1823483 (Refugee)

1823483 (Refugee) [2022] AATA 1505 (27 April 2022)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER:  1823483
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Ethiopia
MEMBER:Peter Haag
DATE:27 April 2022
PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne
DECISION:The Tribunal remits the matter for reconsideration with the direction that the applicant satisfies s 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act.

Statement made on 27 April 2022 at 6:01pm
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection Visa – Ethiopia – race – Oromo – imputed political opinion – Oromo Liberation Front supporter – fears harm from Government authorities – supporter of Oromo Liberation Army – particular social group – young able bodied Oromo male persons who hold university level qualifications – involuntary military service – decision under review remitted

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 5, 36, 65, 499
Migration Regulations 1994
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

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 31 July 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 13 May 2015. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the applicant is not a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations as outlined in s 36(2)(a) or s 36(2)(aa) and is not a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations and who holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant (s 36(2)(b) and s 36(2)(c) of the Act).
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 19 April 2022 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from Dr [A].
The applicant was represented in relation to the review.
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–5LA, 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
The issue in this case is whether the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations as outlined in s 36(2)(a) or s 36(2)(aa) of the Act. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration.
Applicant’s identity
The applicant claims he is an Ethiopian citizen, born on [date], in [Town 1], Oromia, Ethiopia. He is of Oromo ethnicity and a Protestant Christian. He can read, write and speak Afan Oromo, Amharic and English.
At the time of application, his mother, [and siblings] were residing in Ethiopia.
From December 2012 until April 2015, the applicant worked as a [Occupation 1]in Ethiopia. Between September 2010 and September 2011, the applicant was employed as an [Occupation 2] at [Workplace 1] and [Workplace 2] in [Ethiopia].
The applicant completed his primary and secondary education in [Town 1], West Wollega, Oromia in [year], a course in [Field 1] [and] a course in [Occupation 1].[1]
[1] Part C – Application for a Protection Visa.
The applicant provided the Department of Home Affairs (the Department) with a copy of his [Occupation 3 registration] issued by the Ethiopian [Authority] bearing his name and date of birth. It was issued [in] 2012 in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. The applicant also provided to the Department a copy of his Ethiopian passport bearing his name and date of birth. The passport was issued [in] 2012 and it has the number [deleted].[2]
[2] Department file [folios] 80, 88.
The documents provided by the applicant are consistent with his evidence to the Tribunal in relation to his identity. There is no evidence to suggest that the applicant has a right to enter and/or reside, whether temporarily or permanently, in any other country. Therefore, based on the information provided by the applicant the Tribunal finds that he is a citizen of Ethiopia, and as such his protection claims will be assessed against Ethiopia as the country of reference and ‘receiving country’ respectively.
Migration history
The applicant was granted [temporary] visas on 5 January 2013 and on 18 March 2015. From December 2012 to March 2015 he stated that he had travelled to [Country 1], [Country 2], [Country 3] and [Country 4] to join the crew of various ships.[3]
[3] Part C – Application for Protection Visa; Protection Visa Decision Record, 31 July 2018.
The applicant departed Bole International Airport, Addis Ababa, on [date] March 2015 for [Country 4] where, according to his statutory declaration made 13 April 2016, he joined the ship [Ship 1]. He arrived in [City 1], Australia on [date] April 2015 on board that ship.[4]
[4] Part C – Application for Protection Visa; Protection Visa Decision Record, 31 July 2018.
The applicant applied for an XA-866 Permanent Protection visa on 13 May 2015. He was granted a Bridging C visa on 14 May 2015 and 25 June 2015 in association with the protection visa application.[5]
[5] Protection Visa Decision Record, 31 July 2018.
Applicant’s evidence
As part of his application for a protection visa, in a statutory declaration dated 13 April 2016, the applicant made the following claims:
Background
2. I was born on [date] and raised in a town called [Town 1] in the West Wollega zone of the Oromia region, Ethiopia.
3. My father's name was [deleted]. He was a very influential member of the Oromo community. He died [in] 2005 after being tortured in prison. My mother's name is [deleted] and she works in [a workplace] of West Wollega Zone. I have [a number of siblings]. All my family remain in Ethiopia.
4. I am an Ethiopian Citizen from the Oromo tribe. My first language is Afan Oromo (Oromic). My religion is Protestant Christian.
5. I attended [a] Primary School from grades 1 to 8 in [Town 1] town. After that, I continued my education for grades 9 and 10 and preparatory classes grades 11 and 12 at [a] High School. After completing my primary and secondary classes, I was assigned to [University 1] to study [Field 1]. [University 1] is located in[a location]. I have studied a [degree] in [Field 1] from September [year] to June [year]. I then completed [a qualification] in [Occupation 1] from May [year] to November ]year].
Employment Background
6. After successfully completing my [degree], I started to work as [Occupation 2] in [Field 1] at [Workplace 1] starting in September 2010. [Workplace 1] is located in [a location]. I [did specified work] for about one year until August 2011.
7. After my employment at [Workplace 1], I was employed at [Workplace 2], [as] an [Occupation 2]. I [worked] until I decided to leave in May 2012.
8. From May 2012 I was recruited to [Organisation 1][Workplace 3] which is located in [a state]. In November 2012, after successfully completing a [course] in [Occupation 1] I graduated.
9. I joined [a named ship], on [date] December 2012, in a position [at] the port of [Country 2]. After completing my contract [in] January 2014 I went back to Ethiopia.
10. I did not have a job in Ethiopia until I gained employment on another ship. While in Ethiopia, I lived with family support and savings from my previous job.
11. On [date] March 2015 I joined a ship called [Ship 1], which was operated by [a company], at the port of [Country 4]. I worked on-board the ship in [a] position [until] I decided to leave the ship on [date] April 2015 at the Port of [City 1], Australia.
Why I left my country
12. [Ship 1] docked in [City 1] on[date] April 2015. I left the ship the next day, without my passport which was being held onto by the ship's captain. After approximately three weeks in the community I completed the forms to apply to the Department of Immigration and Border Protection for a protection visa.
13. On [date] April, while on the ship, I spoke with my mother on the phone. She told me that the police had come to my sister's house and detained her because they were looking for me. My mother told me that the police had come to arrest me. The next day, while the ship was docked, I left the ship and came ashore. I knew I could not safely return to Ethiopia.
