1515846 (Refugee)

1515846 (Refugee) [2017] AATA 1681 (28 September 2017)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER:  1515846
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Ethiopia
MEMBER:Sophia Panagiotidis
DATE:28 September 2017
PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne
DECISION:The Tribunal remits the matter for reconsideration with the direction that the applicant satisfies s.36(2)(a) of the Migration Act.
Statement made on 28 September 2017 at 12:31pm

CATCHWORDS
Refugee – Protection visa – Ethiopia – Saudi Arabia – Ethnicity – Amharic – Social group – Victim of sexual assault and domestic violence – Political opinion – Anti-Al-Ahbash political activism
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 36, 65, 91R, 438
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2
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

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration to refuse to grant the applicant a Protection visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
The applicant, who claims to be a citizen of Ethiopia, applied for the visa [in] August 2014 and the delegate refused to grant the visa [in] November 2015.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 31 May 2017 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from [Ms A], a [friend], a neighbour from Ethiopia. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Amharic (Ethiopian) and English languages.
The applicant was represented in relation to the review by her registered migration agent.
Background and claims
(a)The applicant was born in the Gondar province in [Ethiopia] and she is an ethnic Amharic and a Muslim.
(b)According to Department records, the applicant arrived in Australia [in] March 2014 using a genuine passport after having been granted a [temporary] visa. According to the delegate, Departmental records show the applicant travelled with Saudi Arabian citizens on the same flight. She was accompanying her employers and co-workers from Saudi Arabia. She did not provide any documentation about her identity and claimed that her passport was held by her employers from whom she fled after arriving in Australia.
(c)The applicant attended two protection visa interviews on [in] November 2014 and [in] July 2015. During the first interview an Arabic language interpreter was used and an Amharic language interpreter was used in the second interview.
The applicant's claims are as follows:
(a)She is unable to reside in Saudi Arabia.
(b)She fled from her Saudi Arabian employers due to abusive treatment.
(c)She is ethnic Amharic and a Muslim and was forced to marry her husband at the age of [age] and had a son at the age of [age].
(d)Her husband is a prominent [official] of a government backed Islamic sect called Al Habesh (sic).
(e)Her husband is a violent man who would beat her and sexually assault her when he was drunk and bring other women home, forcing her to flee Ethiopia in 2007 in order to escape from him.
(f)She did not seek medical help for the physical abuse she suffered and did not inform the authorities as her husband was prominent in the community and threatened to kill her if she told the police.
(g)She attempted to obtain a divorce from her husband but he refused.
(h)In 2007 she enlisted the support of a friend to help her escape. Her friend lent her money to obtain employment in Saudi Arabia through an agency.
(i)In June or July or August 2013 she participated in protests against the Ethiopian government Saudi Arabia and Al Ahbash demanding the freedom of a number of imprisoned religious leaders.
(j)She returned to her village in August 2013 for 20 days and experienced questioning and harassment for three days in a row by her husband and the Ethiopian police about her involvement in the protests.
(k)She fled to another village with her son for 15 days to escape the police and her husband, before returning to Saudi Arabia.
(l)Her family in Ethiopia have been placed on a “suspicious list”.
(m)Her husband and the authorities continue to visit her family to find her whereabouts.
(n)She fears that the authorities are monitoring her family’s telephone and therefore has very limited contact with her mother and son.
(o)She suffered violence, sexual abuse, financial abuse and oppression by her previous employers in Saudi Arabia. Her female employer regularly slapped her, bit her and shouted at her if she was unhappy with her work. The male employer harassed her and raped her in January 2014. They did not pay her consistently and would pay her for one month instead of three months’ work.
(p)In March 2014 her employers took her and their other staff to Australia for a holiday. She escaped from her employers when they left early for the airport. She was left to pack their bags and meet them there. She then fled the hotel.
(q)She was unable to seek protection in Saudi Arabia as she has not rights there.
(r)She fears that the Ethiopian authorities would physically harm her should she return to Ethiopia.
Submission to the Tribunal
The Tribunal received a submission dated 24 May 2017 which addressed a number of the delegate’s concerns regarding inconsistencies in information provided by the applicant to the Department. The submission also pointed out that some of the mistakes made may have been due to incorrect or improper translation as her first language is Amharic and she only speaks a little Arabic and an Arabic speaking interpreter was used in the first interview. All written information provided to the Department with her application for the protection visa was in English and the applicant was not initially provided with an appropriate translator in relation to her initial statements. This occurred later. It was also noted that the applicant has mental health issues which may affect her memory. The applicant has been seeing a psychologist and has been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder.
This submission had also raised new protection claims for reasons of:
(i)her participation in protests in Australia;
(ii)being an active member of the [Association 1] who have organised the Ethiopian protests in Australia;
(iii)being an active member of [Company 1] that is forbidden in Ethiopia; and
(iv)being an ethnic Amharic due to the [conflict].
It was submitted that the applicant is therefore afraid to return to Ethiopia for the following reasons:
(i)fear of her husband who is an active member of Al Abash;
(ii)fear of the government due to her participation in the Jeddah protests against Al Abash;
(iii)fear of the government due to her participation in protests in Australia;
(iv)fear of the government because of her being an active member of [Company 1];
(v)fear of the government due to her being an active member of the [Association 1] who have organised the protests in [City 1 in Australia] in 2016.
The applicant has provided a letter from [the] [office bearer of Association 1] dated [in] February 2017 who advises they have known the applicant for about one year. She has assisted members in the community and has actively participated in organising demonstrations against the Ethiopian government. She is also involved in various [activities]. He states that currently the Ethiopian government is killing, clamping down on protesters, forcibly evicting people and since mid-November 2015 have been involved in summarily killings, mass detention and enforced disappearances of ethnic Oromo and Amharic people, other ethnic groups and Muslim protesters. The organisation has held many public demonstrations to speak out against such injustice and violation of human and democratic rights. The applicant has been an active participant in these and as a result her involvement as well as her identity as an ethnic Amharic would make her a target if she returned. The government would be aware of her involvement because they use the public media as a tool to target those who write, speak or protest against them. therefore returning the applicant to Ethiopia would be no different from a death sentence. He also refers to Ethiopian migrants in countries like Saudi Arabia and as the situation in Ethiopia deteriorates, many people leave in search of a better life. However in countries like Saudi Arabia they are bought and sold as slaves, inhumanly killed so their organs can be used on the black market, they are raped and tortured, their passports confiscated by their employers so they cannot leave. He states that the applicant is a victim of such a crime.
The Tribunal has also considered a letter from [Mr B], psychologist dated [in] April 2017 who states that the applicant is being treated for PTSD since December 2016. [Mr B] advises that the applicant's treatment is under the auspice of [Organisation 1] and in the context of seeking asylum in Australia. He states that the applicant's condition is a direct result of traumatic experiences she has suffered in her country since she was [age] and during her employment in Saudi Arabia. She worked in Saudi Arabia from the age of [age] as a maid and she was subjected to sexual harassment and assault by her male employer. Prior to this she fled Ethiopia to escape violence by her husband, who she married at the age of [age]. [Mr B] states that on intake the applicant met the required threshold for a DSM V diagnosis of PTSD and although her symptoms and severity has decreased in response to psychological treatment, her symptoms still qualify her for this diagnosis. He states that one of the symptoms of PTSD with which she presents is her experience of high levels of stress arousal when reminded of or asked to recall traumatic material such as in the case of a formal immigration interview situation. This typically results in certain cognitive and memory functions being compromised as the pre-frontal cortex of the brain goes off-line in favour of what is known as the flight/fight/freeze response. Such a phenomenon is likely to explain inconsistencies in memory performance for patients with post-traumatic stress disorder and in particular those patients who experience additional situational stressors such as performance in a critical review situation. [Mr B] states that the applicant has responded to treatment which has included training in how to manage the intensity of her physiological arousal to stress as well as the use of flashback protocols to assist with reminders of her traumas. He has written to her general practitioner to suggest she be prescribed [medication] but he was not aware if this has been done.
