1702744 (Refugee)

[2021] AATA 4443

1702744 (Refugee) [2021] AATA 4443 (15 October 2021)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1702744

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Ethiopia

MEMBER:Alison Murphy

DATE:15 October 2021

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

DECISION:The Tribunal remits the matter for reconsideration with the direction that the applicant satisfies s36(2)(a) of the Migration Act.

Statement made on 15 October 2021 at 3:05pm

CATCHWORDS

REFUGEE – Protection Visa – Ethiopia – race – Amhara ethnicity – religion – Orthodox Christian – married an Australian citizen – particular social group – ‘women’ and ‘single women in Ethiopia’– imputed political opinion – parents’ anti-government political opinions – relocation not reasonable ­–effective state protection not available – decision under review remitted  

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, ss 36, 57, 65, 91, 499

Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2

CASES

MIMA v Respondents S152/2003 (2004) 222 CLR 1

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

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).

2. The applicant, who claims to be a citizen of Ethiopia, applied for the visa on 5 September 2014, and the delegate refused to grant the visa on 1 February 2017.

3. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 16 August 2021 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Amharic (Ethiopian) and English languages.

4. The applicant was represented in relation to the review.

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

5. The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s 36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (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.

6. 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).

7. 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.

8. 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’).

9. In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.84, made under s 499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken account of the ‘Refugee Law Guidelines’ and ‘Complementary Protection Guidelines’ prepared by the Department of Home Affairs, and country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.

   Country of nationality

10. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant is an Ethiopian national as claimed, noting that a copy of her Ethiopian passport is contained on the departmental file. The Tribunal has assessed the applicant’s claims against Ethiopia as her country of nationality and the receiving country.

    Personal background

11. I accept the applicant’s consistent statements about her personal background.

12. She was born in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia and she is currently [age] years old. She is of Amhara ethnicity and Orthodox Christian religion.

13. The applicant is the second eldest of [number siblings]. Their mother worked in Addis Ababa as [an occupation] while her father was a [Occupation 1] for [Company 1]. Her parents lived and worked in Addis Ababa, but originated from Gojjam in the Amhara region.

14. The applicant completed high school while training with the [Company 2] and she started touring with the [Company 2] in 2012. Her younger sisters [named] were school students at the time the applicant was in Ethiopia, although her sister [Ms A] also went on to train and perform with [Company 2]. Her elder sister [worked] as [an occupation] at a [workplace].

15. The applicant travelled to [Country 1] to perform with the [Company 2] in 2012 [for] five months. In November 2013 she travelled with the [Company 2] to perform in [a city in Country 2], returning in January 2014. In March 2014 she travelled with the [Company 2] to [Country 2] and [Country 3] before the [group] travelled on to Australia.

16. The applicant entered Australia [in] May 2014 and performed with the [Company 2] in a number of cities in Australia before the tour finished in August 2014. The applicant applied for the protection visa on 5 September 2014. Movement records indicate the applicant entered Australia as the holder of a [temporary visa].

17. I note that the applicant’s involvement with the [Company 2] was accepted by the delegate, who records in the decision record that an internet search produced various articles identifying the applicant as a performer in [Company 2]. In particular the delegate referred to an article [dated in] 2013, which included the name and photograph of the applicant in relation to a [show] called ‘[name deleted]’, which was performed at [a venue]. A copy of that article is contained on the departmental file and indicates [that] more than two million people have seen that show around the world. The applicant is named as one of [the performers] and is clearly identifiable by the accompanying photograph.

18. Since her arrival in Australia, the applicant has married an Australian citizen of [specified] origin and she and her husband have an Australian citizen child born in [date].

