporting documents such as her birth certificate and national registration card showing she was born in [Town 1]. The Tribunal finds that the applicant is a national of Zimbabwe. The Tribunal finds that the appropriate country of reference for the determination of the applicant’s refugee claims, and the receiving country for the determination of the applicant’s complementary protection claims, is Zimbabwe.
Credibility
The mere fact that a person claims fear of persecution for a particular reason does not establish either the genuineness of the asserted fear or that it is “well‑founded” or that it is for the reason claimed. Similarly, that the applicant claims to face a real risk of significant harm does not establish that such a risk exists, or that the harm feared amounts to “significant harm”. It remains for the applicant to satisfy the Tribunal that all of the statutory elements are made out.
Pursuant to s.5AAA of the Act it is the responsibility of the applicant to specify all particulars of his or her claim to be a person to whom Australia has protection obligations and to provide sufficient evidence to establish that claim. The Tribunal does not have any responsibility or obligation to specify, or assist the applicant in specifying, any particulars of his or her claims. Nor does the Tribunal have any responsibility or obligation to establish, or assist the applicant in establishing, his or her claims.
Although the concept of onus of proof is not appropriate to administrative inquiries and decision-making, the relevant facts of the individual case will have to be supplied by the applicant himself or herself, in as much detail as is necessary to enable the examiner to establish the relevant facts. A decision‑maker is not required to make the applicant’s case for him or her. Nor is the Tribunal required to accept uncritically any and all the allegations made by an applicant. (MIEA v Guo & Anor (1997) 191 CLR 559 at 596, Nagalingam v MILGEA (1992) 38 FCR 191, Prasad v MIEA (1985) 6 FCR 155 at 169‑70).
Having considered the relevant evidence, the Tribunal has serious concerns about the applicant’s credibility and the veracity of her claims (and her inconsistent, changing and not credible evidence). The Tribunal’s concerns are set out below.
Firstly, the Tribunal had further concerns with the applicant’s evidence concerning the opposition party to which she belonged, and for which she was a [Office Bearer], in a number of respects. For example:
Name of the party
The Tribunal asked the applicant for the full name of the opposition party with which she was involved. She said the name was Movement of Democratic Change, nothing else. She then changed her evidence and said that it used to be called MDC, but “of late” it is now called MDC-T, and that this change happened in 2009. The Tribunal put to the applicant that if the opposition party to which she belonged had been called MDC-T since 2009, it did not understand why she said that the full name was MDC and “nothing else”. In response, the applicant said that she just missed that one, and she was sorry. The Tribunal has considered this explanation, however it finds it difficult to accept given her claimed significant involvement with the MDC-T. The Tribunal’s concerns in this regard were heightened, because when the applicant changed her evidence to say it had been called MDC-T “of late”, namely in 2009, being called MDC-T, this was inconsistent with the evidence in the delegate’s decision record (which the applicant had provided to the Tribunal) that the MDC split into two factions, one of which was the MDC-T, in 2005 (not 2009).
Inconsistency between statement and evidence concerning involvement in 2008
The applicant told the Tribunal that she had been involved with the MDC in 2008, and that she had “religiously attended the rallies”. When asked, she said that she attended about six or seven rallies. The Tribunal noted however that this was not mentioned in, and was different to, her first statement:
In 2008 the economic situation was very difficult…. In December 2008 my husband and I started thinking about supporting the MDC because of how difficult the situation was in Zimbabwe… My husband and I joined the MDC in 2009.
The Tribunal put to the applicant that it was difficult to understand why she would not have mentioned “religiously” attending MDC rallies in 2008 in her statement which suggested something different. In response, the applicant said that in 2008 she and her husband was still deciding whether or not to support the party, and she became a member in 2009. The tribunal considers that if she had attended MDC rallies in 2008, and if, as subsequently claimed in her second statement, that it was because of her activities in both 2007 and 2008 prior to joining the MDC in 2009 that led to her being well known and thus elected as [Office Bearer] so quickly after joining, it is likely that she would have mentioned this in her statement. The Tribunal considers that the absence in her first statement to attending rallies in 2007/2008 (given she does mention rallies, later in that statement) to undermine her claim that she attended rallies in 2008.
The applicant’s evidence about her MDC card
The tribunal was concerned about the applicant’s evidence about her MDC card. The tribunal noted that she claimed to be the MDC [Office Bearer] of [Ward 2]. The Tribunal put to her that her MDC card however simply showed that she was a member of MDC, and that she belonged to [Ward 1], not [Ward 2]. In response, she said that when she joined the MDC, she accompanied her friends in [Ward 1]. The Tribunal said that it did not understand, and asked if she was suggesting that she joined MDC in a ward where she didn’t even live. She said yes. The Tribunal noted however that if that was the case, she claims that from March 2009, she was a [Office Bearer] for MDC in [Ward 2]. In the circumstances, the Tribunal said it was difficult to accept her evidence that when she was presenting herself (as [Office Bearer] of [Ward 2]), she would show people her card (which did not show she was a [Office Bearer], and showed she belonged to a different ward, [Ward 1]). The Tribunal suggested that, given her position, she could have changed her card. In response, the applicant said she also had some T-shirts. The Tribunal put to her that she had an important role in [Ward 2], and yet all she claimed to have as evidence of her role was a card which showed that she belonged to a different ward. In response she said that she was the [Office Bearer] for a small area consisting of a few people and she was just using that card because she was leading just a small group of people and she never changed her card. The Tribunal did not find the applicant’s evidence persuasive, particularly having regard to her claim to the delegate that her duty as [Office Bearer] involved [ward] meetings which were attended by [number] to [number] people[6], and her changing evidence (set out below) that a ward has about [number] people (not just “a few people”). The Tribunal considers that her changing evidence about the number of people in the ward also undermines her claims.