The Tribunal has been provided with a letter from the Executive [Director][1] [of Company 1] which confirms the applicant's donations and support.
[1] [Information deleted].
The Tribunal has been provided with an article by ABC News on 8 November 2016, Ethiopian Government accused of arresting relatives of Australians who participated in protests. This article refers to a small protest in Australia having had major repercussions in Africa:
The Federal Government says it is treating allegations that dozens of people have been arrested in Ethiopia in retaliation for protests by their relatives in Australia seriously, and it has raised the matter with the Ethiopian Government.
Human Rights Watch said at least 32 people have been detained in Ethiopia, after demonstrations by their relatives in Australia against a recent visit by alleged human rights abuser and Ethiopian national leader, Abdi Mohamoud Omar.
Australian resident, Shukri Guled, said his mother, sister and three brothers were among those arrested after he took part in the protests in Canberra and Melbourne in June.
He said his mother and sister were released after a month, but his brothers were still missing.
“It’s absolutely unacceptable, it’s something that makes me feel that I am in the dark ages, not in the 21^st century when human rights are paramount,” Mr Guled said.
He said that during the protests, he and others were under surveillance by members of Abdi Mohamoud Omar’s delegation and pro-government Ethiopian community members.
“They were recording people protesting and taking photos of some of them they knew our faces, so immediately there were arrests back home,” he said.
Human Rights Watch said a member of the Abdi Mohamoud Omar’s delegation had told protesters in Australia:” you will see what will happen to your relatives.”
Mr Guled said he fled Ethiopia after being subject to Abdi Mohamoud Omar state’s brutality.
“They put me in a military camp and I had been there for16 months, there was torture, [people were] starving, it was cold, it was dark,” he said.
Abdi Mohamoud Omar, known as Abdi Iley, has been criticised by human rights groups for human rights abuses.
Felix Horne, Human Rights Watch senior Africa researcher, said when Abdi Mohamoud Omar was the head of security in 2007-2008, Human Rights Watch found that the Ethiopian army “were committing war crimes and crimes against humanity”.
“Extrajudicial executions, torture of civilians, lots of very serious abuses,” Mr Horne said.
Abdi Mohamoud Omar is now the leader of Ethiopia’s Somali Regional State.
A spokeswoman for the Foreign Minister, Julie Bishop, said she was aware of the allegations of arrests in Ethiopia.
“We take these allegations seriously, and have raised them with the Ethiopian Government,” she said in a statement.
The Ethiopian Embassy in Canberra has denied the claims.
“Nobody can be detained in Ethiopia because of his/her relative’s involvement in protest during the Ethiopian delegation visit to Australia,” a statement for the Embassy said.
“This is a total allegation and cannot happen in Ethiopia.
“In Ethiopia, everybody has the right to protest, have freedom of speech and write, and has full right to exercise his religion and promote his culture.
“In sort, the Embassy can assure you nobody has been detained in Ethiopia because of his or her relative’s participation in the protests in Australia or somewhere else…the person who gave you such information was trying to mislead you to the wrong direction.”
Ethiopia has been considered a success story in Africa, with thriving development and solid economic growth rates.
But in the last year it has witnessed growing protests about the repressive ruling regime.
Human Rights Watch said the Ethiopian Government used the tactic of arresting family members to try to silence dissent amongst the diaspora.
Ant is said the Australian Government should not have given Abdi Mohamoud Omar a visa.
“We’re in a very dangerous chapter in Ethiopia’s history,” Mr Horne said.
“A state of emergency has been in place now for the last couple of weeks with protests across the country for the last year, which has been in part because of the international community has been so silent against the abuses – they have been afraid to upset their trusted ally.
“So Ethiopia too often acts with complete impunity when it comes to these sorts of issues.”
The Tribunal has also been provided with a report by Human Rights Watch, Australia: Protests Prompt Ethiopia reprisals, dated 7 November 2016. The Tribunal has also been provided with various photographs of the applicant at what appears to be a demonstration/protests but which were undated.
The hearing
At the outset of the hearing, the Tribunal advised the applicant that it had an obligation to inform her that a s.438 certificate had been issued by the Department. The Tribunal explained that the Department had notified the Tribunal that it had issued a notification regarding the disclosure of certain information under s.438 of the Act in relation to a third party. The certificate refers to information that should not be disclosed to the applicant or their representative because it contains documents affecting the personal privacy of a third party. The Tribunal provided the applicant and her representative with a copy of this certificate and noted that the information referred to was in relation to the applicant's working visa application to come to Australia with her employer, his family and staff and the personal details of the individuals involved. The Tribunal explained that it considered the certificate is valid and it appears that the Department have issued this certificate because of privacy concerns regarding personal information relating to other individuals. The Tribunal also explained that it was not going to rely on this information as it was not relevant to this review.
The applicant confirmed she travelled to Australia [in] March 2014 with her employers. She confirmed that when she fled from them and she met a woman who spoke Arabic and asked for help and information about anyone from Ethiopian background. This woman gave her money for a taxi and she went to the train station where she found an Ethiopian lady who helped her. This was at [City 2] in [State 1]. She had stayed in [City 3] for a few months. She then came to [City 1] for a visit and fortunately met some Ethiopians and decided to move here. She was unwell and vomiting and they let her stay with them for four days. This Ethiopian woman took her to an organisation that helps women. They helped her to find housing, food and clothing. She was feeling stressed and could not cope and she was put in touch with others from her community. While she was in [City 3] the organisation’s case worker and referred her to [Organisation 1].
The applicant was asked why she left her employers at [City 2]. She said she did so because they abused her in Saudi Arabia. They beat her and she was sexually assaulted. When they came to Australia she decided it was a good opportunity to leave. She had worked for these people for seven years. She was first abused by her male employer who was the owner of the house where she worked. She was also sexually assaulted by a taxi driver but she did not report it because not allowed in that country and he was a Saudi Arabian. As a foreigner she had no rights. When she came to Australia, her employers had her passport and she did not have any money. When she was taken to [Organisation 1] she was interviewed but not by the police, she does not know who it was. She had a caseworker with [Organisation 1] and she was helped to put in an application for protection and referred her to a lawyer.
The applicant was asked if she knew anyone in Australia. She replied that she did not.
The applicant told the Tribunal she was born and raised in Gonder Province, Amhara. It is a [town], less than [number of] [people]. She was raised there
The applicant was asked about her family in Ethiopia. She has [a number of] siblings [and] they have all moved out of the village. She said her mother and son lives in the village. Her mother does not work and her [brother] helps to support her. Her father has died but when he was alive he used to [work]. She also has [other relatives] who live close by.
The applicant was asked if her husband is from the same village. She said he was but she did not know him before she married him. She knew him by sight in passing. He asked her family for her and because he was well known, her parents couldn’t refuse.