14. As an Oromo, I have opposed and protested against the Ethiopian People Revolutionary Democratic Front ("EPRDF") since early 2005. I was [age] years old and old enough to know the difference between right and wrong and to be able to see the injustice imposed upon the Oromo people by the government. I started joining. with other Oromo students to protest the regime and enlightening my people to know their culture, identity and to fight for their freedom. At this time, my father was alive and I was following in his footsteps.
15. My father was educated, a political activist and a very influential Oromo elite in our region. In approximately 1992, he was among the leaders who laid the foundation of Oromo Liberation Front ("OLF") in the region of West Wallega of Oromia Region. One of my maternal uncles, [[joined] the OLF. As Oromo elites, both my father and uncle were the first people who introduced the OLF's political objectives to the Oromo people of our region. They would advocate the causes of freedom, liberty, equality and human rights for the Oromo nation.
16. However, when the OLF seceded from the charter in 1992, my uncle went with the OLF, choosing the OLF's way of armed struggle. But my father chose to stay with his family rather than become involved in armed struggle. Consequently, he remained a prime target of EPRDF military for elimination and persecution. This was because of his ethnicity and above all due to his political activism to enlighten his people about democratic principles and advocate for their equal rights and freedom.
17. On [date] June 2005 approximately six heavily armed EPRDF military raided our house at night. They were wearing EPRDF uniforms. More EPRDF military were outside. They assaulted and abused me, my father and my mother. First the EPRDF knocked on the door. When my father answered they entered pushing my father over. He was told to call the family into the living room. We were asked if anyone else was in the house; there was not. Then the beating began. While this was happening three other EPRDF military were searching the house. First my father was asked by two of the EPRDF about the location of OLF members but he remained silent. He was punched and kicked several times while sitting on the couch. One of the three men beating my father approached me and my mother. They kicked and punched my mother a number of times in the face and on her legs. I was punched in the face five or six times. The three other EPRDF military came into the living room and they spoke to each other.
18. They blind-folded my father and me, and put us in the back of a van and took us to some place I don't know. The drive lasted [number] minutes. Eventually we stopped and were unloaded. We were taken inside somewhere and the blindfolds were removed. My father and I were in a dark room where we couldn't even see each other. I stayed there overnight. I was blindfolded the next day and I was taken to another section of the same prison. I never saw my father again.
19. At the next section of the prison, there were around fifty prisoners in the one room. I was detained for around three weeks. Each day during these three weeks either one or two people would be taken out of the group for about one or two hours - sometimes they were brought back to the room where we were all held but sometimes they never came back. On the times I was taken I would be taken to a room with two police officers present, and I would be asked where in the house my father hides OLF documents. I was only [age] and did not know where my father kept his OLF documents. I would be slapped, punched and kicked. I would have my hands tied behind my back and be told to crawl and they would hit me with plastic sticks from behind. I had handguns put to my head. Over the course of three weeks this happened to me seven or eight times. They didn't come for me every day, but I would never know when they would come.
20. In the new facility I would sleep on a very thin mattress on the ground. There was a common toilet that we could only had access to two times each day. There was no place to wash. There was a meal once a day brought by visitors. My mother, relatives and friends brought food to me.
21. At my release I was given a two page document to sign but was not allowed to read it. I was told it was a confession. I was never charged. I was released in the afternoon around 3:30pm or 4pm and walked home. The walk was around [number] minutes from my house. My mother was home. She told me she had been at the police station and had signed a form promising to bring me to the police any time they required me.
22. One day before my release one of the officers at the jail told me that he would kill me just like my father. I found out from my mother that my father had been released five days before me. He was taken directly to hospital because he was close to death. He passed away on the same day he was released, on [date] June 2005.
23. My mother told me that my father had been beaten harshly and was bruised everywhere. I think she saw him in hospital before he died, then she took his body home with relatives and friends. I did not ask her more details about my father, because she did not like to talk about it.
24. Whilst I was in the jail I was accused of propagating OLF politics, having links with senior leaders of the OLF including my uncle, hiding political documents and inciting the Oromo students against the EPRDF as a link between my father and my uncle and the students. These accusations were not true at the time; I had attended some protests, but I was not an organiser. But after my release I did become more politically active. After I has been detained and tortured and my father had been killed, it motivated me to get more involved in protests. When my father was killed, I was angry, I wanted justice. Even though I knew there was risk, I was strongly motivated to act politically to change the situation.
25. The following year I started university at [University 1]. During my studies there, there were only a few Oromo students among the vast majority of Tigrinya students and other nationalities. We were subjected to marginalization, discrimination and segregation on the basis of our ethnicity to the extent that we were scared and felt insecure to show off our identity and culture or be seen at a place of congregation for cultural or religious affairs. In classrooms, the teachers would give bad grades to students with Oromo names.
26. We were also scared to speak our language in public, because the Tigrinya students would throw stones, swear at us and makes threats. We were also worried about attracting the attention of Tigrinya secret intelligence forces who were deployed in that campus to watch over any anti-government movement, particularly from Oromo students. It was common knowledge that there were intelligence agents operating on the university campus. I saw intelligence agents take students away during protests with their hands tied. The intelligence agents had guns.
27. For the sake of our safety and security, the Oromo students, who were in the minority at this university, would form together as a group to stand together and be safer in numbers and prevent racial discrimination and reclaim back our rights as well as to watch over our member students against any possible danger posed upon us. Because we weren't permitted to gather together in groups on the university campus, we would meet during our free time, such as when we went to church.
28. There were no formal leaders of the Oromo student groups. But we would talk together and make plans and then spread this to others by word of mouth. As a new student, I met senior students who had experience of planning protests. When these senior students graduated, I and others took over that role. We spoke out against injustice being done, by attending protests in defiance of the rule against gathering in groups. I held up banners and shouted slogans and I was distinguished as an OLF sympathizer, the principal enemy of the ruling party and Tigrinya people in general. When one student would be taken away we would make a demonstration in front of the administration office. There would be up to 100 Oromo students at a time protesting in front of the administration office. Consequently, on three occasions I was taken away by secret intelligence force.
29. The first time I was taken by the intelligence agents was in [2008]. I was living in a dormitory on campus. Two military men in uniforms came into the dorm and asked me to go with them. I was taken to the nearby military camp - I was not blindfolded and the presence of the camp was no secret. I was taken to a small room and I was harshly interrogated by 4 people. I was seated at a table across from two of the men. Two others were standing. They put a gun to my head and said to stop being involved in OLF's political mission. I was warned that if they caught me doing this then bad things would happen to me. They accused me of organising the Oromo students in group actions on campus. There were no formal groups and no formal leaders. We Oromo students just acted as a collective, but I was involved in initiating some of the plans.