The applicant’s evidence that she was not targeted for years after she became MDC [Office Bearer], having regard to her evidence of her claims that ZANU-PF were targeting MDC
[6] As set out the delegate's decision record provided to the Tribunal by the applicant, page 9.
The Tribunal was concerned that the applicant claimed at hearing that she managed to be appointed as [Office Bearer] because she would attend meetings in the face of ZANU-PF’s violence (and this is why other people did not attend, and why she was elected as [Office Bearer]), however for years she was not targeted by that very violence although she claimed to be a prominent person, undertaking, for years, work in opposition to ZANU-PF.
In this regard, she told the Tribunal that she joined the MDC in January 2009 and that she moved wards in February 2009, and that she become [Office Bearer] of the ward in “March 2013, no, March 2009”. The Tribunal asked how she can become [Office Bearer] of a ward within one month. She said that a ward has about [number] people. The Tribunal suggested that surely there were people who have been there longer than her, who would have been chosen to be the [Office Bearer]. In response, the applicant said that people were scared to attend meetings because they’re afraid of violence, and it was because of her commitment in that she would risk violence every night to attend MDC meetings, she was made [Office Bearer]. The Tribunal considers that her evidence indicates that she was a person who stood out for the MDC; it also notes her claim that she was doing so much for women’s rights and violence, over a period of four years.
The Tribunal put to the applicant that in the circumstances, considering her active and prominent activities including organising rallies and risking violence to attend meetings, over a four-year period, it was hard to accept that she was not targeted by ZANU-PF in this four-year period, given this meant that she could continue to do her opposition party work unimpeded for a four year period. In response, she claimed that even leaders like Morgan Tsvangerai were only attacked one or two times, and so they may leave you alone for a while, but once they target you, they keep on attacking you and they do not stop.
The Tribunal considered her claim that she was not attacked (or even personally harassed despite holding a position and being active in her position) difficult to accept for two reasons. Firstly, having regard to her second statement where she claimed that during that four-year period she constantly heard about and witnessed ZANU-PF intimidating and killing other members of the MDC, it appears highly unlikely that she would not have been targeted given her claimed activities. Secondly, the Tribunal considered that her explanation (they may leave you alone for a while, but once they target you, they keep on attacking you and they do not stop) was inconsistent with her claims that she was targeted and attacked in April 2013, yet thereafter, they did leave her alone (for six months, including during the crucial election period in July 2013).
The Tribunal noted that according to her evidence, she was living at her house (where she had always lived) and she was going to her regular work. She agreed; although she said that in October 2013 she went to [Town 2]. The Tribunal put to the applicant that between April and October 2013, she was not targeted, contrary to her explanation that once a person was targeted, they would not stop. The Tribunal noted that she was left alone, which did not indicate that there was any interest in her.
In response, she claimed that when they threatened her, she did not do as much work. However, her evidence in this regard was contradictory. First of all she said that she did not attend rallies but would distribute T-shirts privately, then she said she did attend rallies, but only two rallies. She then said that ZANU-PF set up camps and whoever was caught was put in the camp; they wanted to put all MDC supporters in the camps. The Tribunal noted that she was already a target, she was a known active MDC ward [Office Bearer], member and supporter, she was not in hiding (attending rallies, living at home and going to her work). In light of her claims that ZANU-PF have very good networks which they can use to find people, and that they were particularly violent in this period leading up to the election, the Tribunal put to the applicant that she would have been an obvious target for the ZANU-PF to locate and take to the camp, yet this had not happened.
In response, she said that in April 2013 she was just arrested by a group of people who attacked her, they beat her up and they said she was not a good citizen and they want to kill her. The Tribunal does not find this explanation to be a persuasive reason as to why she was not again targeted after April 2013, given the evidence and claims referred to above. The Tribunal considers that this undermines the credibility of her claims to have had her claimed involvement with MDC and to have been a target.
Later in the hearing, the applicant claimed that the country evidence indicates that ZANU-PF always showed a high level of violence towards MDC. The Tribunal put to the applicant that in such circumstances, it did not understand why she managed to be a [Office Bearer] from 2009 until 2013 and did not have any problems. In response, she said that they target one person at a time. The Tribunal noted it did not have country evidence in this regard, and the documents she produced did not make this claim; it was difficult to accept that ZANU-PF only target one person at a time given the scale of their violence throughout the years. In response she said that whatever is seen online, is only a fraction of what is going on. The Tribunal is not prepared to accept the applicant’s assertion that ZANU- PF only targets one person at a time. The Tribunal considers the applicant’s evidence is set out above undermines her credibility and her claims in relation to her involvement with the MDC and ZANU-PF’s claimed targeting of her.
The applicant’s failure to go into hiding after she was attacked in April 2013
The Tribunal was concerned with the applicant’s evidence as to why she did not go into hiding from April 2013, especially, given her claims that once they target you they do not give up, they are trained to torture people and they were putting opposition supporters in camps, and she was a target at least from April 2013.
When the Tribunal put to the applicant its concern that she did not go into hiding from April 2013, she responded by saying she said that she went to hiding in October 2013 (when she went to live at [Town 2]). The Tribunal noted this was not a response to its concern that she had not gone into hiding in April 2013. In response, she said that she had assumed that the April 2013 attack was the only thing that would happen to her and that things might improve. The Tribunal put to the applicant that, given they had decided to start targeting her, given it was the year of the election, and given her claims that in the year of the election things became a lot worse for her and for everyone else supporting the MDC, it did not understand why she would believe that things would improve.
