1836316 (Refugee)

[2023] AATA 1869

1836316 (Refugee) [2023] AATA 1869 (4 May 2023)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1836316

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Ethiopia

MEMBER:Genevieve Hamilton

DATE:4 May 2023

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicants protection visas.

Statement made on 04 May 2023 at 1:43pm

CATCHWORDS

REFUGEE – Protection visa – Ethiopia – race – Amhara ethnicity – political opinion – being opposed to the ruling government – opposition to the government’s treatment of its citizens – subject of prolonged surveillance classifying him as an anti-government conspirator – diplomat – not an activist or has an anti-government profile – applicant does not have a well-founded fear of persecution – credibility concerns – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, ss 5H, 5J, 36, 65

Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2

CASES
Chan Yee Kin v MIEA (1989) 169 CLR 379
MIAC v SZQRB (2013) 210 FCR 505

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

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs to refuse to grant the applicants protection visas under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).

2. The applicants are husband and wife.  They applied for the visas on 30 July 2018. The delegate refused to grant the visas on 29 November 2018.  The first-named applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 10 August 2022 to give evidence and present arguments.

   CRITERIA FOR A PROTECTION VISA

3. Under section 65(1) of the Act a visa may be granted only if the decision maker is satisfied that the criteria for the visa prescribed in the Act are met.

4. The criteria for a protection visa are relevantly set out in s 36 of the Act.  An applicant must meet one of the alternative criteria in s 36(2). Generally speaking, they must either be a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion (s 36(2)(a)), or on ‘complementary protection’ grounds (s 36(2)(aa)), or be a member of the same family unit as such a person. 

5. Under s 36(3) Australia does not have protection obligations to an applicant who has not taken all possible steps to avail themselves of a right to enter and reside in a third country.

   Refugee

6. Refugee is defined in the Act.  A person is a refugee if they are outside the country of their nationality (of if they have no nationality, their country of former habitual residence) 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).  

7. 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.

8. The criterion in s 5J(1) contains a subjective requirement, that an applicant must in fact hold a fear of being persecuted, but also imposes an objective standard, that there be a real chance the person would be persecuted.  A 'real chance' is one that is not remote or insubstantial or a far-fetched possibility: Chan Yee Kin v MIEA (1989) 169 CLR 379.

9. The persecution must involve serious harm such as a threat to the person’s life or liberty or significant physical harassment or ill treatment, significant economic hardship that threatens their capacity to subsist, or denial of access to basic services or capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind, where the denial threatens their capacity to subsist (ss 5J(4) and (5)).

10. A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if effective protection measures are available to them in the receiving country (ss 5J(2) and 5LA).  A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecutionif the person could take reasonable steps to modify their behaviour to avoid persecution (s 5J(3), which also gives examples of types of modifications that are not required, such as concealing one’s religion, political opinion, race or sexual orientation). 

11. In determining whether the person has a well-founded fear of persecution, any conduct engaged in by the person in Australia is to be disregarded unless they satisfy the Minister that they engaged in the conduct for a reason other than to strengthen their claim to be a refugee (s 5J(6)).

    Complementary Protection

12. If a person is found not to meet the refugee criterion, they may still be a person to whom Australia has protection obligations if there are substantial grounds to believe that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that they will suffer significant harm.  S 36(2A) defines significant harm as arbitrary deprivation of life, carrying out of the death penalty, torture, or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.  “Real risk” has the same meaning as “real chance”: MIAC v SZQRB [2013] FCAFC 33.

13. Under s 36(2B) Australia does not have complementary protection obligations where:

    ·it would be reasonable for the applicant to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that they will suffer significant harm;

    ·the applicant could obtain protection from an authority of the country, such that there would not be a real risk that the non-citizen will suffer significant harm; or

    ·the risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and not by the applicant personally.

    Mandatory considerations

14. 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.

    Claims and evidence

15. In his protection visa application the first-named applicant (hereafter “the applicant”) said he was born in Ethiopia on [date], is an Ethiopian citizen and travels on an Ethiopian passport.  He was born in Bahirdar, Amhara region.  He married on [date] January 2014.  He included his wife in his application.  She was born in Ethiopia on [date] and also travels on an Ethiopian passport.  The applicant’s parents are Ethiopian citizens living in Ethiopia; he has [siblings], all living in Ethiopia, and a son born in Bahirdar in [year].  His ethnic group is Amhara, his wife (the included applicant) is Gurage.  The included applicant stated she had no claims of her own. 

