1807375 (Refugee)

1807375 (Refugee) [2022] AATA 2418 (24 June 2022)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER:  1807375
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Ethiopia
MEMBER:C. Packer
DATE:24 June 2022
PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

Statement made on 24 June 2022 at 5:50pm

CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Ethiopia – political opinion – protest against the government – detention – release on bail – exit procedures – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 5(1), 5H, 5J – 5LA, 36, 65, 425, 499
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 dependants.
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 Home Affairs on 27 February 2018 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The applicant who claims to be a citizen of Ethiopia applied for the visa on 18 May 2016.
The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the delegate did not accept the applicant’s claims and on this basis was not satisfied that the applicant met the criteria for recognition as a refugee within the meaning of that term in s.5H(1) or that the applicant faced a real risk of significant harm for the purposes of the complementary protection criteria in s.36(2)(aa).
The review applicant was invited under s 425 of the Act to appear before the Tribunal on 16 June 2022 at 2:00pm (VIC time). The invitation stated “We have considered the material before us but we are unable to make a favourable decision on this information alone.” The invitation also stated that if the review applicant did not attend the hearing, the Tribunal may make a decision on the review without taking any further action to allow or enable the applicant to appear before the Tribunal. The review applicant did not respond to the hearing invitation.
The review applicant did not appear before the Tribunal on the day and at the scheduled time and place. There is no record of the review applicant contacting the Tribunal by any means at the scheduled time to explain why they had not attended the hearing. Having reviewed the Tribunal file, the Tribunal is satisfied that the review applicant was properly invited to a hearing in accordance with the Act and that the invitation has not been returned to sender. Hearing reminders were sent by SMS to the review applicant’s mobile phone number on 8 and 15 June 2022, and they were returned as ‘Delivery of SMS hearing reminder failed’. No satisfactory reason for the non-appearance has been given by the applicant. This matter has therefore been determined on the evidence available to the Tribunal.
CRITERIA FOR A PROTECTION VISA
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, he or she 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 because the person is a refugee.
A person is a refugee if, in the case of a person who has a nationality, they are outside the country of their nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country: s 5H(1)(a). In the case of a person without a nationality, they are a refugee if they are outside the country of their former habitual residence and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to return to that country: s 5H(1)(b).
Under s 5J(1), a person has a well-founded fear of persecution if they fear being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, there is a real chance they would be persecuted for one or more of those reasons, and the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of the relevant country. Additional requirements relating to a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ and circumstances in which a person will be taken not to have such a fear are set out in ss 5J(2)-(6) and ss 5K-LA, which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
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 the 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 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’). The meaning of significant harm, and the circumstances in which a person will be taken not to face a real risk of significant harm, are set out in ss 36(2A) and (2B), which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
Mandatory considerations
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 expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE, FINDINGS
Background
On 18 February 2016 the applicant was granted a [Visitor] visa. He arrived in Australia [in] March 2016. His [Visitor] visa ceased [in] June 2016. On 18 May 2016 he applied for a protection visa. The applicant’s protection visa application provided some basic background information. In the written application, the applicant stated that he was born in Nekemit. He showed the same family home in [Suburb 1], a suburb of Addis Ababa, from birth to the time he travelled to Australia. He has Oromo ethnicity and is a Christian protestant. He showed: a partner [and specified family members]- all in Ethiopia. He stated the adopted children were children of a deceased brother. He stated he is a businessman who had operated a [specified business] in Addis Ababa.
Summary of claims
The applicant’s protection claims are in summary:
·In 2015 he participated in a peaceful demonstration of about 1,200 to 1,500 people. The demonstration concerned plans to expand the capital city which would uproot farmers from their village and farms. He was one of [a number] arrested and jailed.