19. I accept each of the above matters to be true.

    Claims for protection

20. The applicant claims to have a well-founded fear of persecution in Ethiopia for the separate and combined reasons of her membership of the particular social groups ‘women’ and ‘single women in Ethiopia’; her actual and imputed political opinion on account of her parents’ anti-government political opinions and support for Ginbot 7 as well as the applicant’s profile as a person who has sought asylum in Australia, her Amhara ethnicity and her Orthodox Christian religion (the refugee criteria). For the same reasons it is submitted that she is also at real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being returned to Ethiopia (the complementary protection criterion).

21. In essence, the applicant claims that her parents became involved in anti-government political activities in 2013 after their own parents were killed in a land dispute in Gojjam. She claims that her parents were jailed and later released in 2013 before being detained again in 2014, since which time she has been unable to locate them. She claims that she and her sisters were subjected to ongoing harm and harassment from the Ethiopian authorities for reasons of their parents’ political activities and that two of her sisters have disappeared from their home in Addis Ababa, while the other has fled to [Country 2], where she has sought protection.

22. In assessing an applicant’s credibility, care must be taken that an over-stringent approach does not result in an unjust exclusion from consideration of the totality of some evidence where a portion of it could reasonably have been accepted.[1] However, 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. A decision maker is not required to accept uncritically any and all of the allegations made by an applicant.[2]

    [1] Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and McIllhatton v Guo Wei Rong and Pan Run Juan (1996) 40 ALD 445 the Full Federal Court, Foster J [482]

    [2] MIEA v Guo & Anor (1997) 191 CLR 559 at 596

23. In this case the Tribunal notes the delegate did not accept significant parts of the applicant’s evidence to be true. In particular the delegate did not accept the applicant’s sisters had disappeared as claimed, nor that their parents were involved in anti-government political activities which had caused them to be detained by the Ethiopian authorities.

24. The Tribunal has the benefit of a significant amount of information that was not available to the delegate. While the Tribunal has not accepted all of the applicant’s claims, it has ultimately concluded that significant parts of the applicant’s evidence should be accepted.

    Assessment of claims

25. I accept that the applicant’s grandparents were killed in violence that erupted during a land dispute in Gojjam in early 2013. While the applicant has limited knowledge of the circumstances of that dispute, she has consistently stated that her grandparents were among a significant group of residents forced by the local authorities to leave their homes in an apparent attempt to relocate their community in 2013. In making that assessment I note that such land disputes have long been a feature of Ethiopia’s ethnically and linguistically diverse population, where all land is owned by the state and residents have few legal protections against evictions.[3] I accept that the applicant’s paternal grandfather and two paternal uncles were killed in the resulting violence, along with her maternal grandfather and aunt and many other residents of the area.

    [3] ‘How land disputes erupt in Ethiopia’ in The Economist 1 August 2020

26. I accept that the applicant’s parents travelled to Gojjam after being notified of their relatives’ deaths. I accept that they confronted the local authorities and asked questions about what had happened, threatening to publicly expose the conduct of the Ethiopian authorities. I accept the applicant’s parents were detained in Gojjam and later transferred to a police station in Addis Ababa, where they were detained for three weeks before being transferred to [a] prison outside of Addis Ababa. I accept that while the applicant’s parents were detained, the applicant and her sisters were required to take them food and the family was regularly visited by police officers who were monitoring the family home.

27. In making that assessment I note that the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front was in power in Ethiopia between 2005 and 2018 and political freedoms were severely restricted. Protesters, opposition groups and persons perceived as being opposed to the government or its policies were regularly harassed and detained and held without charge or trial for periods varying from days to years. In 2016 DFAT assessed that people openly critical of the government faced a high risk of harassment, arrest and detention in Ethiopia and that their family members and neighbours were also harassed, arrested and detained. Prison conditions are reportedly ‘harsh and life threatening’, with limited access to food, healthcare and sanitation.[4] Prior to 2018 the use of torture was widespread in police stations, prisons and other places of detention, both as a form of punishment and for the purpose of obtaining information and extracting confessions from detainees.[5]