16. From 1999 to 2009 the applicant was employed as an [Occupation 1] in [the government], Amhara Region.  He also studied [at] university [from] 2001 to 2006.  He then went to work for [another government agency].  From February 2014 until 30 June 2018 he was [an Occupation 2] at [a workplace].  The applicant submitted his most recent visa grant which indicates that his [visa] was extended from 15 April to 1 August 2018.

17. The applicant claimed that he was discriminated against by the Tigrayan majority by being posted to a [lesser role] even though he was a [higher position].  The start of his posting was also delayed by several months.  He had to take up the position for fear his rights as a professional would be denied even worse. 

18. The applicant stated that his family and relatives of the Welkayte Tekede ethnic minority, along with other Amharas, have been denied their right to live with other Ethiopians and subjected to gross violations of their human rights in violation of the Constitution. The applicant described various abuses which he claimed were committed against his family and fellow Amharas, which he states have not deterred their legitimate peaceful movement. His family were kept in a very cold dark room and subjected to torture and threats by agents of the government.

19. The applicant claimed that in 2005 he was captured by the military for participating in a protest about election fraud, he was detained naked in a dark filthy cell without food and water for days.  There are no reports of this because journalists in Ethiopia are afraid to write about human rights abuses.  The applicant claimed that people always approached him to know his political opinion.  He lived in extreme caution while witnessing displacement, torture and killing of his relatives and members of his ethnic community.  He continued to follow the news when he came to Australia.  Protest intensified against the Tigrayan government which had become a dictatorship.  The applicant stated that he did not seek help within Ethiopia as there is no form of protection for people who have been blacklisted as antigovernment activists.  He said his family were targeted for imprisonment and persecuted because of their ethnicity and religious standing. 

20. The applicant claimed that he tried to move to another part of Ethiopia to seek safety.  He claimed that his brother and other relatives had disappeared.  He said he has no contact with his relatives. 

21. He claimed that he had been the subject of prolonged surveillance classifying him as an anti-government conspirator.  He said that he and his wife were implicated in mobilising young Amharas to rise up for freedom.  He claimed his best colleagues had been displaced from their livelihood and fled to the USA and Canada.  He said he had no information about the whereabouts of his brother and had adverse information about his safety if he was to return to Ethiopia.  

22. The applicant claimed that a new [Manager] arrived in March 2016.  She is a Tigrayan and a former liberation fighter.  She marginalised every staff member based on their ethnicity and alienated them from each other and encouraged them to inform on each other.  Because of his Amhara ethnicity and his opposition to the government’s treatment of its citizens, he became the prime target.  He was identified, along with a few others, as being collaborators with protesters.  He endured daily abuse and vindictive behaviour.  He was excluded from staff meetings and his every move watched.  He was pressured to actively participate in political activities against his line of duty.  He and his family were forced to spy on the community and identify political opponents.  Eventually one family member moved out to live interstate.  With the recent disappearance of his brother he decided to seek asylum and remain in Australia. 

23. The applicant claimed that he had been the subject of a report implicating him as a person harmful to the government.  He feared torture and indefinite detention.  As a diplomat he would be required to surrender his  [passport] at the point of entry which would identify him to officials.  Residence registration requirements would also put him in danger if he tried to relocate. 

24. The applicant submitted documents supporting his claim to have worked for the regional government, [studied], and worked for [a named agency]. 

25. A document was submitted which, according to its translation, purports to be a report by the [Manager] to the EPRDF Foreign Affairs Zone Office, concerning the applicant.  He had been found spreading day and night through social media false propaganda attempting to undermine Ethiopia’s peace and democracy.  He had been found contacting and passing information to anti-government, anti-constitution activists.  He states opinions about uprisings in Amhara and Oromo regions that are critical of the government and the dominance of Tigrayans and lack of attention to the case of the Welkayte, among other matters.  He has been counselled about his ideology but has continued his activity.  The report is dated 4 February 2018 and contains the [Manager]’s stamp and what purports to be her signature.  The report “requests investigation on your side”. 

