1821732 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by a national of Ethiopia. The applicant claimed to have been persecuted due to his ethnicity and imputed political opinion, alleging he was targeted by government authorities and labelled an anti-development Oromo activist and a puppet of the Oromo Liberation Front (OLF). The applicant also claimed his family members had been arrested and disappeared, and that his father, a tribal chief, had faced government scrutiny and imprisonment due to his heritage. The decision was made by Bridget Cullen, Senior Member of the Tribunal.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant was a person in respect of whom Australia had protection obligations under section 36(2)(a) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), meaning he was a refugee with a well-founded fear of persecution. This required the Tribunal to assess the applicant's claims of past persecution and the risk of future persecution based on his race (Oromo ethnicity) and imputed political opinion, considering whether he would be unable or unwilling to avail himself of the protection of Ethiopia due to such fear. The Tribunal also had regard to the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa) and the definitions of "significant harm," "torture," and "cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment" as outlined in the Act.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's detailed account of his experiences, including his alleged beating during student protests, his arrest and detention, the pressure he faced at work after research implicated government corruption, his subsequent arrest and torture, and the arrest and disappearance of his brothers. It noted that while the applicant and his family believed the OLF's aims were beneficial, they were not members, but were imputed to be supporters due to their Oromo ethnicity. The Tribunal applied the principles of Ministerial Direction No. 84, the 'Refugee Law Guidelines', and 'Complementary Protection Guidelines', as well as country information.

Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant was a person in respect of whom Australia had protection obligations under section 36(2)(a). Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the matter for reconsideration with a direction that the applicant satisfies section 36(2)(a) of the *Migration Act*.