    [4] DFAT DFAT Country Information Report: Ethiopia 1 April 2016 [2.17]; [3.35]-[3.41]; [5.12]

    [5] DFAT DFAT Country Information Report: Ethiopia 12 August 2020 [4.9]

28. DFAT’s advice is confirmed by other commentators. Human Rights Watch (HRW) reported in November 2013 on the Ethiopian government’s continued ‘intolerance for any criticism of government actions’. The report notes that critics of government policy, including opposition activists and peaceful protestors, ‘continue to be subjected to harassment, arbitrary detention, and politically motivated prosecutions’. Detainees are also reportedly mistreated and denied access to legal counsel.[6] The same source noted in October 2013 that ‘Ethiopian authorities have subjected political detainees to torture and other ill-treatment at the main detention center in Addis Ababa’.[7]

    [6] Human Rights Watch 2013, Ethiopia: UPR Submission September 2013, 14 November < Accessed 30 December 2013

    [7] Human Rights Watch 2013, Ethiopia: Political Detainees Tortured, 18 October < Accessed 17 January 2014

29. The Economist similarly noted in June 2013 that ‘Since [2005] the political opposition has been eviscerated. Its leaders have been jailed or have gone into exile, the media have been muzzled and the ruling Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF) has acquired millions of new members’.[8]

    [8] ‘Free to protest, just a bit – could political demonstrations in Ethiopia herald greater freedom?’, The Economist, 8 June 2013 < Accessed 14 October 2013 <CISNET Ethiopia CX314756>

30. I accept that in March 2013 while her parents were still detained the police officers came to the family home around 9pm at night and began to search the house. I accept that when the applicant questioned this, a police officer told her she had no right to ask questions and slapped her face. I accept the police officers sent her younger sisters to another part of the house while he and another officer sexually assaulted the applicant in her parent’s bedroom. In making this assessment I note the applicant’s consistent evidence as well as the letter from a counsellor [from Organisation 1], which confirms that during 2014 and 2015 the applicant received counselling from the service to mitigate the impacts of the trauma arising from that sexual assault. I accept the applicant’s evidence in her statutory declaration as to the other health consequences of that sexual assault as well as a similar assault perpetrated upon her sister, the details of which do not need to be recounted here.

31. I accept that after about three months, the applicant’s parents were released from the police station after her father’s friend and colleague paid a sum of money for their release. DFAT reports that despite Ethiopia’s strong anti-corruption framework, corruption in Ethiopia is widespread and police readily accept bribes.[9] The applicant gave evidence that to her knowledge her parents were not charged with any offences and not required to attend court but their release was conditional on her father not pursuing or discussing the events in Gojjam in 2013 and I consider that to be consistent with the country information cited above.

    [9] DFAT DFAT Country Information Report: Ethiopia 12 August 2020 [2.19]-[2.20]

32. I accept that after the release of the applicant’s parents, the applicant’s father was fired from his job as a [Occupation 1] for [Company 1] and the applicant’s mother was also forced to stop work as her colleagues fears the ramifications of being associated with her. I accept the police continued to monitor and harass the applicant’s parents and household, regularly knocking on the door and demanding to know who was present and questioning them about random names of people they did not know. I consider the applicant’s evidence in this regard to be consistent with the country information cited above.

33. I further accept that the eviction and killing of their extended family members in Gojjam and their subsequent detention and treatment led to a hardening of the applicant’s parents’ anti-government political opinion. However, as discussed with the applicant at hearing, I have difficulty accepting that her parents were issued with Ginbot 7 membership cards or any other documents identifying them as members or supporters of that group given the highly secretive nature of that organisation necessitated by the very real risk faced by its members at the time.