30. The second time I was taken by intelligence agents was in 2010. What happened this time was similar to the first time. The officers were different. I was taken from my dorm like the first time and I was taken to the camp and I was asked if I had any link from outside the campus. They wanted to know whether the Oromo students were meeting with anyone from the OLF. I was threatened with a gun when I said I had no links, because they said they did not believe me. They held the gun to my head and asked who I was meeting from the OLF. They also threatened me by saying that I should stop gathering in groups, protesting against the Government and concentrate on studying, or I could be dismissed from the university. I don't know why they let me go. There is never any logical reason to why they take people or why they release people.
31. The third time I was taken by intelligence agents was in 2010 again, about two weeks after the second incident. I was going in between classes when I was approached by someone in normal clothes. He said he wanted to talk to me and then we left the campus. From the manner of his talking, he was like the intelligence officers I had dealt with before, so I assumed that's what he was. In front of the campus, outside [a venue] we sat and he asked me for the names of students who are OLF. He asked me if I was OLF. I told him I was not. He told me if I am not OLF then I must be a member of the Oromo Peoples Democratic Organisation. (The EPDRF is the umbrella organisation and the OPDO is party underneath this which rules over the Oromia region). I told him I was not a member but he answered that I should join and I said that I did not want to. I told him I didn't want to be involved in any political activities. He told me that I should be in the OPDO and report any names of OLF students. I was threatened that I should work with, rather than against the Government from that time on. He told me that if I didn't cooperate, that my future would not be good. He said that they would always watch me. He threatened that I may not graduate if I did the wrong things. I was scared when this happened and afterwards, knowing that they were watching me.
32. Following my [graduation], I went back to my home town where I came across the same situation where Oromo students were coming together and organising themselves to assist each other in academic teachings, to launch a campaign of eradicating illiteracy among our people, to increase the awareness of bad cultural practice and HIV/ AIDS and other important issues. So, I was requested by the student groups to teach during my vacation which I was quite pleased with and accepted to do so with compassion and devotion on a voluntary basis along with some others university and college students.
33. From September 2010 I worked as an [Occupation 2] in [Workplace 1] . I have good university results and this [workplace] had a shortage of [Occupation 2]. Also, the [workplace] is not in the Tigray region, so even though there is discrimination against Oromo people in getting jobs, it was not too difficult for me to secure this position.
34. There were other graduates of [University 1] who I knew. As we started working in [Workplace 1] we formed a strong bond together. We formed a group of young Oromo graduates and students. Our main purpose was to help Oromo students in their academic, social life and financial situations and to assist with any problems that Oromo students may face in their stay at the University. I worked as a link between the students and the teachers or academic staff. I was supporting first year [students], by giving them advice, arranging tutorial classes and introducing them to instructors from other faculties. The intention of the group was not to be political but to help Oromo students who had problems.
35. In early 2011 the faculty head and my department head heard about what I was doing in the University. My department head was from Tigray region (he was Tigre). He was very upset with what I was doing. He called me personally and asked me why I was helping to organise this group. He warned me to stop immediately because he said such action is OLF's mission.
36. From that time on I believe they put me under surveillance. A few days later I was going home at around [9pm]. I took a share taxi with around 12 people in it. I was on the back seat. I got off the taxi and so did two men. I walked for one minute then turned into a small street and the two men followed me and called me to stop. One of the men approached me, pulled out his gun and put it in to my head. They were not wearing uniforms, but because they had guns and because of the way they spoke, I assumed they were intelligence agents again. The man with his gun at my head told me that I should stop all that I am doing. He said he heard that I am undergoing OLF's secret mission. After the first guy finished speaking, then the second guy approached me with anger on his face and his gun in his hand. He put the gun into my mouth. He told me next time he see me doing the same thing he will pull the trigger. After this he put his hand in my pocket and took my mobile phone and both guys walked away. I didn't report this incident, because the police and other authorities are all part of the Government, so I feared they would do worse things to me.
37. I was very afraid but this couldn't stop me doing what I thought was right. I couldn't stop helping people in need.
38. As part of our support group, at the end of the academic year we supported Oromo graduating students who are from very poor families and who have no financial capability to cover their expenses. I was helping a female student from my birth place, [Town 1]. She lost her father and mother to the Tigrinya people Liberation Front (TPLF). She had nobody to support her. She depended on assistance from her friends and anybody who might help her. I was supporting her with many things such as buying her graduation gown, giving her money for photo copies and printing of her graduation paper. Because of this I was accused of helping a student from an OLF family. A meeting was held about me and the department head came to the decision to direct the University to cut two months' salary from me. After that I was totally isolated from the staff. I was totally excluded from some [benefits]. I was even denied to get my one year experience paper.
39. I made the decision to leave the area and try to relocate because it was really dangerous for my life. I was afraid that the people who were following me, who I believe were intelligence agents, would stop me again and that they would harm me or even kill me, as the man on the street with the gun had told me that next time he would pull the trigger and kill me. I started looking for other opportunities around my place of birth and thinking that would be more secure for me, because there are more Oromo people there who share my culture and language.
40. In September 2011 a friend's . father [recommended] me to the department of [Field 1]. After finishing my job interview, I joined [Workplace 2] . By this time, I had a year's experience working and with the recommendation it was not too hard for me to get employment. [Workplace 2] is located at [named city].
41. The Oromo students' movement at [Workplace 2] was very strong because most of the students and the staff members are from that area and are Oromo. I attended a welcome party for new Oromo students and teachers, where I met many members of the Oromo community at the University. I was invited to speak at the party and I spoke about what I experienced being Oromo. I spoke about how we should unite and fight for our freedom. I became involved in the different political activities which Oromo students and teachers did, such as attending meetings and planning student protests, although I did not attend protests at this [time].
42. We formed a strong group from that time on and I also became a target of OPDO cadres. They pointed me out as an OLF "Qeerroo" (which is the young generation of OLF). I was asked by the University's top management to become a member of the OPDO (Oromo People Democratic Organization). I was asked to identify and report students who participated in OLF activities and those who did not support the government. I was told several times, first by my Head of Department and even by the President of the University, that if I' refused to report OLF students, that would mean I am against the government and I would be regarded as acting for the OLF on a secret mission.
43. I realised that it was all the same story all over the country. My relocation had not taken me away from danger. To work in governmental institutes, such as universities, without being a member of the ruling party is impossible. Even in my home area, where Oromo people are in the majority, I was not safe.
