1825268 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for review of a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs' decision to refuse to grant protection visas to the applicants. The first applicant, an Ethiopian national of Tigrayan ethnicity, sought a protection visa, with her two children, the second and third applicants, named as secondary applicants. The applicants had previously provided a fraudulent birth certificate for the second applicant and a death certificate for the claimed mother, which they admitted was done to facilitate their migration to Australia.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the first applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race and membership of a particular social group, and whether she met the criteria for complementary protection. The Tribunal was also required to consider the impact of the provision of a bogus document on the application under section 91WA of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).

The Tribunal accepted that the first applicant was Tigrayan and had separated from her ex-de facto partner, relocating interstate with her three children. It was accepted that her youngest child has autism spectrum disorder, and that the first applicant suffers from major depression and anxiety. The Tribunal found that, as a single mother of three children, including one with significant disabilities, and given the prevalence of gender-based violence and insufficient support services in Ethiopia, the first applicant would face a real chance of serious harm, including threats to her life or liberty, sexual assault and harassment, and denial of her capacity to subsist. These risks were considered to be substantial and foreseeable consequences of her removal to Ethiopia. The Tribunal also found that the provision of the bogus document was explained by the circumstances of the applicants' desire to migrate, and that the first applicant had a reasonable explanation for its provision in the context of leaving a third country.

The Tribunal concluded that the first applicant met the criteria for being a refugee and therefore qualified for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the Act. The Tribunal was also satisfied that the second and third applicants, as her children, met the requirements under section 36(2)(c) of the Act. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the delegate's decision and remitted the matter to the delegate to grant the protection visas to the applicants.