26. The applicant was interviewed by the Delegate on 10 October 2018.  On 19 October his then representative emailed what purported to be evidence of the applicant’s social media posting.On 26 October 2018 the applicant made a written post-interview submission.  In it he claimed he also had problems with the first [Manager] who pressed him to join the Party and he was made to work excessive hours and experienced confrontation over financial claims.  He claimed he was systematically abused and intimidated.  He stayed on because he feared returning to Ethiopia for leave or to seek a change of assignment.  He said that the second [Manager] was high up in the TPLF and related to the Chief of Security.  The applicant referred to a massacre in his home town.  On [date] July 2017 his family home was raided and his younger brother was taken for allegedly plotting a protest against the regime in Addis Ababa.  Other than a rumour of possible detention in the Tolay Military camp, the applicant has no information on his whereabouts or safety.  The applicant fears the [Manager] had a role in his disappearance.  The applicant described a process called 5 for 1 whereby Party Members in a work place lead a group of 5 in political discussion and reporting on opposition supporters.  The applicant said he never had a chance to speak out freely at these meetings and could not make a single comment about the treatment of Amhara.  He raised his concerns in social media and was heavily criticised for it.  The applicant claimed he was directed to respond to requests for information about the human rights situation in his country and refused to do so. (He submitted a copy of such an information request). It was after this that the report against him was written; he obtained this from a friend in the Ministry. 

27. In a submission to the Tribunal dated 27 July 2022, the applicant said that the armed recent conflict between the Ethiopian government and the TPLF, and resulting international pressure on the Government, had caused some diplomats to decide not to go back to Ethiopia.  He said that if he went back to Ethiopia his [passport] would be taken off him leaving him with no identification document.  He would be at risk of being abducted and taken into informal detention and tortured.  The security forces were randomly searching his family home.  They took his father into the local district office and interrogated and harassed him.  This aggravated his underlying health problems and his father died on [date] October 2020.  Meanwhile the government was also cracking down on Amhara activists.  Two of his father’s cousins had been arrested.  The applicant had been identified as a traitor and a defector. As a diplomat he would not dare request protection if he didn’t have a well founded fear of persecution.  The applicant went on to state reasons why he was cautions about expressing his political views when he was employed by the government.  He stated that members of his extended family and friends had been tortured and extrajudicially killed and fled Ethiopia because of they objected to the annexation of Welkayte Tekede into Tigray.  The applicant stated that the situation had deteriorated alarmingly in Ethiopia since he came to Australia, with large scale protests and the state of emergency, resulting in thousands of deaths and arrests.  This caused the [Manager] to direct everyone into political work. 

28. The applicant also reiterated his previous claims and referred to the ongoing absence of democratic elections in Ethiopia.  He stated that being Amhara is a death sentence in Ethiopia.  Attacks against Amhara communities by armed groups increased, as the Tigray conflict spread into Amhara and western Oromia.  He cited relevant reports and country information.   

29. The applicant submitted a document which, according to its translation, purports to be an order of a judge of the [Court] dated 16 May 2021, stating that the applicant is accused of being a deserter and a traitor and that the Attorney-General has tried on many occasion to serve him with Warrants, and that the judge has ordered Immigration to apprehend him and put him in police custody if he tries to enter the country.  As the case cannot be presented to court without the presence of the defendant, in accordance with cited clauses of the Civil Code, the Attorney-General reserves the right to bring him to justice if found, and the case is closed.  The name of the signing judge is not printed. 

    The hearing

30. The applicant said he worked [while] studying his degree.  He also worked at the Amhara government in a [specified position].  He was arrested at an election protest at [a location] in 2005, which supported the Amhara and Oromo candidates against the TPLF.  He was taken to an unknown detention centre and tortured.  His phone was taken.  His parents called the [venue] but they were told to keep quiet because they were under surveillance.  He said the media did not report this.  Other people were detained as well.  The Tribunal asked the applicant why he did not know where he was detained.  He proceeded to describe the approximate location.  He was held for 6 days.  The Tribunal asked the applicant how he managed to maintain his government employment.  The applicant said he was supported by the Amhara factions.  His involvement did not get out to the authorities.  He was a good worker and student. 