The applicant was asked what her husband does for a living. She said that is well known as a rich [person]. He has a [store] and sells [goods] to Addis Ababa. She did not have a deep knowledge of his business but there were many people coming to the house for gatherings but she only provided tea and coffee. There were many people who were members of the government party (EPRDF). She said her husband is a Muslim but she did not often observe him praying, often. He was mainly meeting with people and holding gatherings.

The applicant was asked how women dressed in her village. She said some Muslim women would be completely covered in Islamic dress and some like her would be less strict in their dress.
The applicant was asked if she and her husband are still married. She said he is her legal husband, even though they were married without her consent. She cannot get a divorce because he is a member of a government body and he has the power.
The applicant was asked how many children she has. She said she has one [son], born [on date]. He is [age] and he lives with her mother. He is going to school. She is sending money sometimes. His father does not support him and there is no communication between them. They used to have close communication but now his father hates her and her son has lost interest in communicating with his father.
The applicant was asked if she attended school. She said she went to [school] and then was married. She is able to read and write in Amharic.
The applicant was asked if she worked in Ethiopia prior to leaving for Saudi Arabia. She said she was not allowed to. She worked from 2007 to 2014 in Saudi Arabia.
The applicant was asked if she is working in Australia. She said she does not have work rights but is doing voluntary work in the Ethiopian community.
The applicant was asked about her residency in Saudi Arabia as there were concerns raised by the delegate in terms of whether she had a right to reside there. The applicant confirmed she went to work in Saudi Arabia as a domestic worker and lived in Jeddah. She confirmed she travelled there on an Ethiopian passport. This was in January 2007. She confirmed that [in] 2013 she renewed her passport in Saudi Arabia through the Ethiopian Embassy which was valid to [2017]. She confirmed she travelled back to Ethiopia for 20 days [in] August 2012. She confirmed the information held by the Department that her employers applied for a temporary work visa for her to facilitate her travel to Australia and this was granted in March 2014. She confirmed that travelled to Australia [in] March 2014 with her employers.
The applicant was asked if she had any friends in Saudi Arabia. She said none that worked with her, but she knew others who were living in Jeddah and they communicated mostly by telephone or when her employer went out she would meet them.
The applicant was asked how well she speaks Arabic. She said not very well, only enough for work.
The applicant was asked her religion. She said she was born into a Muslim family but part of her extended family is Orthodox Christian in and they live in the same village
The applicant was asked if she was allowed to go out much in Jeddah. She said she was not allowed to attend mosque and not allowed out in public without a male companion.
The applicant was asked how she learned about the protests that she attended while she was in Saudi Arabia. She said that a friend of hers told her. Her friend had come to Jeddah after her and had been given the applicant's telephone number and got in touch. She does not know how her friend learned about the protests. The plan was to meet at the protest but her friend did not attend because she could not get permission from her employer. Her friend told her that the protest was about having an Al-Ahbash representative in the ruling government. There were people who had been selected by other Muslims to lead Al-Ahbash but the government rejected them. The government has its own people. But the people want their own representatives. She said that others who attended were people like her. She believes the government should not be involved in religion. She said she attended the protest for one hour. They were asking the Ethiopian government to release religious leaders who had been imprisoned and for Al-Ahbash to be more representative. She said there were many people at the protest, about 2,000 or 3,000. She said that the protests were held in June or July 2013 and it was held over two days. The protests were covered by [a media outlet]. This is not a television station that is in Ethiopia.
The applicant was asked whether it was dangerous to participate in public demonstrations in Saudi Arabia. She said that protests or demonstrations are not allowed in public and these were held in the Ethiopian Embassy compound, not in public.
The applicant was asked if there was any trouble at demonstration. She said she was only there for an hour and did not see anyone beaten or arrested. She does not know what happened after she left.
The Tribunal referred to country information which indicates that although a number of sources were consulted, including the UNHCR, the European Country of Origin Information Network, the Department of Immigration’s resources, including their databases of country information, US Department of State, non-government and human rights organisations, local news sources and major international newspapers, they could not locate any information about protests by Ethiopians in Jeddah in mid-2013 including at the Ethiopian Consulate General building. There were three protests in Jeddah in 2013 but these appeared to have been motivated by repatriation concerns arising from a crackdown on illegal migrants in Saudi Arabia rather than against the Al-Ahbash sect of the imprisonment of imams in Ethiopia. The Tribunal asked for the applicant's comment to this information. She said she does not know why no information can be found as she did attend this demonstration and it was for the reason she has said.
The Tribunal referred to the delegate’s concerns about her husband and his membership of Al-Ahbash. She found it implausible that the applicant's husband holds [a] role in Al-Ahbash and has the level of influence she claims. This was partly because the applicant was unable to provide a sufficient explanation about what Al-Ahbash does and why she fears them. While the delegate accepts that her husband may be a member of Al-Ahbash she did not accept that he holds such a prominent position that he is able to exert control over the authorities to such an extent to influence others that she is against Al-Ahbash or the government. The applicant was asked for her comment on these concerns.
The applicant said she is sure her husband is a member of Al-Ahbash. She does not opposing them, but they should not force people to follow them. She said her husband is a member of the government and of Al-Abash which belongs to the government. Her husband wants revenge because she left him and because she opposed Al-Ahbash in Jeddah he told the authorities and so they are after her.
The applicant was asked about Al-Abash and what they stand for as well as how they differ from other Muslim sects. She said the organisation is Muslim but it was established by the ruling government. There are a lot of differences in Islam and the way she believes it should be. She believes that Allah ‘out of the sky’, the Al-Ahbash believes that Allah is everywhere, even in the toilet. If they need assistance from Allah they can communicate directly. They believe Allah will communicate through Abdullah al Harrari who is the leader. Before she left Ethiopia she practised normal religion she did not know of any differences and did everything she was taught to do. She did not learn about Al-Ahbash until she went to Saudi Arabia. When she returned back to Ethiopia she found her husband was a member of that group. When she returned home he came to her mother’s place, she does not know how he found out she had returned and he came to welcome her back and that she was to return with him to his home. He told her he would not let her go again. She refused to go with him. He started to look for her mobile and he saw photos of the demonstration. Once he saw these he said he knew what to do with her. He left her mother’s home and then after one night the police came. Her husband did not accompany them. The police told her she had to go with them.
The applicant was asked about her return to Ethiopia in August 2013 and whether she had a single or multiple entry visa for her to return to Saudi Arabia?[2] She said she had a return visa and she had told her employers she would return but her aim was to remain in Ethiopia. She did not want to return because there was too much work and her employer’s wife was bad and always arguing. She said needed her employer’s permission to obtain an exit or re-entry visa. The visa is stamped at the airport and this is usually kept by the employers and they are also required to hand over their permits to their sponsors.
