1807375 (Refugee)

The applicant, an Ethiopian national, sought review of a decision to refuse him a protection visa. The applicant claimed to have participated in a peaceful demonstration in Ethiopia in 2015 concerning land rights, which led to his arrest and detention. He further alleged he was released on bail, went into hiding, and subsequently fled Ethiopia, departing from Bolo airport due to assistance from contacts who delayed his name appearing on immigration and security watchlists. The delegate's decision, which is the subject of the review, affirmed the refusal of the visa.

The court was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically whether he was a refugee within the meaning of section 5H of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) or, alternatively, whether he met the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa) of the Act. This involved assessing the applicant's claims against the relevant legislative provisions and considering the evidence presented, including the applicant's visa application and passport. A key issue was the sufficiency of evidence provided by the applicant to substantiate his claims, particularly regarding the details of his participation in the demonstration, his arrest and detention, his release on bail, his ability to evade authorities, and his departure from Ethiopia.

The court found that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to substantiate his claims. The applicant did not appear before the Tribunal for a hearing, which would have provided an opportunity to elaborate on the gaps in his narrative. The court noted the inconsistencies in the applicant's statements regarding the duration of his detention and the lack of detail concerning his release on bail and his departure from the airport. Without this further information, the Tribunal could not be satisfied that the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution or faced a real risk of significant harm upon removal to Ethiopia. The court also noted that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria under section 36(2) as a family member of a person holding a protection visa.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.