34. I note that Ginbot 7 was established in 2008 and the name means 15 May in Amharic, referring to the date of parliamentary elections in 2005.[10] Ginbot 7 worked for regime change in Ethiopia and in June 2011, the Ethiopian government declared it a terrorist organisation.[11] It is reported to have a widespread, secret party network organised in small, autonomous cells of four to five persons found across Ethiopia.[12] In such circumstances I am doubtful the applicant’s parents were issued membership cards or other documents identifying them as Ginbot 7 supporters. Notwithstanding my doubts that the applicant’s parents joined Ginbot 7, I accept that they both held and were known to hold anti-regime political opinions as a result of their actions in Gojjam and subsequent detention.  

    [10] Landinfo – Country of Origin Information Centre 2012, Ethiopia: The Ginbot 7 party, UNHCR Refworld, 20 August, p.6

    [11]Human Rights Watch, Human Rights Watch World Report 2012 Ethiopia, 22 January 2012; Landinfo – Country of Origin Information Centre, Ethiopia: The Ginbot 7 party, UNHCR Refworld, 20 August 2012, p.6; Freedom House, Freedom in the World 2012 – Ethiopia, 8 June 2012

    [12] 'Ethiopia. Opposition Groups - Recent Developments', Danish Immigration Service, 01 January 2020 [13]

35. As noted above, on November 2013 the applicant travelled with [Company 2] to [Country 2], returning in January 2014. In March 2014 [Company 2] returned to [Country 2] and [Country 3] before travelling to Australia. During the two months the applicant was home between those trips, the applicant observed the harassment of her family to be continuing. She gave evidence that her elder sister [told] her it was getting really scary and that she was worried about their parents. When the applicant travelled to [Country 2] in 2014, her [siblings] remained at home because [Ms A] wasn’t yet ready to perform.

36. I accept that towards the end of July 2014, the applicant’s parents were re-detained by the Ethiopian authorities. The applicant’s evidence is that her [siblings] were not detained with their parents, but that she has since lost contact with her eldest and one of her younger sisters, while [Ms A] has since fled to [Country 2] and claimed asylum there.

37. I note that the applicant gave evidence to the delegate that she now acknowledges to be untrue about her contact with [Ms A] since her parents’ detention in July 2014. In her protection visa application she suggested that she had lost contact with all her sisters [siblings] at the time their parents were detained in July 2014. At interview with the Department in November 2016 she maintained she had had no contact with [Ms A] or her other sisters since that time.

1. Following that interview the delegate wrote to the applicant pursuant to s 57 of the Act on 23 November 2016 informing her that an internet search indicated that [Ms A] had been performing with the same [employer] as the applicant and that all of the sisters have been in contact with each other over the past two years. The applicant’s representative sought further details of that information from the delegate, but the delegate declined to provide a copy of the information or identify its source.[13]

   [13] Email correspondence between the delegate and the applicant’s legal representative at pages 115-116 and 120 of the departmental file

2. On 21 December 2016 the applicant’s representative recorded their objections to not being provided with a copy of the information relied upon and confirmed their instructions that the applicant had not had contact with any of her sisters, including [Ms A], over the last two years, and had no knowledge of whether [Ms A] was performing with [Company 2].

3. It is now acknowledged that the applicant was untruthful in her evidence to the delegate in relation to her contact with her sister [Ms A]. In a statutory declaration made 13 July 2021, the applicant agreed that [Ms A] also performs with [the same employer] and that they are in contact. She sought to explain her previous contrary evidence by stating that she was unable to contact [Ms A] between July and October 2014 and that her statement in her protection visa application to the effect that she was unable to contact [Ms A] was true at the time she made it. She stated that she didn’t correct that information at interview because it would have seemed like she was lying when she wasn’t and she was scared that the Department would think that her whole family was also safe.

4. The applicant continues to maintain she and [Ms A] have had no contact with their other [siblings] in Ethiopia. I note that it is not suggested that the [siblings] were detained along with their parents, rather that the applicant and [Ms A] have been unable to contact them since July 2014. She also states that her friend from the [Company 2] in Ethiopia, [Ms B] visited her house in July 2014 and was told her parents had been detained and her [siblings] were not present at the house.