[2] A residence permit is required to live and work in Saudi Arabia. See: Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada 2013, Saudi Arabia: Requirements and procedure for renewing a residence permit from Canada, as well as the documents needed to return to Saudi Arabia [SAU104698.FE], 28 November, ECOI Accessed 7 July 2015 OG61C530217
The Tribunal referred to country information which indicates that the Saudi Arabian government and the Ethiopian government introduced significant changes to their migration programs in 2013. However it was unclear as to what impact if any these changes had to those with existing work visas and whether they experienced any issues of difficulties whilst attempting to leave and re-enter Saudi Arabia or Ethiopia.[3] Further, according to country information in July 2013 the Saudi Arabian authorities implemented a temporary ban on the recruitment of Ethiopian workers in response to reports of crimes committed by Ethiopian domestic workers against Saudi Arabian children.[4]
[3] Sources consulted include UNHCR Refworld, The European Country of Origin Information Network (ECOI), DIBP resources including CISNET, US Department of State, NGO and human rights organisations, local news sources and major international newspapers
[4] Rana, K 2014, Neglected at home, abused abroad: Ethiopian Domestic Workers in the Gulf, 7 November, Consultancy Africa Intelligence Accessed 7 July 2015 CISA447F082897
The applicant was asked if she was she effected by any new laws about Ethiopian workers in Saudi Arabia. She said she knew there was a problem but she had her own permit and that allowed her to go back. When she returned she had a visa, but some people were not allowed to return. She knew that people were unable to get new visas to travel to Ethiopia.
The Tribunal referred to the applicant's claim that she returned to her village in August 2013 for 20 days she experienced questioning and harassment for three days in a row by her husband and the Ethiopian police about her involvement in the protests. The Tribunal referred to the delegate’s concerns about inconsistencies in the information she provided during the protection visa interview and her written statements.
The applicant told the Tribunal that her husband came to her mother’s house and questioned her about what she had been doing in Saudi Arabia. Her mother had told her that he would come around every so often and ask for her whereabouts. He took her mobile phone and looked and found photos she had taken in Jeddah of the protests. He asked her questions about these and why she had attended and she realised he was with Al-Ahbash. He threatened her that if she did not return to his house she would be in trouble. She refused to go back to him. It was after that the authorities came and took her to the police station to question her about attending the protest. She said that about a day later the police came back with her husband; however she was not at home. Her mother called the applicant and told her that the police and her husband were looking for her so she and her son went to Bahir Dar for 15 days and then went to Addis Ababa before deciding to return to Saudi Arabia. She had not intended to return but she was afraid of what would happen to her if she remained because her husband was angry and she was afraid of him and because the police wanted to question her again about the protests and she realised she was in trouble. When she decided she could remain in Ethiopia and to return to Saudi Arabia she sent her son back to stay with her mother. The applicant said she did not know if the authorities were aware that she could return to Saudi Arabia and did not have any difficulty leaving Ethiopia.
The Tribunal referred to the applicant's claim that she has become involved with [Company 1] and asked her about this. The applicant said she decided to help and support them because they play an important role in disclosing how Ethiopian people are treated. She met some people in Australia who introduced her to this organisation. She helps by providing food, tea, coffee and cleaning. She said she has been too stressed and does not feel confident about getting involved [in other work]. She has provided a letter and she is involved with a group based in [City 1].
The Tribunal asked the applicant about her membership of [Association 1] and when she became involved. She told the Tribunal that she does voluntary work for them, helps to raise money, attends meetings and she confirmed it is a political organisation and they are involved in arranging public meetings and demonstrations. She has attended some of these. The applicant was asked why she became involved in these activities. She said she has become involved because she does not want to have the same things that have happened to her happen to other people. When she returned to Ethiopia in 2013 she intended to remain but she encountered a lot of problems with her husband and because of Al-Ahbash which belongs to the government. She was attacked and harassed. She told the Tribunal that the government is pushing for people to follow the Al-Ahbash tradition and practices rather than proper Muslim practices. She said her husband is [an official] for this group. Her husband also wants to have his revenge against her because she escaped from him twice and he is angry with her.
The Tribunal asked the applicant about meetings and protests she has been involved with since coming to Australia and her reasons for becoming involved. She confirmed she has attended a few and has provided photographs of these. She attended one protest which was demanding that the Ethiopian government release prisoners and about the prison conditions. She said that many people had been arrested for no reason. She said that the government in Ethiopia is dominated by Tigrayans and they have forced people to learn this language and customs. The government has also taken land in Wolkayit from the Amhara people which is located between Amhara and Tigray. The protest she attended demanded that the land be returned. She said that ethnic Amharic rights and customs should be respected by the government and they do not do so. She said that elections in Ethiopia are not fair and the ruling party always wins and they have been in power for 25 years. This is not right. She also attended a demonstration in August 2016 to commemorate deaths about ten months ago when the authorities killed many Amhara and Oromo during protests.
The applicant confirmed she has been receiving psychological counselling since September 2014 and she has been stressed and depressed because she fears returning to Ethiopia because she is afraid of her husband and because she will be arrested.
The Tribunal also spoke to a witness who had accompanied the applicant to the hearing called [Ms A]. [Ms A] confirmed they met in Australia and have become friendly. She said that she and the applicant are from the same village although they were did not know each other, but she did know members of the applicant's family. She went to Ethiopia for a holiday and went to visit the applicant's mother. She knew there had been problems from the time the applicant went back to Ethiopia in 2013. She confirmed that the problems will begin again if the applicant were to return to her village as her husband is still angry according to the applicant's family.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
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 of the same class.
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.
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’).
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.
The issue in this case is whether Australia has protection obligations in respect of the applicant.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration.
Country of reference
The Tribunal notes that the applicant absconded from her employers in 2014 and had no identity documents. Initially there were concerns that the applicant had been a victim of people trafficking and enquiries were made and it was found that the applicant had travelled to Australia after having been granted a temporary work [visa] which had been issued as the applicant was travelling with a family from Saudi Arabia as a domestic servant. The Department was satisfied that the information given by the applicant was consistent with records obtained during the processing of the applicant's temporary visa and was satisfied as to her identity. Based on the information obtained by the Department in relation to the applicant's identity and country of origin, the Tribunal finds that the applicant is an Ethiopian national and the Tribunal has assessed her claims against that country for the purposes of s.36(2)(a).

On the evidence before it, the Tribunal finds that the applicant does not have the right to enter and reside in any third country.
Assessment of the evidence and findings
One of the fundamental principles of protection claims assessment is that applicants ought to be given the benefit of the doubt. The UNHCR Handbook states:[5]
“ After the applicant has made a genuine effort to substantiate his story there may still be a lack of evidence for some of his statements. […] It is hardly possible for a refugee to ‘prove’ every part of his case and, indeed, if this were a requirement the majority of refugees would not be recognized. It is therefore frequently necessary to give the applicant the benefit of the doubt.”
[5] UNHCR Handbook, paragraph 203.
The principle recognises that an applicant’s life and/or integrity may be put at grave risk if international protection is wrongfully declined.[6]
[6] “Beyond Proof: Credibility Assessment in EU Asylum System”, UNHCR, May 2013, accessed at on 23 June 2017
Decision makers from time to time use the so-called domino effect in relation to credibility assessment, that is, they reject one aspect of an applicant’s case and proceed from there to conclude that because one fact (whether material or not to the issues in the case) which is being asserted by the applicant is not true, therefore none of the applicant’s claims are true.
The Tribunal noted that the delegate had a number of concerns about the applicant's claims and evidence and during the hearing the Tribunal discussed these in great detail and asked the applicant for her comments. These are discussed further below. The applicant has provided a great deal of information for consideration that was not before the delegate and has considered these in some detail as well. Further, in reaching its conclusions, the Tribunal has noted the country information referred to by the delegate, the applicant and its own sources (see attached).
Personal circumstances
The Tribunal notes that the delegate had some concerns about aspects of the applicant's background and the Tribunal was mindful of these and discussed the issues raised in some detail with her.