In response she said that she thought they would not take notice of her as she did not participate actively in MDC activities and she thought they were not going to attack her. The Tribunal noted however that it was her evidence that she had actually attended two rallies: further, she was known to be the [Office Bearer] and she was a target. She said that she was not taking an active role so she thought they would not notice her. She gave subsequently contrasting evidence, namely that ZANU-PF would attack anyone, not just a [Office Bearer]. The Tribunal put to the applicant that her claim that they would attack anyone and that she was keeping a low profile was inconsistent with her evidence about her activities (that she still attended two rallies, and her evidence to the delegate as referred to above, that she did low-level campaigning and during that period she was only involved in skirmishes with the ZANU-PF, which indicates that they did have contact with her). In response, she said that she still wanted to support MDC.
The Tribunal has also taken into account the suggestion in her first statement that ZANU-PF was busy campaigning during this period, so this is why she was not attacked; this however is inconsistent with her second statement where she claimed that in the lead up to the July 2013 elections, they were violent and attacking MDC because they wanted to win the elections.
The Tribunal considers her assertion that she thought she would not be a target to be highly unlikely, and contradictory to other evidence she has given, which undermines her credibility.
The Tribunal’s concerns were heightened because of her changing evidence about when she moved to be in hiding, in [Town 2]. Noting her evidence to the Tribunal that she had only ever lived in two places, namely in the family home in [Town 1] and in hiding in [Town 2], she claimed in her first statement to have gone into hiding in October 2013, whereas at the hearing she stated she went into hiding in July 2013, and on other occasions, she said it was in October 2013. The Tribunal considers this undermines her credibility and her claim she went into hiding.
The Tribunal had further concerns in this regard, as the applicant at one stage during the hearing did assert that she was in hiding from April 2013 (when she was still living in the same home where she had always lived, in [Town 1]). When she made this claim, the Tribunal put to her that it was difficult to understand how she could say that she was in hiding, given her evidence that she remained living in her family home, and that she was continuing to regularly attend her place of work (and that she did so right up until the time she came to Australia). In response, the applicant said that she would go to work without putting on her MDC uniform so it became hard for them to track her. The Tribunal noted the applicant’s assertions that the police work with and support ZANU-PF, and it said that it was difficult to understand in the circumstances why then, despite her being a ZANU-PF target, they did not manage to locate her by attending at her workplace. In response, the applicant said that when you are targeted, it is not like they’re hunting you every day. The Tribunal put to the applicant that if she was being targeted by them, she would not know when they were going to target her next, and in the circumstances, it found it difficult to understand why she would be willing to take the risk and to continue to attend her place of work on a regular basis. In response, she said she secretly attended her work, because she had children to (financially) look after.

The Tribunal considers the applicant’s failure to go into hiding from the time she claims to have become a target in April 2013 to undermine her credibility. It has considered her explanations, but does not find them persuasive, noting she was able to source funds to come to Australia, and in the circumstances, it considers that she could have used her funds to go into hiding if her life was at risk in the circumstances claimed. The Tribunal also considers, as discussed below, that the applicant’s failure to make any attempt to remain away from Zimbabwe as a result of fears of harm (noting, as discussed below, that she had made trips out of Zimbabwe) undermines her claims as to her circumstances and the applicable country situation. The Tribunal considers that these matters undermine her credibility.
The applicant’s evidence about her travel out of Zimbabwe
Secondly, the Tribunal was concerned that the applicant gave vague, evasive and inconsistent evidence concerning her travel in and out of Zimbabwe, having regard to her claimed circumstances.
The Tribunal asked her when she had travelled out of Zimbabwe, and she said in 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012; she is not sure about 2013. The Tribunal asked why she was unsure about 2013, and she said she doesn’t think she went to [Country 1] in 2013. The Tribunal noted her evidence that in the previous year she was travelling there, and asked why she would not have travelled there in 2013. She initially said that she didn’t go there because it was hard to go every time, business was bad and she didn’t go back to buy things; then she said she didn’t go to [Country 1] because travelling was a risky thing and there were general elections in Zimbabwe. She confirmed to the Tribunal that, for the whole of 2013, she did not travel to or from [Country 1] because it was too risky.
Her evidence about her travel in 2013 however, was inconsistent with other evidence she submitted. In this regard, the Tribunal noted that according to the stamps in her passport, she had travelled in and out of Zimbabwe in May 2013, twice in June 2013, and twice in July 2013. The Tribunal noted that this travel, going past the Zimbabwean authorities, was all occurring at a time of high tension, prior to the elections. Further, it was inconsistent with her earlier evidence that she didn’t travel in 2013. In response, the applicant said that the dates may have confused her. The Tribunal noted that she had earlier given evidence that it had been too risky to travel in 2013. In response, the applicant said that the interpreter “did not get” her. She said it was not because of the risk that she did not want to travel in 2013, whether she travelled was related to her business.
Even if the Tribunal gave the applicant the benefit of the doubt and accepted that her evidence as to her reason for not travelling in 2013 was because there was no business need to go to [Country 1], this does not explain why the applicant only agreed that she had travelled out of the country in 2013 once she was reminded of the contents of her passport. The Tribunal put to the applicant that it would think she would have remembered if, after she had been attacked in April 2013, she had risked travelling out of the country, and returning, in May, June and July 2013. It also suggested that she would not have risked this travel and coming to the attention of the Zimbabwean authorities, especially as she had claimed that she was trying to keep a low profile after she had been attacked, and that she was a target for the well-connected ZANU-PF.
In response, she said that when they beat her up that was illegal thing, and it is only a select group of people who do that, and they don’t want to be noticed when they are doing that, and they did not notify the authorities. The Tribunal put to the applicant that her suggestion, namely that it was only a select group of people who were targeting, and no one else would do this or be interested in her, was inconsistent with her second statement including the claim that she had been attacked by “ZANU-PF”; that she feared “ZANU-PF” and that (paragraph 16):
·     ZANU-PF are a powerful party with people everywhere.
·     Also in Zimbabwe, the government, ZANU-PF and the ZANU-PF supporters are spread out and well-connected around the country.