5. The applicant has produced a sworn statement from [Ms C], who states she has known the applicant for almost seven years and has knowledge of her circumstances. [Ms C] states that in January 2021 she visited Ethiopia for a family emergency and was unable to return for four months because of COVID-19 restrictions and the lack of flights. She states that she went to the applicant’s neighbourhood to make enquiries about her family but was told that the parents’ house was empty and they have been detained and not seen since. [Ms C] states she also used her local connections and friends to check with the major prisons in Addis Ababa without success. She was unable to travel to the Gojjam region because of the political unrest.

6. I note that the delegate has printed out significant amounts of information indicating that both the applicant and [Ms A] have performed [internationally]. However, I am unable to locate anything on the departmental file that might form the basis for the delegate’s statement in the decision record that an internet search revealed the [siblings] were in contact with each other in 2014. As noted above, the applicant’s representative sought details of that information from the delegate in response to the delegate’s letter of 23 November 2016 but the delegate declined to provide any further information. At hearing the applicant denied having contact with her [other siblings] in Ethiopia, telling the Tribunal that she had no idea what that information could be.

7. The fact the applicant was untruthful at interview and later in her written response to the delegate raises doubts about her evidence that she is unaware of the whereabouts of her other [siblings]. However, I consider the applicant to be credible about much of her evidence. In the absence of any information that would indicate why the delegate considered the applicant was in contact with those [siblings] I give her the benefit of the doubt on this issue.

8. I note the delegate’s concern that the applicant did not seek protection during her travels to [Country 2] at the end of 2013 and beginning of 2014. However, at that time the applicant’s parents had been released from detention and they were not re-detained until July 2014. In such circumstances I draw no adverse inference from the fact that the applicant did not seek protection in [Country 2]. I note she had at that time no family members in Australia and no obvious reason to preference Australia over [Country 2], indeed her sister [Ms A] is seeking asylum in [Country 2].

9. As noted above, the applicant has married an Australian citizen and they have recently had their first child. Her husband and their daughter are Australian citizens, her husband originating from [another country]. Her evidence is that if she is returned to Ethiopia, she will return alone and leave them in Australia as she does not want her daughter to go through what she has gone through.

   Future risk of harm

10. As noted above, the applicant claims to have a well-founded fear of persecution in Ethiopia for the separate and combined reasons of: her membership of the particular social groups ‘women’ and ‘single women in Ethiopia’; her actual and imputed political opinion on account of her parents’ anti-government political opinions and her profile as a person who has sought asylum in Australia; her Amhara ethnicity; and her Orthodox Christian religion.

11. DFAT reports that while gender-based violence is a criminal offence in Ethiopia, in practice the law is rarely enforced. It assesses that women in Ethiopia face a high risk of domestic violence and sexual harassment and support services are improved, but insufficient overall. It reports a local source as stating that the authorities largely consider events behind closed doors to be private matters and reporting of gender-based violence remains low.[14] In 2017 DFAT reported that violence against women is prevalent across all parts of Ethiopia and perpetrators are rarely punished.[15]

    [14] DFAT DFAT Country Information Report: Ethiopia 12 August 2020 [3.62]-[3.67]

    [15] DFAT DFAT Country Information Report: Ethiopia 28 September 2017 [3.62]-[3.67]

12. DFAT’s assessment is consistent with the country information to which I have been referred by the applicant, which indicates that while Ethiopia has progressive laws for gender equality enshrined in the Constitution, women continue to suffer sexual and gender-based violence despite legislative protections.

13. There have been significant changes to the political environment in Ethiopia during the time the applicant has been in Australia following the election of Prime Minister Abiy in April 2018. The US Department of State (USDOS) reported in March 2019 that Prime Minister Abiy’s assumption of office was followed by positive changes in the human rights climate:

    The government decriminalized political movements that had been accused of treason in the past, invited opposition leaders to return to the country and resume political activities, allowed peaceful rallies and demonstrations, enabled the formation and unfettered operation of new political parties and media outlets, continued steps to release thousands of political prisoners, and undertook revisions of repressive laws. On June 5, the parliament voted to lift the SOE.

14. The UK Home Office reported in August 2019 that the changes brought by Prime Minister Abiy included: a dramatic shift in the government’s stance towards the political opposition, freedom of speech and the state’s relationship with Eritrea; the release of thousands of political prisoners, including high profile and prominent party members and critics of the government; a generally increased tolerance for political dissidents; and an end to the State of Emergency (SOE).[16]

    [16] UK Home Office Country Policy and Information Note Ethiopia: Opposition to the Government August 2019 at

15. Similarly, in August 2020, DFAT reported that while political opinions in Ethiopia were significantly curtailed before April 2018, freedom of political expression has since expanded with the release of more than 10,000 political prisoners including senior opposition leaders. In June 2018 the Ethiopian government lifted its terrorist designations of Ginbot 7 and other political opponents who subsequently renounced armed struggle and operate as registered political parties. Ginbot 7 has been dissolved and replaced with the Ethiopian Citizens Party for Social Justice (known as Ezema). Ezema was formed in May 2019 through the merger of several opposition parties and is one of the few political parties that is not ethnically-based. Overall, DFAT assessed that tolerance for political dissent has increased considerably since April 2018, with opposition parties able to operate more freely and their members facing only a low risk of harassment, arrest and detention.[17]

    [17] DFAT DFAT Country Information Report: Ethiopia 12 August 2020 [2.35]-[2.41]; [3.34]-[3.41]

16. At hearing the applicant vehemently disagreed with DFAT’s assessment, stating that President Abiy had released some high profile political dissidents but put others back in jail including Jawar Mohammed. She said that from the outside it looked like he was doing a good job but not from the inside. The Tribunal has been referred to country information indicating that political unrest has intensified in the Tigray region and it is submitted this is indicative of the political instability throughout the whole country and the fact the situation is liable to change. It is submitted that government forces are responsible for ongoing human rights violations in the Tigray and Oromia regions, including attacks on ethnic Amharas in Guliso village in western Oromia in November 2020. I have also been referred to country information concerning a massacre of Amhara Christians in Oromia region in November 2020 and other incidents of violence against ethnic Amhara.[18]

    [18] Applicant’s submissions dated 1 September 2021

17. DFAT assesses that, like most other groups, Amharas face a moderate risk of violence in areas or states where they are a minority.[19] More broadly, DFAT assessed in August 2020 that the security situation has deteriorated in parts of Ethiopia since 2018 and inter-ethnic clashes have increased significantly, particularly in Oromia and Tigray. It notes that the return from exile of previously-banned groups and individuals has catalysed unrest in some areas, particularly Oromo. Jawar Mohammed, a prominent Oromo activist who was previously allied with President Abiy (but is now a prominent critic) was re-arrested in June 2020 during renewed unrest in Oromia State and also Addis Ababa. Nearly 5,000 people were arrested on various charges, including several prominent Oromo leaders and journalists including Jawar, and the premises of three media outlets were searched on suspicion of ‘incitement to racial or religious hatred’.[20]

    [19] DFAT DFAT Country Information Report: Ethiopia 12 August 2020 [3.10]

    [20] DFAT DFAT Country Information Report: Ethiopia 12 August 2020 [2.52]-[2.53]

18. In March 2021, the Danish Immigration Service reported that the initial, positive changes following Prime Minister Abiy’s rise to power have not continued and the authorities have reverted to repressive methods in order to maintain law and order. It noted that hundreds of people were arrested following the assassination of an Oromo singer and activist in June 2020, with more than 9,000 people detained across Oromia and 4,000 people prosecuted. It noted reports of police brutality and arrests connected with demonstrations and the arrest of a number of journalists. It cites the Swedish Migration Agency’s description of the situation for Ezema as ‘challenging’, with some party members in the Wellega zones as being at risk and members in the Arsi zone being unable to leave their houses, although it noted that Ezema was assessed as being less vulnerable than other opposition groups because of its shared political ideology with the ruling party.[21]