The delegate has accepted that the applicant was forcibly married at the age of [age] and had a child at the age of [age]. She also accepts the applicant's evidence in relation to the abuse by her husband. The Tribunal also accepts this claim and adds that the applicant was forced into a marriage without consent while she was still a child.
In discussing the applicant's claims with her, the Tribunal found it was evident that she has had limited education and expresses herself simply and the Tribunal had to ask questions that were simple and unambiguous. The Tribunal also observed that her knowledge about politics in her country is rudimentary and she is not very articulate and no doubt this is as a result of her background including her early marriage, her limited education and her relatively limited exposure to environments outside her home village and her place of work in Saudi Arabia which she described as exceedingly confined. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant has difficulty expressing herself due to this background and has taken this into account in evaluating her evidence. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant while living with her husband was essentially relegated to the background to serve and be a housewife and mother and did not fully comprehend either his business or his political activities on behalf of Al-Abash. While in Saudi Arabia, her life was essentially confined to a Saudi Arabian household, she had a few friends but had little opportunity to meet face to face and was extremely ill-treated. The Tribunal accepts her evidence on this point as her evidence was credible and consistent. The Tribunal also accepts that because of this ill-treatment, she took the opportunity to flee from this family when they travelled to Australia. The Tribunal accepts that she took a risk in leaving without money, documentation or anything else because of the ill-treatment she had suffered and felt she had no choice as she fears returning to Saudi Arabia where she had been ill-treated and to her home to Ethiopia because of her husband. For a person to act in such a way and leave herself open to dangers in an unfamiliar country where she knew no-one and had no contacts and did not speak the language is in the Tribunal’s view an act of desperation.
In forming this view, the Tribunal has also taken into account the letter from the applicant's treating psychologist [Mr B] who is treating her for post-traumatic stress disorder. He writes that the applicant's condition is a direct result of traumatic experiences she has suffered in her country since she was [age] from her violent husband and in her employment in Saudi Arabia where she was sexually harassed and assaulted. The Tribunal notes she has been having psychological treatment arranged by various agencies almost since her arrival in Australia in 2014 for post-traumatic stress disorder and severe depression. This is, in the Tribunal’s view consistent with the experiences and traumatic events described by the applicant.
The Tribunal notes that according to the delegate the applicant initially did not claim to fear her husband and that during the interview she claimed to fear him because of his having notified the authorities about her having attended a protest in Jeddah. In a later written statement [in] November 2014, she referred to her husband as abusive.
The Tribunal has looked at her original claims which were made by way of a statutory declaration and appears to have been completed with the help of a social worker and lawyer from [State 1] [in] August 2014. This was attached to her application for a protection visa. In this statutory declaration, the applicant clearly states that she as forced to marry when she was [age] years of age and in 2007 she left him to work in Saudi Arabia. She also clearly states that her husband is a violent and abusive man who would assault her physically and sexually.
The Tribunal also notes that the initial interview was held in the Arabic language and the second interview was with an Amharic interpreter.
The Tribunal accepts the consistent and credible evidence that the applicant fled from her husband and went to work in Saudi Arabia in order to get away from him. Her evidence which the Tribunal accepts is when she returned to Ethiopia, and because she rejected the idea of returning to him, he found a way to cause trouble for her because of the photos on her telephone of the protests in Jeddah. He used this as an excuse to notify the authorities to some extent as a threat to force her to return to him.
Protests in Jeddah
In relation to the protest she attended, the Tribunal notes that applicant's evidence was a little unclear but with detailed questioning the Tribunal understands that the demonstration was held at the Ethiopian Embassy in the compound as it is not permitted to have gatherings in the street. She said she only attended for about one hour and she understood from her friend that the protest was held to demand the release of religious Muslim leaders who were against Al-Ahbash and because the government should not involve itself in Muslim affairs as Al-Ahbash is not considered to be true to Islam. The Tribunal discussed with her the fact that the delegate could find no mention of such protests in Jeddah at the time she claimed and she had given confused evidence about when it occurred and their duration. She told the Tribunal she did not know about this as she recalls that Ethiopian media was present. She had been told by her friend about the protest and she decided to attend because Al-Ahbash is not right and it is not a true Muslim group. She never thought that attending such a demonstration would cause trouble. It was submitted to the Tribunal that the delegate had been provided with footage of the demonstration in Jeddah from [June] 2013. The Tribunal notes that the delegate has referred to this footage and that it appeared to have been uploaded [in] June 2013 and depicted a gathering of people shouting. There was no indication where the footage was shot and no clear facial images of those in attendance. The delegate concluded that while the footage of a demonstration was uploaded [in] June 2013 and this was consistent with the approximate timeline provided by the applicant there was nothing in the footage to determine when the protest occurred, what it was about or that the applicant had been involved. The delegate therefore did not place any weight on this footage.
The Tribunal also did a search but could not find the specific protest referred to by the applicant but found references to other protests in Jeddah against Al-Ahbash by Ethiopians. However, the Tribunal accepts as plausible that the applicant attended such a protest as it found her evidence persuasive. She described the protests and the reasons she attended and the Tribunal accepts this evidence as plausible because of her concerns that this organisation was un-Islamic and controlled by the government.
Al Ahbash and the applicant's husband position within this sect
The delegate noted the applicant's claim that her husband is a prominent [official] of Al-Ahbash and that country information confirms that this organisation is an Islamic sect. The delegate noted that the applicant had a limited understanding of the sect. She stated that the sect does not follow the religion as it should and gave an example of their dress code and that women are not allowed to wear pants and have to cover their heads but the Al-Ahbash do not do this. She also indicated that they do not preach correctly and has heard bad things about them and they do not respect Allah properly. She told the delegate that her husband is on a committee but was unable to explain his role or what the committee does. She was unaware if he was in this committee prior to her departure for Saudi Arabia. She told the delegate that Al-Ahbash is recognised by the government and those who oppose the sect are sent to prison. In a later statement made by the applicant [in] November 2014, she stated that she was too young to know much about the organisation when she married but has since learned that the sect has tried to impose a form of Islam that is totally different in basic fundamental values. She also claimed that if she returned to Ethiopia Al-Ahbash will torture or kill her because of her involvement in protests against them and the government. Her husband is a prominent member of the sect and is backed by the government and she would be targeted because of this and because he wished to take his revenge on her.
The delegate did not accept this evidence and found it implausible that if her husband held a prominent position as claimed and if she was fearful as she has claimed, she nevertheless attended a protest against them, she was unable to describe at least in some detail what Al-Ahbash does and why she fears them. The delegate accepted that the applicant's husband was from one of the wealthier families and he is a member of Al-Ahbash but she did not accept that he holds such a prominent position and that he is able to exert control over the authorities or that his influence is sufficient to have raised her profile as being against Al-Ahbash or the government.
The Tribunal agrees with the delegate that the applicant's understanding of Al-Ahbash was largely rudimentary and her answers about her opposition to it were unsophisticated. Her reason for attending the protest in Jeddah was also simple and straightforward. That is she believed they were un-Islamic and controlled by the Ethiopian government. She appears to credit the organisation with more influence than is suggested by country information.