·     They are good at finding people who are they targeting.
In response, the applicant said that people who attack people, do it underground, they don’t want to be noticed. The Tribunal put to the applicant that her claim was inconsistent with the country information indicating that approaching elections, there was more violence and targeting (in her second statement, she claimed that ZANU- PF became overly violent in 2013 prior to the election because they wanted to stay in power but had lost popularity; they were trying to use violence and threats to stop people, especially the MDC, from opposing them and using fear to get votes; they would take MDC people away and torture them). The Tribunal considered that it was highly unlikely in the claimed climate of violence and tension, that the applicant (if she had been a target) was prepared to expose herself to the Zimbabwean authorities, and to travel out of the country ([as] she claimed in her application form[7]) and then return.
[7] In her application form, she recorded two trips in and out of Zimbabwe to [Country 1] in January and May [2013].
The Tribunal considers the applicant’s evidence referred to above to be unlikely, and to undermine her credibility and her claims.
Thirdly, the Tribunal was concerned that if the applicant was being targeted (and in hiding), it did not understand why she did not leave country earlier. In this regard, the Tribunal noted that she was aware that she was a target in April 2013, but she did not apply to leave the country until November 2013. In response, she said that she was not active, but after July 31 when Mugabe won the elections and his party knew they rigged the elections, people were beaten up and houses were burned down, she fled to [Town 2] and she was contemplating fleeing the country but she was not sure where to go. The Tribunal has considered this explanation but does not find it persuasive, given her evidence that the violence occurred both before and after the election in 2013.
The Tribunal had further concerns because the applicant also said that when she thought of fleeing, she said that she that she could leave her children and family behind and they would be safe because ZANU-PF were only hunting for her. The Tribunal was concerned with this evidence, noting her claim that her husband was involved in the MDC, and that ZANU-PF supporters had had burned down her parents’ [house], where she was not even living. In the circumstance, the Tribunal asked how she could think that her family would be safe, when they clearly wanted to target her family. In response, she said that she was known to be associated with that house in the countryside but they didn’t know where she was staying in the city. The Tribunal repeated to the applicant that they were prepared to attack people associated with the applicant, so it did not make sense that she thought her family would be safe if she left.
The Tribunal had further concerns in this regard, as put to the applicant. The Tribunal noted her claim that she thought her family would be safe because she was leaving. The Tribunal asked whether she got the message out to ZANU-PF that she had left. She said no. The Tribunal put to her that it did not understand why she did not organise for ZANU-PF to be informed that she had left the country, so that they could then leave her family alone, and her family, as she claims, could be safe. The applicant said that sometimes when you are in a stressful situation you don’t think of a lot of things. The Tribunal has considered this explanation but does not find it persuasive.
Finally, the Tribunal was concerned that the applicant had given significantly different dates in her first statement concerning significant events.
The first different date was in relation to when she was attacked. In this regard, the Tribunal noted that in her first statement, she had claimed that she was attacked by ZANU-PF in April 2009, however she had changed the date of the attack to April 2013 at the delegate’s interview[8]. The Tribunal put to the applicant that it did not understand how this error occurred, as there is a four year difference in the date, and she was signing the statement in January 2014. She said that when she signed the statement she did not realise it; but when she noticed it later, and told [her advisers], they told her to tell Immigration (at interview), which she did. Given the applicant’s evidence to the Tribunal that she had read the statement (in January 2014) and given there is such a significant difference between April 2009 in April 2013, the Tribunal does not find this response persuasive.
[8] As set out the delegate's decision record provided to the Tribunal by the applicant, and discussed above.
The Tribunal also put to the applicant that it was concerned that she had also made a mistake with the date of the election. In her statement, she claimed that the election had occurred in July 2009. She told the Tribunal that there was no election in July 2009, and instead it should have said that the election occurred in July 2013. She said that the mistake was made by [her advisers]. The Tribunal noted that she said she had read through the statement in January 2014, and if she had been a campaigning MDC [Office Bearer], it did not understand how she would not have noticed such an obvious mistake as the date of the election. In response, she said that she read through the statement quickly. The Tribunal has considered this response but does not find it persuasive. The Tribunal considers that this undermines her credibility and her claim to have been an MDC spokesperson, or to have been politically involved or interested.
On the basis of the above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a witness of truth.
Other matters
The Tribunal has considered that the applicant may have been nervous at appearing before a Tribunal, or during the process; however, it is not persuaded that these matters can explain the difficulties with her evidence.
The applicant produced a letter from the [workplace] stating that she is a reliable and efficient member of the [workplace]. The Tribunal explained at hearing, that just because the [workplace] says that she is reliable, the Tribunal is not bound to follow this assessment when considering her claims. While the Tribunal is prepared to accept that she is reliable at her work, the Tribunal is not prepared to place any weight on this letter in assessing the credibility of her claims throughout this process.
As discussed above, the applicant had produced to the Department and Tribunal an original MDC card which showed that she was of [Ward 1], Branch [number], “[name] District” and “[name] Province” and showed entries for 2009-2013. The applicant had produced to the Department a letter from the MDC ([Official]) dated [in] January 2014 stating that she is a MDC-T member and [Office Bearer] of [Ward 2] [named] branch; that she should be given asylum because of her political affiliation, she is living in danger, “they” are looking for her and her family is also currently in danger. Her [homestead] was destroyed. The applicant had produced to the Tribunal a letter said to be from the MDC (Secretary-General) confirming that she has been an active member of the MDC, and was ward [Office Bearer] in [Town 1] from 2009 to 2013. It was stated that she had been victimised by ZANU-PF for her active participation in MDC-T activities leading to the destruction of her [home]. The situation in Zimbabwe has remained precarious and dangerous, and is not safe and the party cannot guarantee that she will be safe on her return to Zimbabwe.
The Tribunal had put to the applicant that there is country information[9] indicating that false cards and letters can be obtained from the MDC, and having regard to credibility concerns, although it has not made up its mind, it may find that she was not involved at all. In response the applicant said she was involved, and her documents are genuine.
[9] DFAT Report, paragraphs 5.24 and 5.25, indicate that the MDC-T authorities are aware of inauthentic cards, and party leaders acknowledge the potential for document fraud in letters of support for party members.
The Tribunal notes that the applicant pointed, in her second statement, to the reference in this letter to her membership card number, which she stated was the same as the number on the membership card number she had provided. Given the Tribunal’s concerns and the country information, the Tribunal is not prepared to accept that this supports her claims.
Having regard to the Tribunal’s concerns and the country information, the Tribunal is not prepared to accept or place any weight upon the letters or the card.
The Tribunal notes that the applicant suggested in her second statement that she could provide (but she did not do so) the envelope that the MDC (Secretary-General) letter came in when it was couriered from her husband to herself. Given the Tribunal’s concerns, the Tribunal does not place any weight on the applicant’s claim in relation to this envelope.
The Tribunal accepts that some of the evidence given by the applicant has been consistent, and that she was able to provide some information in general terms about MDC; however, this does not overcome the concerns raised by the Tribunal, as set out above.
The Tribunal has considered the country information produced by the applicant at hearing. While the Tribunal accepts that the country information in Zimbabwe does show police brutality and serious and significant harm perpetrated against some people, the Tribunal does not accept that this means that the applicant experienced the harm claimed, nor that she faces the claimed feared future harm.
[Information deleted].
[Information deleted].
[Information deleted].
Credibility summary
Considered cumulatively, the concerns the Tribunal holds about the applicant's credibility as discussed above lead the Tribunal to conclude that the applicant is not a witness of truth and the applicant has exaggerated and fabricated accounts of events, as well as claimed fears, upon which she has based her protection claims.
Findings on the applicant’s claims
At the end of the hearing, the Tribunal put to the applicant that it had credibility concerns about her claims, including her claims about involvement with the MDC; being targeted; being in hiding; that her supporting documents (in relation to the MDC) not be true. She said that she did not wish to further comment (but she had previously said that her claims and documents are all true).
The Tribunal is prepared to accept that the applicant is [an age] year old Zimbabwean woman from [Town 1] (a suburb of Harare) and that her siblings, parents, husband and children remain in Zimbabwe.
On the basis of the adverse credibility finding, the Tribunal is not satisfied that anyone had an adverse interest in the applicant when she was in Zimbabwe, nor that she was a supporter of or a member of or actively involved in or [Office Bearer] of a ward of the MDC, nor that she has undertaken any MDC activities including attending rallies, organising meetings or distributing T-shirts, nor that she has organised rallies or study groups for women, nor that her husband was or is a member of the MDC, nor that she has been the victim of an attack and beaten up by ZANU-PF (and subsequently hospitalised), nor that she was imputed as pro-MDC/anti-ZANU-PF, nor as not supporting ZANU-PF. The Tribunal does not accept that the [home] was burned down, nor does it accept that she or any of her family members went into hiding or had to go into hiding or are in hiding. The Tribunal finds that they continue to live in the family home in [Town 1], and this is where the applicant will return.
The Tribunal does not accept that she was of interest to the Zimbabwean authorities, the ZANU-PF youths or any other associated organisations or groups; that she was targeted or interrogated or harassed or threatened or beaten or harmed or monitored or searched for, either for imputed or actual political reasons or for any other reason, nor that anyone has shown any adverse interest in her whereabouts since she has been gone. The Tribunal does not accept that ZANU-PF supporters have been chanting slogans at her house, have been searching for her or her family, putting up notices at her home, or seek to harm her (or her family). Tribunal does not accept that she has been subjected to the harm as claimed. The Tribunal also does not except that she will suffer harm for the reasons claimed if she returns to Zimbabwe (including loss of life).
The Tribunal is not satisfied that there was any need or reason for the applicant to fear harm in Zimbabwe at the time she left, nor since she has been gone.
Return to Zimbabwe
Targeting for the reasons claimed (imputed or actual political opinion)
The Tribunal notes that in her statement of 2015, the applicant suggested that ZANU-PF had violent intentions towards opposition members and parties. As noted above, the applicant described the documents that she brought to hearing as support for her claim that she might be attacked and killed if she goes back; because she said the documents show that the brutality of police officers is getting worse. However, as the Tribunal has not accepted that she or her family members are so involved, nor does it accept that there is any reason to consider that they face a real chance or a real risk of being considered of being involved with or supporting opposition parties including MDC, the Tribunal considers that the applicant’s assertions in this regard are not relevant to her circumstances. The Tribunal has not accepted the applicant’s claims as set out above. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant faces a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm for reasons of imputed or actual political opinion, relating to herself or any of her family members. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant has in the past, or seeks to become involved in politics or in discussing a political opinion, in the future. The applicant did not suggest she had any political involvement while she has been in Australia. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant has an interest in politics.
The economy/ jobs/ having somewhere to live/corruption
According to the DFAT Report:
2.12…. The economy stabilised from 2009-2013 largely due to the formation of the GNU and Zimbabwe’s adoption of the US dollar as its currency, with economic growth rates averaging 8.7 per cent. Since the re-election of ZANU-PF in July 2013, however, the economy has declined because of deteriorating terms of trade, political instability and a poor business environment (mainly due to government policy settings and the ongoing effects of drought). According to Zimbabwe Government figures, economic growth slowed to 3 per cent in 2014 and 1.5 per cent in 2015 - although many economists estimate that the economy actually actually contracted in 2015. Zimbabwe continues to import significantly more than it exports (in 2014, exports stood at USD 3.3 billion and imports at USD 5.1 billion), adding to the country’s already significant levels of external debt. Remittances from Zimbabweans living abroad constituted approximately 15 per cent of gross domestic product in 2014.