    [21] Danish Immigration Service Ethiopia: political opposition parties – recent developments March 2021

19. At the time of writing, it is reported that all parties to the conflict in Tigray face the possibility of sanctions from the US government, as international observers fear that the conflict in Ethiopia may further destabilise an already fragile region. On 1 October 2021 Ethiopia expelled seven senior United Nations officials for ‘meddling’ in internal affairs, two days after the UN aid chief warned hundreds of thousands of people in the northern region of Tigray were likely experiencing famine due to the government’s blockade of aid.[22]

    [22] ABC News UN officials expelled from Ethiopia for ‘meddling’ in internal affairs after Tigray famine warning 1 October 2021 UN officials expelled from Ethiopia for 'meddling' in internal affairs after Tigray famine warning - ABC News

20. For the reasons set out above, I have accepted that her parents were detained for their anti-government political opinion in 2013 and 2014 and that the applicant and her family were monitored and harassed by the Ethiopian authorities during that period. I have further accepted that the applicant suffered serious harm at the hands of the Ethiopian authorities while her parents were detained in or about March 2013, despite not having undertaken any political activities herself. I have accepted that one of her [siblings] is resident in [Country 2] where she is seeking asylum and the whereabouts of her other [siblings] is unknown to her. I accept that if the applicant is returned to Ethiopia, she will return without her husband and daughter and she will continue to look her missing family members.

21. Considering the applicant’s circumstances cumulatively, I cannot dismiss the chance that the applicant would again suffer serious harm in Ethiopia as remote. Rather there a combination of factors that I consider will cause her to face a real chance of harm if returned to Ethiopia including the deteriorating security situation in Ethiopia, reports that the Ethiopian authorities are again reverting to repressive methods in order to suppress dissidents and maintain law and order and the applicant’s profile as a woman returning alone whose family members have been detained for their political opinion and who has herself experienced serious harm at the hands of the Ethiopian authorities in the past.

22. In these circumstances I find there to be a real chance the applicant will again experience serious harm amounting to persecution if she returns to her home in Ethiopia. I find that harm will be the result of systematic and discriminatory conduct directed at her for the essential and significant combined reasons of her political opinion and membership of the particular social group ‘women in Ethiopia’.

    State protection

23. DFAT reports that Ethiopia has an extensive security and intelligence apparatus which was used in the past to monitor and suppress dissent. While Prime Minister Abiy has sought to impose greater accountability and discipline on the security forces and regional state governments are making parallel efforts to reform law enforcement at the state level, a proliferation of ethnic-based militias have challenged state authority and eroded the rule of law in some parts of the country.[23]

    [23] DFAT DFAT Country Information Report: Ethiopia 12 August 2020 [5.1]

24. As well, country information cited above indicates that while gender-based violence is a criminal offence in Ethiopia, in practice the law is rarely enforced. Rather, violence against women is prevalent across all parts of Ethiopia and perpetrators are rarely punished, and the Ethiopian authorities largely consider such events to be private matters.

25. In such circumstances, I find that the level of protection available to the Ethiopian authorities does not meet the level of protection which citizens are entitled to expect as set out in MIMA v Respondents S152/2003 (2004) 222 CLR 1.

    Relocation

26. In this case the applicant is a young female from Addis Ababa without family support and the harm she fears includes harm by the Ethiopian authorities. In these circumstances I find that relocation is not reasonable in her particular circumstances.

    CONCLUSIONS

27. 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

28. The Tribunal remits the matter for reconsideration with the direction that the applicant satisfies s 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act.

    Alison Murphy
    Member