She told the Tribunal that she was unaware that her husband was a member of Al-Abash before she left Ethiopia. She would not dream of questioning him about such things as religion and the groups he belonged to or supported. She only knew her husband was a prominent citizen in her village and considered to be wealthy and powerful. She also believes that because of his position in the village he is known to and close to the authorities and exerts much influence in the community. She consistently referred to her husband as being “part of the government”. This, in the Tribunal’s view is consistent with her rudimentary knowledge of politics and how the relationships between people like her husband and the local authorities work. It is also conceivable he is a member of the ruling party in such circumstances as it would assist him and be advantageous to his position in the local community and in his business. Her evidence is that she only learned about his belonging to Al-Ahbash after she returned to Ethiopia and was questioned by him about the protests. Her evidence which has been consistent was that she was seen in footage by Ethiopian media to have taken part in the protest in Jeddah and he then found photos on her phone.
Based on the evidence, the Tribunal accepts that the applicant has no real knowledge about Al-Ahbash but essentially considers they are un-Islamic and controlled by the government and considers that the government should not be involved in religious affairs.
In relation to her husband and his membership of this group, the Tribunal accepts that he is involved in Al-Ahbash and given his position in the community it is likely that he is reasonably influential with the local Muslim population as well as the local authorities. The Tribunal notes the country information does not confirm any collaboration between Al-Ahbash and the authorities and the applicant has overstated this relationship. However, given her husband’s position in the local community overall the Tribunal accepts that he was a member of this organisation and in view of his standing in the community, he is likely to have been a prominent member. Considering the applicant's evidence that she did not know he was associated with Al-Ahbash, the Tribunal accepts as plausible that she never questioned her husband about his activities. Having married her husband while she was still a child and the nature of the relationship would in the Tribunal’s view indicate that the level of communication between them would have been cursory and probably confined to domestic issues.
Return to Ethiopia in 2013
The applicant has claimed she returned to Ethiopia in August 2013 and went to her mother’s house. She has claimed that her husband had found out that she had returned and came to the house and questioned her about her attendance at protests in Jeddah against Al-Ahbash. She has also given evidence that he took her phone and found photos. He also demanded she return to his house and she refused. The evidence given by the applicant was that her husband had previously attempted to locate her and was angry with her for leaving. The Tribunal notes that the evidence on this point has been consistent and accepts that the applicant did not want to return to her husband. The Tribunal accepts that he threatened her and tried to coerce her to return. The Tribunal also accepts the applicant's claim that he notified the authorities that she had been involved in a protest and he did this for vengeful purposes.
Although the applicant has been consistent in claims both written, at interview and at the hearing that she was questioned by the authorities about her participation in the demonstrations in Saudi Arabia, the delegate was concerned about inconsistencies in her evidence. The delegate was concerned in particular with the sequence of events as to whether it was the applicant's husband who first became aware of her attendance at the protest in Jeddah or whether it was the authorities. The delegate was also concerned about the number of times the police came to her house and when and where the questioning by the authorities occurred as well as the duration of her imprisonment.
The Tribunal notes that on questioning the applicant about these events, there was some confusion but largely accepts that the applicant’s evidence has been credible. It was established, through patient and clear questioning that it was the applicant's husband who first came to her mother’s house and questioned her and also threatened her because she refused to return home. This was on the second day of her return to Ethiopia. On the third day the police came and took her into the police station for questioning. They kept her for some time but did not arrest her. It was clear from her evidence that she considered herself to have been arrested but on close questioning she admitted she had not been charged but released on the same day. On the fourth day, while she was out, her mother called her and told her that the police accompanied by her husband had come to the house and they were intending to arrest her. The Tribunal can only speculate as to why the applicant's husband was with the police and it may be that he had exerted some influence as a means of forcing her to return home with him. In any event, the applicant decided to run away and she and her son went to Bahir Dar, where she stayed for a couple of weeks and then to Addis Ababa. The Tribunal accepts that until that time, she had not intended to return to Saudi Arabia given the poor quality of life she had there as well as the ill-treatment by her employers, that she decided to return, mainly because she had the option and was afraid of what may happen to her, especially since her mother called and told her that her husband had come to the house looking for her as had the police. It is plausible in the Tribunal’s view that because the applicant had attended a protest while overseas, the Ethiopian authorities would want to question her. The country information confirms that the Ethiopian government is particularly sensitive to any expression of political dissent and monitors the Ethiopian diaspora.
The Tribunal notes that in relation to the applicant's ongoing fear of harm from her husband, the delegate has found that she is not being subjected to ongoing threats or intimidation by him either directly or indirectly through her family and she does not hold a genuine subjective fear from him. The Tribunal does not accept this proposition. The Tribunal notes that the applicant has had a traumatic experience of marriage with her husband and has suffered violence to the point that she fled the country to Saudi Arabia to escape from him. The Tribunal accepts that she would not have returned to Saudi Arabia and to an extremely closed life of domestic servitude with employers who have ill-treated her unless she was afraid of both her husband and the authorities. The Tribunal accepts that she has fears her husband and it does not need any overt threat by him to make her afraid as this is implicit in the nature of their relationship. The Tribunal is satisfied that she has a genuine subjective fear of him and what he might do in the future if she were to return.
Amharic Ethnicity
In relation to race and nationality DFAT reports there are more than 80 different ethnic groups in Ethiopia and while most political parties are ethnically based, the ruling EPRDF is made up of a coalition of several of these parties, in effect making it a multi-ethnic party, albeit with certain factions. DFAT advises that it is aware of some concerns among the population that positions of power in the EPRDF, the public service and military are dominated by ethnic Tigrayans, despite this group making up only around six percent of the population. DFAT also assesses that:
3.3… in most cases, official discrimination (e.g. systematic state-sanctioned discrimination, denial of public services, higher detention rates) on the basis of race and/or ethnicity is rare in Ethiopia. This assessment is in line with the constitutional prohibitions on discrimination, and in part reflects the need for the government to maintain its legitimacy through inclusiveness, given the large number of diverse ethnic groups within the country.
3.4 Societal discrimination on the basis of ethnicity can occur, but is predominantly in the form of positive discrimination in favour of a particular ethnic group (especially Tigrayans in the government/public service sector) rather than active discrimination against people of a different race or ethnicity. However, there are some exceptions to this general tendency. Official policies can also limit opportunities for some groups; for example, the use of Oromiffa as the language of instruction in schools in the Oromia region can limit opportunities for Oromos in the public sector if they do not also speak Amharic or English. [7]
[7] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, DFAT Country Information Report Ethiopia, 1 April 2016

Although the applicant claimed to fear harm on the basis of her ethnicity the Tribunal was not persuaded by this claim. There was no persuasive evidence that the applicant has been discriminated against or harmed in any way due to her Amharic background. The Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant faces a real chance of serious harm for this reason now or in the foreseeable future.
Political activities in Australia
The applicant has provided evidence of her membership of [Association 1] which refers to her activities in actively organising and participating in demonstrations against the Ethiopian government. The letter also refers to [Association 1] having held many public demonstrations to speak out against injustice and violation of human and democratic rights. This letter confirms that as the applicant has been an active participant in these types of events, she would essentially be a target if she returned to Ethiopia as the government would be aware of her involvement because they use the public media as a tool to target those who write, speak or protest against them.
The applicant has also provided evidence of her membership of [Company 1] and told the Tribunal she helps out on a voluntary basis. According to [Company 1’s] website:
[Details of Company 1 deleted].[8]
[8] [Information deleted].
The available country information from reputable sources including Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, the UK Home Office and the US Department of States, and various international media indicates that political opposition activity in Ethiopia is severely repressed. Opposition leaders and activists are arrested and anti-terrorism laws or the state of emergency legislation is used against them. Members of opposition parties are arrested, detained for long periods of time, tortured, disappeared, ill-treated and often killed.