2.13 Corruption in Zimbabwe is endemic – Transparency International’s 2014 Corruption Perception Index ranked Zimbabwe 156 out of 175 countries.
2.15 Estimates of unemployment vary greatly. The official unemployment rate in Zimbabwe is 11.3 per cent, although unofficial estimates put it as high as 90 per cent. In reality, most of the population is ‘employed’ in the informal sector. For example, as of 29 July 2015, there were an estimated 20,000 unlicensed street vendors in Harare.
2.16 Overall, DFAT assesses that the low-level of development in Zimbabwe acts as a significant ‘push factor’ for external migration. Close contact with South Africa and the collective memory of better, more prosperous times affect migration trends. Zimbabweans appreciate the country’s economic potential and are keenly aware of its sustained economic decline.

The Tribunal accepts that the applicant worked in Zimbabwe up until she came to Australia. As noted above, the applicant produced a letter from the [workplace] stating that she is an [occupation], which position she has held since [March] 2014. She is stated to be a reliable and efficient member of the [workplace], which the Tribunal accepts.
The Tribunal accepts that her husband is [an occupation] and has skills and work experience, and the Tribunal is prepared to accept that the applicant and her husband are jointly financially responsible for their [children]. While Tribunal is prepared to accept that the applicant has sent money back to Zimbabwe, it does not accept that the applicant will be financially responsible for others, apart from her immediate family, when she returns.
While the Tribunal accepts that the employment situation is difficult, the Tribunal noted the applicant’s previous work in both Zimbabwe and Australia, and put to her that it would appear that she would be able to obtain work in Zimbabwe. In response, she said there is no employment at all. The Tribunal put to the applicant that this is contrary to the current information, and there are people who are working in Zimbabwe. In response, she said that ZANU-PF will persecute her and they may even kill her and she cannot work when she is dead.
The Tribunal finds that the applicant will be able to live with her family members in Zimbabwe, and it considers that she is resourceful. The Tribunal does not accept her assertion that there is no work in Zimbabwe, nor that she will not be able to find some work and support herself and her family, as she did before, in Zimbabwe. While Tribunal noted that some of the documents she produced at the hearing referred to protests against cash shortages and the introduction of notes, the Tribunal is not satisfied on the evidence before it that the applicant faces a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm on this basis. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant faces a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm having regard to the economy or the employment situation.
Treatment of returnees
The applicant did not make a claim that she would face a real chance of serious harm or real risk of significant harm as a returnee to Zimbabwe. However, the Tribunal has considered whether, based on the information contained in the DFAT Report set out below, the applicant may face a real chance of serious harm or real risk of significant harm in Zimbabwe.
Treatment of Returnees
5.19 The Constitution establishes rights to enter and leave Zimbabwe, and to obtain a passport and other travel documents. The Immigration Act makes it an offence to enter, remain in, or depart from Zimbabwe in contravention of the Act. Sections 24 and 26 of the Act provide that no person shall depart from Zimbabwe without a valid travel document or other than through a mandated port of exit.
Exit and Entry Procedures
5.20 Although the Constitution allows Zimbabwean citizens to possess dual nationalities, authorities may question dual nationals in possession of two passports at an airport. Under the Immigration Act 1996, a person loses their domicile status if they voluntarily depart from and reside outside Zimbabwe with the intention of making their home elsewhere. Taking up residence outside Zimbabwe is regarded as prima facie evidence of such an intention. Immigration officers may photograph, and take the fingerprints and palm-prints of, any person suspected of being a ‘prohibited person’ under the Act. This includes anyone who enters Zimbabwe in contravention of the Act. Zimbabwean immigration officers may question anyone who desires to enter or leave Zimbabwe; arrest and detain those suspected of contravening the Act for a period not exceeding 14 days; and refuse entry to suspected prohibited persons. The Minister for Immigration may exempt any person from being declared a prohibited person.
5.21 According to Freedom House, immigration and border authorities are underfunded and lack the capacity to effectively enforce travel restrictions. Domestic and international travel is less restricted than it has been in the past, when the government would seize passports of domestic opponents or expel or deny entry to foreign critics. Credible sources have told DFAT that, although Central Intelligence Organisation (CIO) personnel are stationed at the country’s major airports, they only take an interest in high profile individuals, including human rights activists, senior opposition party members, and anyone accused of committing a crime overseas. This could include involuntary returnees because of their actions in lodging protection claims overseas, although DFAT is aware of third country returns who have not been subjected to adverse attention by Zimbabwean authorities. DFAT assesses that only high profile involuntary returnees would bear this risk.
Having regard to the DFAT report, the Tribunal accepts there is a real chance the applicant will be questioned as a routine matter of border security on her arrival in Zimbabwe. The Tribunal does not accept the applicant will be considered a ‘prohibited person’ under the Immigration Act 1996. The Tribunal does not accept the applicant is or will be perceived as a high profile individual, such as human rights activists or senior opposition party member, or someone who is accused of committing a crime overseas. While the Tribunal notes the DFAT report indicates this could include involuntary returnees because of their actions in lodging protection claims overseas, the report also notes DFAT is aware of third country returnees who have not been subjected to adverse attention by Zimbabwean authorities, and that DFAT assesses that only high profile involuntary returnees would bear this risk.
Taking the applicant’s particular circumstances into account including the time she has spent away from Zimbabwe in Australia and her work in Australia, the Tribunal does not accept there is a real chance or a real risk that the applicant would attract suspicion or adverse attention or viewed with suspicion because of the time she spent out of the country or considered to be disloyal to the government, if she returned to Zimbabwe now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.