·He was ‘arrested for [period] in 2015’ (paragraph 4 of his statement), or ‘my arrest and [shorter period] incarceration’ (paragraph 8 of his statement). He was then released on bail, paid by a friend in 2016.
·He hid from the authorities until he fled Ethiopia.
·He was able to depart from Bolo airport because ‘connections’ were able to delay his name being transferred to Immigration authorities and security at the airport. His friend advised his name was not yet on the list.
Evidence
The evidence before the Tribunal includes the following material:
·the applicant’s Protection visa application form lodged on 18 May 2016, which includes a statement that gives reasons for seeking protection in Australia
·passport pages
·the Protection visa decision record (‘delegate’s decision’) dated 27 February 2018, which is the subject of this review
·the application for review, which has attached to it a copy of the delegate’s decision
On 23 January 2018 the applicant was interviewed by the delegate.
The applicant did not appear before the Tribunal on the day and at the scheduled time and place of the hearing.
Assessment of claims: credibility
The applicant claims to be a national of Ethiopia. I have sighted a page of his Ethiopian passport that identifies him. All the available evidence supports his claim to be an Ethiopian national. Ethiopia is therefore the country of reference for the purpose of assessing the applicant’s protection claims, and the receiving country when assessing his claims against the complementary protection grounds.
The Tribunal has before it only the claims made in the protection visa application form and the information given to the Department. The applicant’s appearance at a hearing would have been an opportunity to address the various gaps in his narrative, and to provide further information and details. Among the claims on which the Tribunal has insufficient evidence before it are the following:
- Details of his background, work history, family circumstances and living arrangements, insofar as these may be relevant to an assessment of whether he needs protection.
- Further information and details about his claims to have participated in a peaceful demonstration of about 1,200 to 1,500 people in 2015.
- Further information and details about his claims to have been arrested and jailed.
- An explanation concerning the length of the detention in light of his claims he was ‘arrested for [period] in 2015’ (paragraph 4 of his statement), or ‘my arrest and [shorter period] incarceration’ (paragraph 8 of his statement).
- Further information and details about how he was released on bail in 2016.
- Further information and details about how he was able to hide from the authorities until he fled Ethiopia.
- Further information and details about how he was able to depart from Bolo airport because ‘connections’ were able to delay his name being transferred to Immigration authorities and security at the airport.
On the limited or ostensibly inconsistent available material, the Tribunal is unable to determine the nature, severity or causes of any of the problems that the applicant alludes to, including problems with Ethiopian authorities. The Tribunal is unable to be satisfied that the applicant was involved in a demonstration in 2015, or that he was arrested and jailed. The Tribunal is unable to be satisfied that the applicant was released on bail, hid, and then was able to depart from Bolo airport because ‘connections’ were able to delay his name being transferred to Immigration authorities and security at the airport. The Tribunal is unable to be satisfied that the applicant genuinely fears that he may face harm and other problems for any reason if he returns to Ethiopia.
In sum, the Tribunal is unable to be satisfied that the applicant has suffered harm, detention, financial pressures, threats, or any other problems that amount, individually or cumulatively, to ‘serious harm’ for the reasons set out in s.5J(1), or for any reasons at all. The Tribunal is therefore unable to be satisfied that he has suffered any harm that amounts to ‘significant harm’.
The Tribunal is also unable to be satisfied that the applicant genuinely fears serious harm amounting to persecution, or significant harm, arising from any of these circumstances.
Conclusion
In light of the above findings and the Tribunal’s lack of satisfaction about the applicant’s circumstances, the Tribunal is also not satisfied that he faces a real chance of serious harm amounting to persecution, for any reason, from any sources, if he returns to Ethiopia. The Tribunal is therefore not satisfied that he has a well-founded fear of persecution for one of the reasons enumerated in s.5J(1) should he return to Ethiopia.
The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(a).
Having concluded that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a), the Tribunal has considered the alternative criterion in s.36(2)(aa). However, based on the information before the Tribunal, and the assessment of facts above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Ethiopia there would be a real risk that he will suffer significant harm.
The Tribunal is therefore not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(aa).
There is no suggestion that the applicant satisfies s 36(2) on the basis of being a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfies s 36(2)(a) or (aa) and who holds a protection visa. Accordingly, the applicant does not satisfy the criterion in s 36(2).
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.
C. Packer
Member