In these circumstances the Tribunal is satisfied there is a real chance the applicant will be arrested by the Ethiopian authorities because of her political activities in Australia, mainly her involvement and participation in protests against the Ethiopian government.
The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade’s country information report on Ethiopia is consistent with the other country information. It says that “people who openly criticise the Ethiopian government while they are outside Ethiopia face a high risk that the Ethiopian authorities will be aware of these activities and may take action against these people upon their return.” [9]
[9] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, DFAT Country Information Report – Ethiopia, 1 April 2016
The Tribunal has considered whether the applicant may have been motivated to engage in anti-government activities in Australia solely for the purpose to strengthening her claims to be a refugee. Under s.91R(3) of the Migration Act, the Tribunal has to disregard such conduct in Australia. The applicant was asked to explain why the Tribunal should accept that she has not been engaged in political activities and attending protests in order to strengthen her claims to be a refugee.
The applicant talked with genuine passion about the Ethiopian government wanting to stifle dissent, punish those who do not agree with the government and in her own situation, for wanting to punish her for attending a demonstration to dispute the legitimacy of Al-Ahbash as not being a real representation of Islam. She told the Tribunal that such a government is “not good” and she wants to be able to express these opinions as many people are punished needlessly. She told the Tribunal that in a country like this where people are able to express different political opinions it is her responsibility to stand up for others like her. She explained this by saying that in her country, she has been ill-treated by her husband and had to escape as there is no real remedy for her situation. She was not protected by the authorities and had no-one to stand up for her and help her from being harmed by an abusive husband and she had to help herself.
The Tribunal finds that the applicant’s activities in Australia are genuine and that she is motivated at least in part by her opinion against the current Ethiopian government. The Tribunal has therefore not disregarded his activities in Australia pursuant to s. 91R(3) of the Act.
Having accepted the genuineness of the applicant’s political opinion and the fact that she has previously been persecuted, first by her husband and without legal recourse to escape from an abusive marital relationship and then by the authorities for having attended a protest in Saudi Arabia to express her religious and political opinion which is considered to be anti-government, the Tribunal accepts that although her knowledge of politics is not sophisticated, she nevertheless believes that she needs to make a stand against what she believes to be injustices in Ethiopia. The Tribunal accepts there to be a real chance that the applicant will be of adverse interest to the authorities for reasons of her actual and imputed political opinion.
On her return to Ethiopia, the applicant will be identified as a person who has been away from the country for some time, has previously attended a demonstration in Jeddah and in Australia and since her arrival in Australia has associated herself with opposition groups and organisations such as [Company 1] and [Association 1] which engages in anti-government activities. There is also a strong likelihood that the applicant has or will be identified in one of the protests she has attended in Australia as a person opposed to the Ethiopian government.
There is a real chance the authorities will arrest the applicant and subject her to significant physical harassment or ill-treatment, detain her without trial or imprison her for these activities.
Any of these acts, mentioned in the paragraph immediately above, individually and therefore collectively would constitute serious harm for the purpose of s. 91R(1)(b) of the Act. The Tribunal further finds that the essential and significant reason for the harm will be the applicant’s political opinion as per s. 91R(1)(a) and that the conduct feared by the applicant is systematic and discriminatory as per s. 91R(1)(c).
For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the Refugees Convention and therefore, the applicant satisfies the criterion set out in s.36(2)(a).
In relation to state protection, the Tribunal finds that as the harm the applicant faces is at the hands of the Ethiopian authorities and she will be unable to obtain protection by those authorities from the harm she faces.
In relation to internal relocation, the Tribunal is satisfied that the real chance of persecution exists in the country as a whole and that safe relocation within the country is therefore not reasonably open to the applicant.

100. For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the Refugees Convention. Therefore the applicant satisfies the criterion set out in s.36(2)(a).
DECISION
101. The Tribunal remits the matter for reconsideration with the direction that the applicant satisfies s.36(2)(a) of the Migration Act.
Sophia Panagiotidis
Member

Country information
Al-Ahbash
Al-Ahbash is an Islamic movement whose interpretation of Islam combines elements of Sunni Islam and Sufism. Al-Ahbash was founded in the early 1980s by Sheik Abdullah al Harrari, an Ethiopian cleric who was forced to leave Ethiopia for Lebanon in 1950.[10] Its teachings are popular in Lebanon and the group’s headquarters are based in Beirut.[11] According to the Integrated Regional Information Networks (IRIN), Al-Ahbash „teachings are moderate, advocating Islamic pluralism, while opposing political activism.‟[12] In 2012 IRIN quoted Jawar Mohammed of Colombia University as stating that “Ahbash has been in Ethiopia since the 1990s and has peacefully coexisted with the rest of Islamic revival movements.‟[13] Sources variously describe Al-Ahbash in Ethiopia as a “little-known Islamic sect‟,[14] “an influential Sufi order‟[15] and a “foreign religious movement.‟[16] In 2012 the International Crisis Group (ICG) noted that Al-Ahbash is “considered pro-Western because of its opposition to Salafism.‟[17]
[10] Maasho, A 2012, „Ethiopian Muslims Protest government “interference”‟, Reuters, 11 May Accessed 7 July 2015 CX0D38E8E20328
[11] “Briefing: Ethiopia‟s Muslim Protests‟ 2012¸ IRIN, 15 November Accessed 6 July 2015 CX0D38E8E20329
[12] “Briefing: Ethiopia‟s Muslim Protests‟ 2012¸ IRIN, 15 November Accessed 6 July 2015 CX0D38E8E20329
[13] “Briefing: Ethiopia‟s Muslim Protests‟ 2012¸ IRIN, 15 November Accessed 6 July 2015 CX0D38E8E20329
[14] Fentaw, A 2012, “Is the Spectre of the Arab Spring Haunting Ethiopia‟, Open Democracy, 4 June Accessed 6 July 2015 CX0D38E8E20026
[15] Nkrumah, G 2014, „Paths of the Sublime‟, Ahram Online, 17 July Accessed 7 July 2015 CX1B9ECAB11033
[16] US Department of State 2014, 2013 Report on International Religious Freedom – Ethiopia, 28 July, UNHCR Refworld Accessed 7 July 2015 OG54B5446
[17] International Crisis Group 2012, Ethiopia after Meles, 22 August, Africa Briefing No. 89, 6 Accessed 7 July 2015 CIS24017
In 2011 the Ethiopian government invited leading figures from Al-Ahbash in Lebanon to Ethiopia to implement an “aggressive re-indoctrination campaign‟ of the country’s Muslim minority (30 per cent of the population) who predominately follow Sufism.[18] According to the Norwegian Peacebuilding Resource Centre (NOREF)[19] the aim of the nationwide campaign was to “warn Muslims about the alleged rise of Islamic extremism and to instruct them to adhere to a more moderate version of Islam.‟[20] As part of the program, mandatory “religious tolerance‟ training was held for all imams and Islamic school teachers and administrators in the Addis Ababa and the Amhara, Harar, and Omiriya regions.[21] The US Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) reports that the training was held by led by Lebanese Al-Ahbash clerics and promoted Al-Ahbash beliefs.[22]According to the USCIRF, imams who “refused to preach al-Ahbash ideology were dismissed from their positions and replaced with other imams, and some were jailed.‟[23] In 2014 the USCIRF reported that since its visit to Ethiopia in December 2012, Al-Ahbash trainings have stopped, however, dismissed imams have not been permitted to resume their posts.[24] The government has repeatedly denied interfering in religious affairs or promoting Ahbash.[25]
[18] US Commission on International Religious Freedom 2014¸USCIRF Annual Report 2014 – Other Countries/Regions Monitored: Ethiopia, 30 April, UNHCR Refworld Accessed 6 July 2015 CISA447F082901
[19] According to its website, the Norwegian Peacebuilding Resource Centre is an “independent foundation‟ which supports in the “development of competence and resources for peacebuilding efforts in the fields of conflict prevention, conflict resolution and post-conflict rehabilitation, as well as mediation and humanitarian actors in conflict-affected areas.‟ It was established in 2008 by the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) and is a private foundation governed by a Board , receiving funding from the Norwegian MFA and other international donors.