The applicant said at hearing that she faced harm because of her involvement with the MDC. She did not specifically claim that she faced harm (other than in relation to employment as set out above) for reasons other than her involvement with the MDC, which has not been accepted by the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal has also considered whether or not the applicant faces a real chance or real risk of general or random violence, considering her profile. The Tribunal also notes that at the end of the hearing, the applicant claimed that her children are afraid of violence in the country. The Tribunal has thus considered whether the applicant (or her family members) face a real chance of serious harm or real risk of significant harm in the form of general violence.
The Tribunal referred to the DFAT Report (to which it must have regard), and to the documents (and references to videos in those documents) produced by the applicant at hearing; the applicant described them as showing general country information including in relation to police brutality; for example towards people who are in custody or protesting; the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant faces a real chance or real risk of being in custody or in being involved in protests. Further, the Tribunal noted that there was a reference to three occasions of violence in [Town 1], including one in 2011 (violence directed towards an MDC-rally), and another undated article which relates to violence against MDC supporters and councillors; the third relates to political violence committed internally in ZANU-PF in January 2015 in [Town 1] (which it describes as a high density suburb). The applicant produced a table (with no author or source) suggesting that there have been high levels of violence reported in [Town 1] in 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2013 and several murders of activists in 2008. The Tribunal is prepared to accept that there has been and is politically motivated violence and arrests in Zimbabwe by the ruling ZANU-PF and supporters, against MDC-T supporters, members and councillors. The Tribunal does not however accept that the applicant actually is, or faces a real chance or real risk of being imputed as such. The Tribunal is also prepared to accept that there is violence in Zimbabwe, including in [Town 1], however the Tribunal notes that the applicant and her family have been living in [Town 1], and it has not accepted her claims that they are in hiding, and it finds that they have not suffered any harm (from general violence or otherwise).
The Tribunal explained to the applicant that while it accepts that there is some violence and protests in Zimbabwe, it does not appear that a person of her profile (if the Tribunal did not accept her claims, as it has not) faced a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm in this regard. The DFAT report indicates that persons at risk of harm are those MDC-T members who are prominent; and human rights activists and journalists who criticise the government. When the Tribunal suggested to the applicant that she did not appear to face a real chance of serious harm or real risk of significant harm in relation to general violence, she repeated that she faced harm because of her involvement with the MDC (a claim that the Tribunal has not accepted).
The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant has any prominent profile, or indeed any profile other than as a woman who has come to Australia and worked, returned involuntarily, and has her family back in Zimbabwe. The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s cumulative profile to determine whether she will be imputed with a political opinion. Having regard to the evidence before it, the Tribunal does not accept that any of these factors, either separately or cumulatively, lead to the applicant being imputed with an anti-ZANU-PF/ pro-MDC/ pro-opposition political opinion.
The applicant claimed at hearing that as [Office Bearer] she assisted [ladies] because “ladies are looked down upon”. The Tribunal has not accepted her claim that she was a [Office Bearer] nor that she undertook the claimed activities. The applicant did not claim at hearing that she consider that she faced harm on the basis of her gender.
The Tribunal noted that, as set out the DFAT report, there is discrimination and sexual violence in Zimbabwe[10]. The applicant did not however suggest to the Tribunal that she had faced this in the past. Given that she has sisters who remain in Zimbabwe, and that she did not take earlier opportunities to leave Zimbabwe for another nation (other than Australia), it appears that she considered this to be a remote risk to herself. The Tribunal considers that in the circumstances relevant to this applicant, there is not a real chance or real risk that she will be subjected to sexual assault or violence or discrimination.
[10] Paragraph 3.57 DFAT assesses that women face a moderate level of official discrimination given their limited access to senior bureaucratic and other official posts…. Women face a moderate level of societal discrimination because of broad societal tolerance of sexual and other violence against women.
The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant (or her family members) faces a real chance of serious harm or real risk of significant harm.
The applicant claims that she cannot seek protection from the police because they are supporters of ZANU-PF. The tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant faces a real chance of serious harm or real risk of significant harm, nor a real chance or real risk of needing police protection.
Having considered the available country information and the applicant’s profile, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant faces a real chance of serious harm or real risk of significant harm either when she returns to Zimbabwe, nor thereafter, at the hands of the police, youth militias, ZANU-PF members, or any other part of the authorities, or groups or persons.
Other characteristics
The applicant claimed in her application form that she was a Christian, and that her ethnicity is Zimbabwean (with a language of Shona). She did not claim to face harm for those reasons, nor for any other reasons other than referred to above.
The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s claims individually, and on a cumulative basis. Having regard to the findings that the applicant is not a credible witness concerning past or future harm feared, as well as the relevant country information, other than those claims accepted above, the Tribunal rejects all the various claims made and finds that she does not have a well-founded fear of Convention-related persecution for any of the reasons put forward by her, or on her behalf.
Having considered the applicant’s claims individually and cumulatively, for the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the Refugees Convention. Therefore the applicant does not satisfy the criterion set out in s.36(2)(a).
Complementary protection
Having concluded that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a), the Tribunal has considered the alternative criterion in s.36(2)(aa) (see Annexure A, which provides a summary of the relevant terms).
The Tribunal has accepted that the applicant is [an age] year old female who has come to Australia, where she has been working. The Tribunal accepts that she has family members in Zimbabwe. The Tribunal does not accept that she (or her family) has experienced any of the past harm claimed. The Tribunal does not accept that she is of adverse interest to the authorities, or imputed with any political opinion (nor that does she hold any political opinion) and that the same is applicable to her family.
As noted above, the Tribunal finds the applicant is not a witness of truth, and the Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant has told the Department and the Tribunal the truth in relation to critical aspects of her claims. The Tribunal has concluded that the applicant has exaggerated and fabricated claims in order to be granted a protection visa and permanent residence in Australia. The applicant has her husband and children residing in Zimbabwe, and the Tribunal considers that the applicant can return to live with them. The applicant has also said she will not have a job; the Tribunal has found that although the situation with the economy and employment is difficult, she is a resourceful person with past work experience in both Australia and Zimbabwe. While accepting, as set out above, that she will be an involuntary returnee, and questioned upon her return to Zimbabwe, the Tribunal does not accept that there is a real risk that a person of the applicant’s profile faces circumstances amounting to significant harm for any of the reasons claimed or discussed above.
For the reasons set out above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant faces a real risk of significant harm for the reasons claimed (or discussed), including as a target of ZANU-PF, general violence,that she has resided in Australia, that she has been out of Zimbabwe for three years, that she has family in Zimbabwe, that she will be returning as an involuntary returnee, that she is a woman, nor that she will be imputed with a political opinion, or for reasons of general or political violence, gender, the economy, general security, or any other reason.
On the evidence presently before it, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to a receiving country, in this case Zimbabwe, there is a real risk that she will suffer significant harm for the purposes of s.36(2)(aa). The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(aa).
There is no suggestion that the applicant satisfies s.36(2) on the basis of being a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfies s.36(2)(a) or (aa) and who holds a protection visa. Accordingly, the applicant does not satisfy the criterion in s.36(2).
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection visa.

Christine Cody
Member

ANNEXURE A - RELEVANT LAW

The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s.36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations). An applicant for the visa must meet one of the alternative criteria in s.36(2)(a), (aa), (b), or (c). That is, the applicant is either a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion, or on other ‘complementary protection’ grounds, or is a member of the same family unit as such a person and that person holds a protection visa.
Refugee criterion
Section 36(2)(a) provides that a criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations under the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees as amended by the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees (together, the Refugees Convention, or the Convention).
Australia is a party to the Refugees Convention and generally speaking, has protection obligations in respect of people who are refugees as defined in Article 1 of the Convention. Article 1A(2) relevantly defines a refugee as any person who:
owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.
Sections 91R and 91S of the Act qualify some aspects of Article 1A(2) for the purposes of the application of the Act and the Regulations to a particular person.
There are four key elements to the Convention definition. First, an applicant must be outside his or her country. Second, an applicant must fear persecution. Under s.91R(1) of the Act persecution must involve ‘serious harm’ to the applicant (s.91R(1)(b)), and systematic and discriminatory conduct (s.91R(1)(c)). Examples of ‘serious harm’ are set out in s.91R(2) of the Act. The High Court has explained that persecution may be directed against a person as an individual or as a member of a group. The persecution must have an official quality, in the sense that it is official, or officially tolerated or uncontrollable by the authorities of the country of nationality. However, the threat of harm need not be the product of government policy; it may be enough that the government has failed or is unable to protect the applicant from persecution. Further, persecution implies an element of motivation on the part of those who persecute for the infliction of harm. People are persecuted for something perceived about them or attributed to them by their persecutors.
Third, the persecution which the applicant fears must be for one or more of the reasons enumerated in the Convention definition - race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. The phrase ‘for reasons of’ serves to identify the motivation for the infliction of the persecution. The persecution feared need not be solely attributable to a Convention reason. However, persecution for multiple motivations will not satisfy the relevant test unless a Convention reason or reasons constitute at least the essential and significant motivation for the persecution feared: s.91R(1)(a) of the Act.

Fourth, an applicant’s fear of persecution for a Convention reason must be a ‘well-founded’ fear. This adds an objective requirement to the requirement that an applicant must in fact hold such a fear. A person has a ‘well-founded fear’ of persecution under the Convention if they have genuine fear founded upon a ‘real chance’ of being persecuted for a Convention stipulated reason. A ‘real chance’ is one that is not remote or insubstantial or a far-fetched possibility. A person can have a well-founded fear of persecution even though the possibility of the persecution occurring is well below 50 per cent.
In addition, an applicant must be unable, or unwilling because of his or her fear, to avail himself or herself of the protection of his or her country or countries of nationality or, if stateless, unable, or unwilling because of his or her fear, to return to his or her country of former habitual residence. The expression ‘the protection of that country’ in the second limb of Article 1A(2) is concerned with external or diplomatic protection extended to citizens abroad. Internal protection is nevertheless relevant to the first limb of the definition, in particular to whether a fear is well-founded and whether the conduct giving rise to the fear is persecution.
Whether an applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations is to be assessed upon the facts as they exist when the decision is made and requires a consideration of the matter in relation to the reasonably foreseeable future.
Complementary protection criterion
If a person is found not to meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a), he or she may nevertheless meet the criteria for the grant of a protection visa if he or she is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that he or she will suffer significant harm: s.36(2)(aa) (‘the complementary protection criterion’).
‘Significant harm’ for these purposes is exhaustively defined in s.36(2A): s.5(1). A person will suffer significant harm if he or she will be arbitrarily deprived of their life; or the death penalty will be carried out on the person; or the person will be subjected to torture; or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or to degrading treatment or punishment. ‘Cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment’, ‘degrading treatment or punishment’, and ‘torture’, are further defined in s.5(1) of the Act. There are certain circumstances in which there is taken not to be a real risk that an applicant will suffer significant harm in a country. These arise where it would be reasonable for the applicant to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm; where the applicant could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm; or where the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the applicant personally: s.36(2B) of the Act.

Section 499 Ministerial Direction

In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.56, made under s.499 of the Act, the Tribunal is required to take account of policy guidelines prepared by the Department of Immigration –PAM3 Refugee and humanitarian - Complementary Protection Guidelines and PAM3 Refugee and humanitarian - Refugee Law Guidelines – and any country information assessment prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration and the Tribunal has done so.