44. I started imagining my future and I found it impossible to stay if I didn't embrace the politics of the Ethiopian government. So I decided to go far from their sight, I applied to [Organisation 1] for recruitment. I took the exam and passed successfully. After that I left [Workplace 2] and moved to [Workplace 3], [Organisation 1] starting from May 2012. But my contact with [Workplace 2] students and staff members continued strengthening from day to day.
45. I finished my [course and] joined a ship on [date] December 2012. I worked on board the ship for thirteen months, between [specified countries]. I returned to Ethiopia on [date] January 2014, when my contract expired.
46. When I arrived back in Ethiopia, I stayed at my home [but] I repeatedly went to [a town] to meet my fellow friends at [Workplace 2], to discuss issues such as our future steps to promote our freedom, to protest TPLF's so called Addis Ababa Oromiya - integrated Development Master Plan to expand Addis Ababa (the capital, located in Oromia State), which was intended to displace thousands of Oromo farmers from their own land and weaken Oromo identity.
47. Because I was involved in this planning, I knew there would be protests around the end of April 2014. In the middle of April, I moved from [my home area] to live with my sister in [Town 2], because I knew that I would be a target for arrest and blame when the protests happened.
48. The Government was investigating [Workplace 2]. Even before any protests happened, there would be informers and people would be arrested to try to disrupt the protests from occurring. During their investigation, talking to students and others, the Government security agents found out that I had strong relations with the students and I had been visiting them and discussing Oromiya's current situation.
49. On [date] April 2014, three members of the TPLF's security force, wearing uniforms, came to my sister's home where I was residing in [Town 2]. They knocked on the doors and when my sister's husband opened it they came inside and said they wanted to take me. They took me away, cuffing my hands behind my back. They took me to detention facilities in [Town 2]. The next day, I was brought to a small room where a man in police uniform and another in military uniform started asking questions about how often I went to [Workplace 2] to meet the students and for a list of students that I have relationships with.
50. They interrogated me to give the names of [Workplace 2] students who were responsible for protests that were going on in [a town] while I was detained. I was accused of organizing the students once again on the OLF political agenda, of being sent by the OLF and of being in contact with secret OLF members acting as go-betweens between me and my uncle in OLF. They hit me all over my body with black rubber sticks. When I did not give them any information, they told me to take of my clothes. Then they started to hit me very hard. They beat me until I was unconscious and I don't remember anything until I woke up back in my cell.
51. On [date] May 2014, I was released from prison. They said they would call me and take me back whenever they wanted, that I was required to attend a police station whenever they called me.
52. While I was detained, at the end of April 2014, the Oromo students of [Workplace 2] were involved in protests over a number of days, leading up to the main, deadly protests on [dates] April. Government security forces fired live ammunition at innocent Oromo protesters. Hundreds of Oromo students were hurt and hundreds were jailed. The protests spread from [Workplace 2] and also continued in [Ambo]. At the end of April and beginning of May 2014, what was later called the 'Ambo massacre' occurred. Huge protests with tens of thousands of people were held by Ambo University students, school students and Ambo residents. They were fired upon with live ammunition by security forces. If I had not been detained at the time, I would have been at these protests.
53. In May 2014, I went to [a] town to take an [exam]. I stayed at my home in [Town 1] for about three months, but I was again under absolute surveillance by EPRDF forces, especially whenever there were intelligence reports that OLF movements were heard and something happened against the interest of the government in our region. Every time I went out, there were people following me who weren't locals. It's very small town and in our area we know everyone, so we know when there are strangers. I mostly stayed at home, not going out, because of this.
54. So I decided to move again, leaving my home at [Town 1] to live with my sister who was in [Town 3], which is far from [Town 1]. While living with my sister, I tried to avoid trouble by spending a lot of time at home and not getting involved with - protests or Oromo gatherings. [Town 3] does not have much Oromo political activity.
55. I lived with my sister until I got a job on [Ship 1] on [date] March 2015. I joined the ship in [Country 4], [in] March 2015 and sailed to [City 1] port, Australia.
Decision to apply for protection in Australia
56. The ship arrived at [City 1] on [date] April 2015 and upon getting phone reception, I called my family in Ethiopia. My mother told me that the police came and took my sister away to prison from her home in [Town 3] because they could not find me. They kept my sister for about a week. She was pregnant at that time and they let her go. I think they let her go and did not hurt her because they wanted me, not her. While they kept her, they searched through her home and took all my things away, my papers and photo albums and everything. My mother visited my sister in prison. My mother told me that the police said they have enough evidence to prove that I was working closely with young Oromo students of [Workplace 2] and that I had a link with the OLF.
57. My sister told the police that I was outside Ethiopia, working on a ship. Since my sister was released, she has told me that the police have visited her a number of times to ask if I have returned to Ethiopia (I did not ask her how many times they have come). She continues to tell them that I am working on a ship.
58. Around the time my sister was taken, the police also took two of my best friends from [Town 1], [names deleted]. They participated in protests with me. My mother told me, when I spoke to her from the boat on [date] April, that they have disappeared and no one knows where they have been taken. No one has heard from them since they were taken.
59. My mother also told me that five of my friends from [Workplace 2], who also came from [Town 1], were also imprisoned. These are friends who [two named friends] and I would meet with [to] plan and undertake protests.
Fear of persecution
60. If I have to return to Ethiopia, I fear that I will be detained by Government authorities (intelligence or security forces), tortured and even killed.
61 . The harm that I have experienced is an ongoing continuation of what my family has suffered as Oromo people and identified OLF supporters. My father was killed by the Government and I and members of my family have been repeatedly detained and tortured. Therefore, I know that I and my family are of ongoing, long-term interest to the Government and that I am not safe if I return to Ethiopia.
62. I know the Government is interested in me and still looking for me, because they came to my sister's house, took my possessions and detained her to get information about me. They told my sister that they have enough information to arrest me and they have returned to her house more than once to ask if I am back in the country.
63. The authorities of Ethiopia cannot protect me, because it is the Government authorities who have harmed me and who are looking for me.
64. I have tried moving several times. There is nowhere in Ethiopia that I am safe. I am at risk of harm from the authorities anywhere in Ethiopia.

The applicant also submitted to the Department a character reference from [a] Secretary of [a named] Church, dated 9 December 2017.
On 12 April 2022, the applicant submitted to the Tribunal the following documents:
a)    submissions from his representative dated 12 April 2022, stating that the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution upon return to Ethiopia due to his ethnicity as an Oromo, his political opinion as evidenced by protests and political activism and imputed support of the Oromo Liberation Army and Oromo Liberation Front, and as a member of a social group at risk of being forcibly recruited into the Ethiopian army or other armed groups. The applicant would be unable to relocate due to widespread ethnic violence and armed conflict in Ethiopia;
b)    a statutory declaration from the applicant declared on 11 April 2022 describing his mother and sister fleeing [Town 1], the disappearance of his little brother after arriving in Addis Ababa in September 2020, the questioning of his sister [by] the authorities about the applicant’s whereabouts, the killing of an extended relative in November 2020, submissions addressing the credibility concerns of the delegate, the change of government and civil war in Ethiopia, and fears of serious harm at the hands of the Ethiopian government if he is forced to return;
c)    a support letter from [President] of [Organisation 1], dated 8 April 2022, describing the applicant’s participation in various events and rallies against the Ethiopian government;
d)    three photographs of a protest outside Parliament House Melbourne on 17 February 2020, showing people holding ‘Free Oromia’ placards. The applicant is clearly visible in the photographs;
e)    screenshots of social media posts under the name of [deleted], dated [July 2020] and [December 2021] supporting Oromos and criticising the Abiy government for making war, and expressing the applicant’s steadfast opposition to all war; that he will never support war and that he stands for peace;
f)     an undated letter of support from Dr [A], ‘an [occupation]’ and volunteer with [Organisation 1], describing the applicant’s engagement in cultural, political and social events with the Association.
Facts material to the applicant’s claims for protection
The applicant is a national and citizen of Ethiopia. The applicant’s ethnicity is Oromo, and he identifies as Oromo. According to the application for protection the applicant speaks, reads and writes Oromic, Amharic and English. He did not require the assistance of an interpreter at the hearing. The applicant has never been married.
The applicant was born into a Protestant Christian family in Oromo State, Ethiopia. According to his evidence he has always been a practising Christian.
The applicant lived with his family in [Town 1] in Oromo State, Ethiopia. There he completed his secondary education in June 2006. He was a better than average student. He was admitted to the Faculty of [Field 1] at [University 1], [in] Tigray State, Ethiopia where he successfully completed [a] degree in [Field 1] between September 2006 and June 2010.
Between September 2010 and August 2011, he [worked] at [Workplace 1]. Between September 2011 and May 2012, the applicant [worked] at [Workplace 2], Ethiopia in the role of [Occupation 2]. At this point he decided to undertake further studies.
Between May 2012 and November 2012, the applicant resided on campus at [a university], Ethiopia where he undertook [further studies] at [Institute 1]. [Between] December 2012 and January 2014, the applicant was at sea and during that period he completed the practical training component of the course.
In order to join his ship and complete the cadetship the applicant departed Ethiopia from Bole International Airport, Addis Ababa on [date] December 2012. He travelled to [Country 1] and then on to [Country 2] where he joined his ship on [date] December 2012. He was away from Ethiopia working as a [Occupation 3] until January 2014.
Of course, to depart and return to Ethiopia legally the applicant required a passport.
According to the applicant’s evidence [Institute 1] required the applicant to provide passport photographs and the necessary information to enable the Institute, acting on his behalf, to submit his application for a passport. According to the colour copy of the applicant’s Ethiopian passport in the Department file, he was properly issued a passport [in] 2012.
The Department file contains a colour copy of the applicant’s passport. In view of the applicant’s oral evidence that the captain of [Ship 1] took possession of and retained his passport and that he left the ship on[date] April 2015 in the port of [City 1], Australia, at hearing the Tribunal showed the applicant and his representative, the copy of the passport that is on the Department file.
The applicant said he did not provide the copy of the passport to the Department. He accepted the document is a genuine copy of his passport. According to his evidence, his passport was provided to the Department as part of the process of applying for his Australian [visa] and the document on file was a copy of that passport.
In January 2014 the applicant returned to Ethiopia by air. His port of entry was Bole International Airport, Addis Ababa. Between February 2014 and April 2014 the applicant resided with his mother, and a few of his siblings in the family home in [Town 1]. Between April 2014 and May 2014, the applicant resided with his married sister, her husband and child in [Town 2], in Oromo State. (The Tribunal will return to this period later in this decision.)
Between May and June 2014, the applicant returned to [the] University to continue the course [and] undertake his final [examinations]. The applicant successfully completed the course.
Between September 2014 and March 2015, the applicant resided in [Town 3], Oromia with his sister and her family. [Town 3] is close to Addis Ababa where the applicant’s employment agent’s office is located. According to the applicant’s evidence the applicant travelled to Addis Ababa from [Town 3] three or four times pressing his agent to find him employment on a ship. There is no evidence that indicates the applicant was unable to travel freely between [Town 3] and Addis Ababa.
On [date] March 2015 the applicant departed Ethiopia by air from Bole International Airport. He flew to [Country 3] and then on to [Country 4] where he joined the [Ship 1] as a member of the ship’s crew. The ship arrived in [City 1], Australia on [date] April 2015. As has already been noted, the applicant was the holder of a [temporary] visa that was issued on 18 March 2015. Shortly afterwards the applicant abandoned ship and applied for a protection visa on 13 May 2015 and, since that time the applicant has not departed Australia.
According to the applicant’s evidence which the Tribunal accepts, the applicant and his father were arrested at their home and taken into detention on [date] June 2005. The applicant’s father was released from detention on [date] June 2005 into the care of his wife, the applicant’s mother, and was immediately taken to hospital where he died that day from physical injuries he suffered in detention.
The applicant’s father and maternal uncle were of particular interest to the state security services because, in 1992 they were influential in establishing the Oromo Liberation Front (OLF) in the western region of Oromia, where they lived. The applicant’s uncle abandoned the charter of the OLF in 1992, left the family and became involved in armed conflict against the Federal Government. The Tribunal understands the applicant’s uncle joined the Oromo Liberation Army (OLA) which, according to the DFAT country information report was classified by the Federal Government as a terrorist organisation. According to the evidence the applicant’s father refused to engage in armed conflict, but instead he chose to remain with his family.
The applicant claims and the Tribunal accepts that as a [age]-year-old student in 2005 he was engaged with secondary school student groups who protested the government’s unfair treatment of Oromo people and the preferential treatment given to other ethnic groups.
According to the evidence the applicant was released a few days after his father died. According to the evidence at hearing the applicant was severely beaten by agents of the state on either the first or second day he was taken into detention with his father. He was beaten for the purpose of obtaining information about the identity of people who associated with his father, information about his uncle who had joined the OLA, and the location of OLF documents that may have been hidden in the family home. It was not alleged against the applicant that he was a member of the OLF or the OLA or any other anti-government organisation. He was not beaten again during that period of detention. After the beating the applicant claims, and the Tribunal accepts, he was held in overcrowded and squalid conditions until his release a few days after [date] June 2005.
According to the applicant’s evidence at hearing, in 2008, when he was [a] student at [University 1] he was taken from his dormitory by state security officials. He was detained on a nearby military base. He was threatened with harm and questioned about the OLF agenda in the University. He was not physically harmed during the interrogation. The applicant told them he knows nothing about the OLF and that he was not involved with the OLF. The applicant was held for about three hours and then released. The Tribunal accepts this evidence.
According to the applicant’s evidence at hearing, in 2010 shortly before he graduated in that year, there were fights between Oromo and Tigrayan students on campus due to interethnic rivalries and the Oromo claiming the Tigrayan students were receiving preferential treatment and other advantages from the university. The applicant was not involved in any of these fights. The applicant did protest with other students, mostly Oromos, demanding equality for all students and against the preferential treatment given to Tigrayan students.
In evidence the applicant claimed, and the Tribunal accepts, that about this time the applicant was taken from campus in a police van to a nearby place where he was detained. In detention he was questioned about his knowledge of the OLF and why he supported the OLF agenda on campus. The applicant maintained he was only seeking equal rights for everyone and that he was not motivated by political reasons. He also maintained he was not involved with the OLF. The applicant asserted in evidence that during the interrogation the interrogators held guns to his head, threatened to kill him and threatened he would not be permitted to graduate.
According to the evidence the applicant was released after two to three hours and he graduated shortly after that event.
Shortly before graduating in June 2010 the applicant asserts, he was approached by a person dressed in civilian clothes. The applicant confidently believes, according to his evidence, this person was a member of the security services. According to the applicant’s evidence at hearing which the Tribunal accepts, this person walked with the applicant and asked him if he was involved in the OLF or any other political group. The applicant said he was not a member of any political group. The applicant was encouraged to join the OPDF, a political organisation representing Oromo people, and which supported the Federal Government. The applicant was told his life would be complicated if he was not a member of a pro-government group, such as the OPDF, and he was threatened that he would not graduate if he did not join that group.
The applicant and this person parted company. The applicant did not agree to join the OPDF, and he graduated shortly after this event.
According to the applicant’s evidence at hearing and his written claims and evidence, in 2014 after he returned from sea and before he resumed his studies, [he] visited [a University]. He engaged with Oromo students there about the injustice of the Federal Government’s Master Plan to expand Addis Ababa onto surrounding land. That land was primarily owned by Oromo farmers.
The applicant contended that the plan was unfair to the Oromo farmers who occupied the land that, according to the plan, was to be compulsorily acquired by federal authorities for the purpose of expanding Addis Ababa. The applicant claims that he was involved in planning protests that were to occur in late April 2014. Intelligence officers were very active on campus, nevertheless, he was not arrested.
According to the applicant’s evidence he was not involved in the protests that occurred in April 2014. At hearing the applicant said he moved from his mother’s home in [Town 1] to his sister’s home in [Town 2] to be as far from the protests as possible.
In evidence the applicant claims security officials arrested him at his sister’s home on [date] April 2014 and released him on [date] May 2014. The applicant claims he was stripped naked and severely bashed by several police officers using rubber truncheons and he was also kicked. This assault occurred shortly after he was first taken into detention. Thereafter the applicant was held in overcrowded and squalid prison conditions until his release.
The applicant asserts that during the beating he was asked about his uncle and knowledge he had of members of the OLF. The applicant said he had no such knowledge of such matters and that his uncle had no contact with the family. At hearing the applicant said he was asked if he had any connection with the OLF. He said he had no connection with the OLF. The applicant recovered from the beating during the period he was in detention and before he was released.
According to the applicant’s evidence at hearing, a few days after he was released from detention, he returned to [Institute 1] where he prepared for his final examinations in June 2014. The applicant graduated and returned to [Town 2] where he lived, visiting his employment agent in Addis Ababa on approximately four occasions until he secured employment on [Ship 1], the ship that brought him to Australia.
According to the applicant’s evidence at hearing he has never belonged to the OLF, the OLA or any other political group in Ethiopia. He has never been motivated by political considerations and he was not and has never been an Oromo separatist. He supports a federal system of government in Ethiopia. He has always opposed armed conflict and war. Under no circumstances would he support war. He has only ever supported and agitated for equality for all people in Ethiopia irrespective of ethnicity.
Relevantly, the DFAT country information report sets out in detail the documentation that an applicant for a passport must provide when applying for a passport. Among other documents an applicant is required to provide a police clearance certificate. The Tribunal put this aspect of the DFAT report to the applicant and asked him to comment. He said he was unable to do so. He did not dispute the accuracy of the information and the Tribunal informed the applicant that it accepted the DFAT country information about the need to be granted a police clearance certificate as a precondition to being granted a passport.
The Tribunal accepts the applicant’s claim that he was detained by agents of the state in 2005, 2008 and 2010 and that a government agent attempted to convince him to join the pro-government OPDF shortly before he graduated. The Tribunal is of the view that it is unlikely there would have been any attempt to recruit him to join a government-aligned support group being the OPDF, if the authorities had classified him as a person who supported the OLF, the OLA or posed a risk to state security and stability.
Considering the fate of the applicant’s father, the DFAT country information about arbitrary detention, and widespread extrajudicial killings, enforced and involuntary disappearances, torture and deaths in custody of persons in Ethiopia suspected by the security services of belonging to anti-government organisations or posing a risk to state security prior to Mr Abiy becoming Prime Minister in 2018, the Tribunal is of the view that it is unlikely the applicant was classified as a threat to state security when he departed Ethiopia in March 2015.
On balance, the evidence demonstrates the applicant was taken into custody on a number of different occasions because he was viewed as a potential source of information about his father, uncle and about persons on university campus who may have posed a risk to state security because they were members of or otherwise affiliated with the OLF or the OLA, both of which were actively hostile to the government during the period the applicant was either a secondary school or tertiary student, and when he worked as a [Occupation 3].
Considering the applicant’s evidence and the DFAT country information referred to above at paragraph 57, the Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant would have been released from custody on any of the occasions he was detained if he was regarded by the authorities as being a member of the OLF, OLA or otherwise a threat to state security and stability.
Furthermore, the Tribunal is of the view the applicant would not have been granted a police clearance certificate and a passport and permitted to pass in and out of the main international airport in Addis Ababa, using his identity and a valid Ethiopian passport without hindrance if the authorities were searching for him, wanted to take him into custody, or regarded him as a risk to state security or an anti-government activist, or that he was affiliated with the OLA or the OLF.