[20] Norwegian Peacebuilding Resource Centre 2015,The Intellectual Movement in Ethiopia, the Muslims Brotherhood and the Issue of Moderation, March, p.6 Accessed 6 July 2015 CISEC96CF12767
[21] US Commission on International Religious Freedom 2014¸USCIRF Annual Report 2014 – Other Countries/Regions Monitored: Ethiopia, 30 April, UNHCR Refworld Accessed 6 July 2015 CISA447F082901
[22] US Commission on International Religious Freedom 2014¸USCIRF Annual Report 2014 – Other Countries/Regions Monitored: Ethiopia, 30 April, UNHCR Refworld Accessed 6 July 2015 CISA447F082901
[23] US Commission on International Religious Freedom 2014¸USCIRF Annual Report 2014 – Other Countries/Regions Monitored: Ethiopia, 30 April, UNHCR Refworld Accessed 6 July 2015 CISA447F082901
[24] US Commission on International Religious Freedom 2014¸USCIRF Annual Report 2014 – Other Countries/Regions Monitored: Ethiopia, 30 April, UNHCR Refworld Accessed 6 July 2015 CISA447F082901
[25] US Commission on International Religious Freedom 2014¸USCIRF Annual Report 2014 – Other Countries/Regions Monitored: Ethiopia, 30 April, UNHCR Refworld Accessed 6 July 2015 CISA447F082901
It is noted that no information was found regarding collaboration between Al-Ahbash followers and the Ethiopian security forces.[26] More generally, despite the government’s promotion of Al-Ahbash, it is unclear what, if any, relationship there is between Al-Ahbash followers and the government.[27]
[26] Sources consulted include UNHCR Refworld, The European Country of Origin Information Network (ECOI), DIBP resources including CISNET, US Department of State, NGO and human rights organisations, local news sources and major international newspapers
[27] Sources consulted include UNHCR Refworld, The European Country of Origin Information Network (ECOI), DIBP resources including CISNET, US Department of State, NGO and human rights organisations, local news sources and major international newspapers
Muslims reacted negatively to the Al-Ahbash campaign and weekly demonstrations were held from the beginning of 2012 to August 2013.[28]
[28] Norwegian Peacebuilding Resource Centre 2015,The Intellectual Movement in Ethiopia, the Muslims Brotherhood and the Issue of Moderation, March, p.6 Accessed 6 July 2015 CISEC96CF12767
The International Crisis Group[29] provides the following information on Al-Ahbash:
[29] International Crisis Group, Ethiopia: Governing the Faithful, 22 February 2016
The primary driver for some Muslim disillusionment with the EPRDF government has been perceived interference over the leadership of the Ethiopian Islamic Affairs Supreme Council, popularly known as the “Mejlis”. The institution gained sudden attention when an internal dispute erupted into violent conflict in February 1995 at Addis Ababa’s Anwar Mosque; twelve were killed and 129 injured.[30] The government subsequently took an increased interest in the Mejlis and its leadership, which coincided with increased anxiety over subversive activity following armed Islamist attacks in Addis Ababa and elsewhere in 1995 and 1996.[31]
[30] Though the Derg allowed Muslims to establish a representative body, the Mejlis was only constituted as a legal entity after 1991. Major issues driving the power struggle within it included corruption scandals and donations from Islamic countries, including Saudi Arabia. The Muslim Youth Association led the resistance to the Mejlis through much of the 1990s
[31] Jörg Haustein and Terje Østebø, “EPRDF’s revolutionary democracy and religious plurality: Islam and Christianity in post-Derg Ethiopia”, Journal of East African Studies, vol. 5, no. 4 (2011), pp. 761 - 762
The issues of Mejlis leadership and autonomy have been complicated since mid- 2011 by the government’s championing of the Sufi order Al-Ahbash, which it considered an indigenous antidote to externally inspired Islamism.[32] Al-Ahbash was invited to give training that year through the Mejlis and its regional branches to all national, regional and local Muslim religious leaders (imams, scholars, and teachers), so as to instill “authentic Islamic teachings”.[33]
[32] Founded by an Ethiopian (Harari) cleric in Lebanon, Al-Ahbash (formally The Association of Islamic Charitable Projects, Jam’iyyat al-Mashari’ al-Khayriyya al-Islamiyya) gained prominence in Lebanon in the 1980s. Mustafa Kabha and Haggai Erlich, “Al-Ahbash and Wahhabiyya: Interpretations of Islam”, International Journal of Middle East Studies, vol. 38, no. 4 (2006), pp. 519-538
[33] An initial seminar was held in Harar then rolled out nationwide Interview, member of regional SNRS Islamic Affairs Council, Jijiga, 7 August 2014.
Ethiopia’s religiously and ethnically homogenous Muslim Somali National Regional state (also known as the Ogaden region) was first to offer stiff resistance to Al-Ahbash’s imposition. Reportedly, the federal government working with the then Somali regional president, Daud Mohamed Ali, initially attempted to remove Salafi representatives from the regional Mejlis and replace them with Al-Ahbash adherents.
This was staunchly opposed by both local Salafis and Sufis. Hostility to Al-Ahbash was heightened by perceptions that its teachings were introducing too many elements close to Shia belief.[34] When in July 2010 Abdi Mohamed Omar “Iley” was elected regional president, following Daud’s ouster, he reportedly moved to limit Al-Ahbash influence.[35] Yet, his motives appear rooted as much in local power struggles, as they were a defence of local sensitivities around religious autonomy;[36] these political considerations were later borne out by a reported switch back to Al-Ahbash sympathisers against Salafi influence.[37]
[34] Sufi orders are largely Sunni, as is Salafism (Wahhabism)
[35] Interview, former member of national Islamic Affairs Council, Addis Ababa, 10 August 2014
[36] Among a number of internal power disputes at the time of the Al-Ahbash push in the region, the federal government and the SNRS leadership had signed a peace deal with the Salafi-inclined United Western Somalia Liberation Front (UWSLF), which was previously fighting for a greater Somalia under Islamic rule. It was a small but effective rival to the larger and perceived as “Sufi-oriented” and secessionist Ogaden National Liberation Front (ONLF). Both armed groups had bases across the border in Somalia. Interview, former member of national Islamic Affairs Council, Addis Ababa, 10 August 2014; Crisis Group Africa Report N°207, Ethiopia: Prospects for Peace in Ogaden, 6 August 2013, p. 14
[37] Crisis Group interview, local expert in Ethiopian and Somali Islam, Nairobi, 3 February 2016

[2017] AATA 1681

28 September 2017

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Jurisdiction

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction