1809968 (Refugee)

The applicant sought a protection visa, claiming he would face persecution if returned to Ethiopia due to his ethnic background as an Amhara and his imputed political opinion derived from his father's alleged involvement with opposition groups, specifically the Coalition for Unity and Democracy (CUD), Ginbot 7, and AYO. The dispute centred on whether the applicant had established a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm upon return to Ethiopia. The case was heard by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race or political opinion, or a real risk of significant harm under the complementary protection provisions of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). This involved assessing the credibility of the applicant's claims regarding his father's political activities, his own alleged involvement with opposition groups, and the general human rights situation in Ethiopia, particularly in light of recent political reforms and ongoing conflicts. The Tribunal also considered the applicant's claim of harm as a failed asylum seeker and the potential harm from separation from his family in Australia.

The Tribunal found that while it accepted, in the absence of contrary evidence, that the applicant's father was involved with the CUD and detained, and that the applicant himself was arrested and detained, there were significant credibility concerns regarding the applicant's evidence. Crucially, the Tribunal found it unlikely that the applicant would be imputed with his father's political opinions, especially given his release after signing a document agreeing not to engage in political activities against the government and his subsequent four years of unhindered life in Ethiopia. Furthermore, the Tribunal found no independent evidence of the applicant's own support for AYO or Ginbot 7, noting that any financial contributions were made in cash and directly to an individual, making it unlikely that authorities would be aware of them. The Tribunal also considered the significant improvements in the human rights situation in Ethiopia since April 2018, including the lifting of terrorist designations for opposition groups and increased tolerance for political dissent. Regarding the failed asylum seeker claim, the Tribunal found no evidence to support it, noting that voluntary returnees generally face a low risk of harm. Finally, while acknowledging the emotional distress of family separation, the Tribunal determined this did not constitute "significant harm" under the Act.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa, finding that there was no real chance the applicant would be seriously harmed if returned to Ethiopia, nor a real risk of significant harm under the complementary protection provisions.