In reaching the forgoing view, the Tribunal has, amongst other things, given regard to the DFAT country information report to the effect that the OLA was an armed group affiliated with the OLF. The OLF was only delisted as a banned terrorist organisation in 2018, well after the applicant arrived in Australia.
Furthermore, in reaching the view expressed in paragraphs 60 and 61, the Tribunal has given regard to the DFAT country information report about the security and identification checks carried out at airport and immigration stations in Ethiopia; that Ethiopian passports are machine readable; and, that the applicant departed and entered Ethiopia through Bole International Airport several times using his passport without hindrance.
On balance, the evidence is insufficient to establish to the satisfaction of the Tribunal, that when the applicant last departed Ethiopia by air on [date] March 2015, that he was a person of interest to the state security services and that he was regarded by them as posing any threat to the interests of the federal government.
In evidence the applicant suggested that he may have been permitted to enter and leave Ethiopia without hindrance because the state security services thought it was best if he was out of the country. This evidence impressed the Tribunal as being speculative, it was unsupported by concrete evidence and the Tribunal finds it unpersuasive.
According to the applicant’s evidence he had not planned on leaving his ship in Australia and claiming asylum in Australia. His intention was to depart the port of [City 1] with his ship. He changed his mind when, according to his evidence, his mother told him the security forces had attended his sister’s home in [Town 2] searching for him and detained his sister for a short time when they were unable to locate the applicant.
This evidence is unsupported by concrete evidence. Without explanation neither the applicant’s sister nor his mother provided evidence in support of this aspect of the applicant’s evidence.
The fact that the applicant planned to return to Ethiopia rather than seek asylum in 2015, indicates it is probable the authorities at that time were satisfied the applicant posed no risk to state security, and that at best his involvement in student protests was related to his belief in equality for all, rather than separatism, or support for armed conflict or terrorism. The evidence also weighs in favour of finding the applicant was of the opinion when he departed Ethiopia in 2015, he was not a person of concern to the state security apparatus.

On balance, the evidence is insufficient to establish to the satisfaction of the Tribunal that the applicant’s mother warned the applicant when he arrived in Australia that state security personal searched for him and, in the context of that search, his sister was detained for a time and then released.
Conduct in Australia
The applicant provided a supporting document from two Ethiopian community organisations and a written statement and evidence from Dr [A], an Australian citizen and [an occupation].
The supporting documents from the community organisations are dated, signed and they appear to be on the letterhead of the relevant organisation, being [Organisation 2], Australia, and [Organisation 1]. The Tribunal accepts that both documents are genuine documents.
[Organisation 2] claims to be involved in support and outreach work for Oromo people in Melbourne. It states it is a non-political organisation and that the applicant has been actively involved in this organisation. The author of the letter [proffers] several opinions about the role the applicant played in Oromo student politics in Ethiopia and that his political activities put him at risk of persecution if he returns to Ethiopia. The opinions expressed in the letter appear to be based on information the applicant provided to the author of the letter. The information relied on by the author does not advance the applicant’s evidence and the Tribunal gives the hearsay information and opinions expressed in the letter little weight. The author provided a link to a report that was apparently issued by [Organisation 2] about conditions in Ethiopia. The link was not a live link, nevertheless, it is not the task of the Tribunal to open and follow internet links the author of the letter has referred to in their letter and the Tribunal has not done so.
The second letter on the letterhead of [Organisation 1] is signed by the President of the [organisation]. The letter expresses several opinions about present conditions in Ethiopia for Oromo people. Insofar as those opinions differ from conditions and assessments in Ethiopia for Oromo people, and people in Ethiopia generally, the Tribunal prefers the DFAT country information to the information and opinions provided in the letter.
Relevantly the letter refers to the applicant participating in demonstrations in Melbourne and assisting in making or holding banners for use at protests and in the distribution of flyers. There is no evidence as to the actual contents of the banners or the flyers. The applicant did not assert in evidence that he held banners at any public protest or that he distributed flyers at any protest he attended.
The Tribunal accepts the applicant attended several peaceful rallies in Melbourne. According to the evidence of the applicant and the oral evidence of the witness Dr [A], considered together, the Tribunal finds the applicant participated in a peaceful rally in 2016, and peaceful rallies in Melbourne in February 2020, March and December 2021. The applicant provided photographs of himself participating in one rally in February 2020 outside Parliament House in Melbourne.
According to the applicant’s evidence the photographs were not posted on social media or otherwise published. As far as the applicant is aware, he is the only person in possession of the photographs and he made them available to the Tribunal.
The applicant also provided the Tribunal with screenshots of posts he made of his comments on and objections to the current government killing people. The applicant accused the government of being responsible for a mass killing and he posted photographs of corpses. The commentary accuses the current government of targeting Oromo and Tigrayan people and demands the government stop killing innocent people.
When read together the posts are consistent with the applicant’s opposition to all war. In the posts he specifically condemns the killing of Oromo people and Tigrayans, but the applicant does not endorse the current political objectives of the Tigrayans or the OLA, which according to country information is supporting Tigray armed forces in their rebellion against the Federal Government.
The evidence does not establish the applicant supports the Tigrayan war against the Federal Government or its allies such as the armed group calling itself the OLF. The applicant has made it clear in his posts and his evidence that he has always opposed war as a means of resolving political conflict; according to his evidence he does not support political separatism on ethnic lines, and he supports federalism.
Even if the government security agencies in Ethiopia became aware that the applicant made the posts on the internet which accused the government under the present Prime Minister of targeting Oromo and Tigrayan people in the present civil war, that is not the applicant supporting the war, the Tigrayan objectives, the involvement of Oromos in the conflict or opposing federalism.
The applicant’s participation in several political rallies, which according to the applicant’s evidence opposed the war in Ethiopia and ethnic discrimination generally, including by the government, the contents of his online posts including his unequivocal expression that he would not support war and that he opposes all war, weigh against finding the applicant faces a real chance of serious harm in Ethiopia for reasons of his political opinions.
In essence, the evidence before the Tribunal demonstrates it is unlikely the applicant would be viewed by the authorities as a person who would support Oromo or Tigrayan separatism, the OLF, the OLA, the Tigrayan armed forces and their allies in the rebellion against the Federal Government.
The Tribunal has considered the country information provided by the applicant in this review. Insofar as that information and the DFAT country information report differ factually, or in emphasis, the Tribunal prefers and places greater weight on the DFAT country information referred to in this decision.
Finding
The evidence and country information before the Tribunal considered as a whole, is insufficient to establish to the satisfaction of the Tribunal that the applicant would be subjected to a real chance of persecution for reasons of his ethnicity, or political opinion if he were removed to Ethiopia now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.
Membership of a particular social group
Ethiopia is in a state of civil war; the conflict has been widely reported in the media and it is now a matter of common knowledge. According to country information available to the Tribunal, including the information provided by the applicant’s representative to the Tribunal, a cease fire in Tigray is in place, nevertheless, there is no evidence or reliable country information available to the Tribunal that indicates that the differences between Tigrayans and their allies, and the Federal Government and its armed forces have been resolved, or that it can be tentatively concluded, that a negotiated political resolution is imminent.
The Tribunal has given regard to the Ethiopian Peace Observatory (EPO) report of 6 April 2022 covering the period 26 March to 1 April 2022. This report is available to the Tribunal as part of the country information that is contained in the library of country information available to the Tribunal about present circumstances in Ethiopia. It provides snapshots of events in Ethiopia.
The EPO is a project established by the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project (ACLED), which is a US-based non-profit organisation specialising in disaggregated data collection, analysis and crisis mapping. The report is useful in the present circumstances where there are many different armed ethnic factions engaged in armed conflict in Ethiopia, battling to establish advantage in the context of the overarching war between Tigray and the Federal Government, and at a time when it is widely accepted that circumstances in the country are volatile, dynamic and unsettled.
The weight to be given to any EPO report will vary from time to time and depend, in large measure, on the evidence in a given case and additional corroborative reporting on circumstances in Ethiopia at any given time.
Unsurprisingly, and in accordance with human experience, all sides of the war between Tigray and its allies including armed Oromo people claiming to be the OLA, the Federal Government and regional government forces, the Eritrean military forces that are allied to the Federal Government, and various ethnic militias, are disputing each other’s narrative of the facts, matters and circumstances in Ethiopia in which they have a vested interest.
EPO reports that armed clashes are occurring between armed groups who are seeking to establish and keep control over land claimed by Oromia people and the Oromo State. EPO further reports that divisions between Oromo and Amhara wings of the federal ruling party and active ethno-nationalist forces on both sides are a dangerous trend in the country at the present time. The Amhara and Oromo regions have drastically expanded their special forces. EPO opines direct fighting between the two regions would exceed the ability of the Federal Government to subdue. Informal militias from both Oromia and the Amhara regions are operating in states controlled by each other. Clashes have been sporadic.
A material circumstance that is relevant in this review is this: there is a reasonable body of country information that indicates that both the formal[6] and informal regional armed forces are expanding their ranks, and that, according to country information provided by the applicant from different sources, males are being forced into armed service.
[6] The Tribunal is here referring to regional armed forces, as distinct from the federal armed forces.
According to the Addis Standard newspaper (26 July 2021/29 September 2021) and the Washington Post (8 November 2021) reports that males and Oromos are being transported to temporary training camps and being sent to the battle front in the border area of Amhara and Tigray States and are being forced into military training camps and regional, ethnic-based armed militias.[7]
[7] Applicant’s written submissions at pages 15 and 16 and the sources quoted therein.
Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed called on all capable Ethiopians to join the federal army, special forces and regional militias and to join the armed conflict against rebel Tigrayans.[8] This information is confirmed by country information provided by DFAT to the Tribunal.
[8] Wall Street Journal 26 July 2021. The Tribunal notes that this ‘call to arms’ has been widely and reliably reported internationally.
The information available to the Tribunal does not demonstrate that Prime Minister Abiy has call upon Ethiopians to comply with conscription laws of general application in Ethiopia. He has told the residents of Addis Ababa and Ethiopia generally to take up arms and join the ranks of the federal army and informal armed militia groups. On a reasonable view of what the Prime Minister said he was endorsing the expansion of informal ethnic armed groups. This circumstance lends support for the country information referred to above about able-bodied men, including Oromo men being involuntarily forced into military service in armed conflict zones.
It was submitted on behalf of the applicant and that the evidence at hearing establishes the applicant is a fit and healthy and a relatively young Oromo male person ([age] years of age at the time of hearing) who would face a real chance of being forced into either the national army, the Oromo State special forces or an armed militia group upon his return to Ethiopia.
The Tribunal accepts the applicant is a fit and healthy relatively young Oromo male person and that he is a qualified [Occupation 2] who, through his [work] and [training] in [Occupation 1], had displayed an above average aptitude for and training in [Field 1]. It is reasonable to infer that in the circumstances of conflict and forced conscription, as distinct from conscription according to the laws of the country, his skills would be sought-after by the federal and state armed forces and armed militias in Ethiopia.
On balance, the evidence is sufficient to satisfy the Tribunal that the applicant is a member of a particular social group in Ethiopia comprising relatively young able bodied Oromo male persons who hold university level qualifications [and] for that reason face a real chance of being involuntarily forced into military service in armed conflict zones.
Finding
The evidence considered in combination with the country information available to the Tribunal is sufficient to establish to the satisfaction of the Tribunal that the applicant would face a real chance of being subjected to systematic and discriminatory serious harm, being the harm specified in s 5J(5)(a), (b) and (c) of the Act, due to him belonging to the particular social group characterised at paragraph 96 of this decision, if he is returned to Ethiopia now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.
Apart from the finding articulated at paragraph 97 of this decision, the evidence is insufficient to establish to the satisfaction of the Tribunal that the applicant would be subjected to a real chance of persecution on any of the other grounds in s 5J of the Act.
The evidence and country information considered together establishes to the satisfaction of the Tribunal that the governing authorities in Ethiopia could not be relied on to protect the applicant from being involuntarily pressed into military service because the Prime Minister and by necessary implication, the government of Ethiopia, exhorts all Ethiopians to take up arms and fight in either the federal army forces or armed militias.

100. It would be unreasonable to expect to applicant to modify his behaviour and consent to participating in armed conflict in Ethiopia. In this regard the Tribunal is satisfied the applicant opposes all forms of war and that he has always done so, notwithstanding the strident criticism of the current federal government in Ethiopia he posted in Australia on a social media platform.[9]
101. For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(a) of the Act.
[9] Tribunal file.

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.
DECISION

103. The Tribunal remits the matter for reconsideration with the direction that the applicant satisfies s 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act.
Peter Haag
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 of 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 of persecution would not exist if it were assumed that the fear of 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 1505

27 April 2022

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Natural Justice

Procedural Fairness

Standing

Jurisdiction