ATTACHMENT - Extract from Migration Act 1958
5 (1) Interpretation
…
cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment means an act or omission by which:
(a)     severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person; or
(b)     pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person so long as, in all the circumstances, the act or omission could reasonably be regarded as cruel or inhuman in nature;
but does not include an act or omission:
(c)     that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(d)     arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
degrading treatment or punishment means an act or omission that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation which is unreasonable, but does not include an act or omission:
(a)     that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(b)     that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
torture means an act or omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person:
(a)     for the purpose of obtaining from the person or from a third person information or a confession; or
(b)     for the purpose of punishing the person for an act which that person or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed; or
(c)     for the purpose of intimidating or coercing the person or a third person; or
(d)     for a purpose related to a purpose mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c); or
(e)     for any reason based on discrimination that is inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant;
but does not include an act or omission arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
receiving country, in relation to a non-citizen, means:
(a)     a country of which the non-citizen is a national, to be determined solely by reference to the law of the relevant country; or
(b)     if the non-citizen has no country of nationality—a country of his or her former habitual residence, regardless of whether it would be possible to return the non-citizen to the country.
…
5H    Meaning of refugee
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person in Australia, the person is a refugee if the person is:
(a)     in a case where the person has a nationality – is outside the country of his or her nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country; or
(b)     in a case where the person does not have a nationality – is outside the country of his or her former habitual residence and owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to return to it.
Note:     For the meaning of well-founded fear of persecution, see section 5J.
…
5J     Meaning of well-founded fear of persecution
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person has a well-founded fear of persecution if:
(a)     the person fears being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion; and
(b)     there is a real chance that, if the person returned to the receiving country, the person would be persecuted for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(c)     the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of a receiving country.
Note:     For membership of a particular social group, see sections 5K and 5L.
(2)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country.
Note:     For effective protection measures, see section 5LA.
(3)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if the person could take reasonable steps to modify his or her behaviour so as to avoid a real chance of persecution in a receiving country, other than a modification that would:
(a)     conflict with a characteristic that is fundamental to the person’s identity or conscience; or
(b)     conceal an innate or immutable characteristic of the person; or
(c)     without limiting paragraph (a) or (b), require the person to do any of the following:
(i)alter his or her religious beliefs, including by renouncing a religious conversion, or conceal his or her true religious beliefs, or cease to be involved in the practice of his or her faith;
(ii)conceal his or her true race, ethnicity, nationality or country of origin;
(iii)alter his or her political beliefs or conceal his or her true political beliefs;
(iv)conceal a physical, psychological or intellectual disability;
(v)enter into or remain in a marriage to which that person is opposed, or accept the forced marriage of a child;
(vi)alter his or her sexual orientation or gender identity or conceal his or her true sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.
(4)If a person fears persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a):
(a)     that reason must be the essential and significant reason, or those reasons must be the essential and significant reasons, for the persecution; and
(b)     the persecution must involve serious harm to the person; and
(c)     the persecution must involve systematic and discriminatory conduct.
(5)Without limiting what is serious harm for the purposes of paragraph (4)(b), the following are instances of serious harm for the purposes of that paragraph:
(a)     a threat to the person’s life or liberty;
(b)     significant physical harassment of the person;
(c)     significant physical ill‑treatment of the person;
(d)     significant economic hardship that threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(e)     denial of access to basic services, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(f)     denial of capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist.
(6)In determining whether the person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a), any conduct engaged in by the person in Australia is to be disregarded unless the person satisfies the Minister that the person engaged in the conduct otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening the person’s claim to be a refugee.
5K    Membership of a particular social group consisting of family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person (the first person), in determining whether the first person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for the reason of membership of a particular social group that consists of the first person’s family:
(a)     disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced, where the reason for the fear or persecution is not a reason mentioned in paragraph 5J(1)(a); and
(b)     disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that:
(i)the first person has ever experienced; or
(ii)any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced;
where it is reasonable to conclude that the fear or persecution would not exist if it were assumed that the fear or persecution mentioned in paragraph (a) had never existed.
Note:     Section 5G may be relevant for determining family relationships for the purposes of this section.
5L    Membership of a particular social group other than family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person is to be treated as a member of a particular social group (other than the person’s family) if:
(a)     a characteristic is shared by each member of the group; and
(b)     the person shares, or is perceived as sharing, the characteristic; and
(c)     any of the following apply:
(i)the characteristic is an innate or immutable characteristic;
(ii)the characteristic is so fundamental to a member’s identity or conscience, the member should not be forced to renounce it;
(iii)the characteristic distinguishes the group from society; and
(d)     the characteristic is not a fear of persecution.
5LA Effective protection measures
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country if:
(a)     protection against persecution could be provided to the person by:
(i)the relevant State; or
(ii)a party or organisation, including an international organisation, that controls the relevant State or a substantial part of the territory of the relevant State; and
(b)     the relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (a) is willing and able to offer such protection.
(2)A relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) is taken to be able to offer protection against persecution to a person if:
(a)     the person can access the protection; and
(b)     the protection is durable; and
(c)     in the case of protection provided by the relevant State—the protection consists of an appropriate criminal law, a reasonably effective police force and an impartial judicial system.
…
36     Protection visas – criteria provided for by this Act
…
(2)A criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is:
(a)     a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee; or
(aa) a non-citizen in Australia (other than a non-citizen mentioned in paragraph (a)) 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 non-citizen being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that the non-citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b)     a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:
(i)is mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant; or
(c)     a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:
(i)is mentioned in paragraph (aa); and
(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant.
(2A)A non‑citizen will suffer significant harm if:
(a)     the non‑citizen will be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life; or
(b)     the death penalty will be carried out on the non‑citizen; or
(c)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to torture; or
(d)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or
(e)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment.
(2B)However, there is taken not to be a real risk that a non‑citizen will suffer significant harm in a country if the Minister is satisfied that:
(a)     it would be reasonable for the non‑citizen to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b)     the non‑citizen could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(c)     the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the non‑citizen personally.
…

[2022] AATA 2418

24 June 2022

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Natural Justice

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction

Jurisdiction