31. His family were opposed to the TPLF.  They fight against it and organise protests by working with the Amhara youth.  His brother was an undercover organiser with Ginbot 7.  On 27 July 2017 he was taken to a military training camp for 3 months.  A neighbour who was also detained saw him there and told the family later that was where he was held.  The Tribunal asked the applicant why he did not know where his brother was now.  The applicant said he had been trying to get this information from the government, he also contacted the Red Cross eventually, but he had not heard back.  The Tribunal observed that it had no evidence of his efforts to find out what had happened to his brother.  It also found the description of his brother’s role vague.  The applicant said he had to be careful about enquiring about his brother because he was afraid for his own life. 

32. The Tribunal asked how the applicant managed to get promoted into the [specified government agency] with an anti-TPLF background.  The applicant said it was not a promotion but a transfer at his level.  It was an advertised position.  He had no Party affiliation, he applied, took the exam and was interviewed.  The Tribunal observed that it would still have been a career advance to be appointed to [this agency].  He would have to have had a security clearance despite his claimed family background?  The applicant maintained that it was not a problem because he was not a member of a political party.  The Tribunal observed that further, getting an overseas posting would suggest that he was well-regarded by the government.  The applicant said he was a public servant and was cautious in his behaviour because of the job.  His job at the [agency] increased his understanding of the government’s abuses.  But it was a demotion.  He was [at a specified level] but after he applied for the advertised posting they told him it was moved down to [a lower level].  The Tribunal expressed the opinion that the level of the posting would have been known to applicants.  The applicant said the process was not clear, not all job levels were clear when advertised.  The Tribunal observed that this issue did not appear to be targeted at him directly.  The applicant said that TPLF members could get their jobs upgraded, and a 3 level reduction was unusual.  There were parallel rules for them.  The Tribunal observed that this did not constitute serious harm.

1. The Tribunal observed that the applicant being delayed in taking up the posting was not serious harm.  It observed that country information indicted that Amhara people in general, including the Welkayte, were not persecuted because of their ethnicity in areas where they lived in good number.  The applicant replied that there had been grave massacres of his people.  His uncle was a member of the Welkayte Committee, he was killed in 2016.

2. The applicant described the staffing structure of the [government agency].  He said the [Details redacted].  He had some problems with the first [Manager] he worked under.  He was overworked, not allowed to take leave, and pressed to make dodgy [records].  He was excluded from meetings.  There was no avenue of complaint.  The Tribunal observed that these experiences did not appear to amount to serious harm. 

3. In March 2016 the new [Manager] arrived.  She hates Amhara especially the Welkayte.  She wasn’t comfortable with the applicant (he was the only Amhara in the office).  When he went into her office daily to get her signatures he would hand the folder to her secretary and she would not come and talk to him.  He was not allowed in the morning meetings.  When there were protests at home she told him and his family he had to help identify agitators among the Amhara diaspora.  The Tribunal expressed reservations about this; the applicant was not trusted and there were other officials doing the diaspora work.  The applicant said it might have been to challenge his loyalties.  He tried to gather some vague information.  One day she grabbed his phone to see what he was reading on [social media].  The Tribunal questioned whether these matters amounted to serious harm.  The applicant said she reported everything back to the head office.  In August 2017 there was a massacre in his home town.  He went to her office, the Minister Counsellor was there, she was furious and told him that he was an anti government conspirator and that he was being tested, and must “bring the information”. 

4. The applicant said he stopped working at the [agency] on [date] July 2018.  The Tribunal observed that the applicant’s posting had been extended.  If the [Manager] did not like him she could have sent him home.  The applicant said he had to finish off all his work for handover, and the job was too big.  She did try to get someone. 

5. The Tribunal asked the applicant what was meant in the [Manager]’s letter by his social media activities.  The applicant said he used to share things with friends, but not very much.  She exaggerated it.  But he certainly does not support the government.  The Tribunal considered that the tone of the letter appeared to be designed to support his claims.  The applicant claimed that this was the standard political writing style in Ethiopia. 

6. The Tribunal considered that the applicant would not be writing responses on human rights matters because he was not political staff.  The applicant said others were travelling at the time.  He also travelled, making bonds sales to the diaspora. 

7. With regard to the court order, the Tribunal observed that the applicant had completed his posting and was not a deserter or a traitor.  The applicant said they waited until the auditing of his work was done before instituting the processes against him.  He has to return to Ethiopia and surrender his [passport].  His father was so traumatised he died (in 2020).  His mother is being questioned about where he is.  The Tribunal observed that it was not necessary for the authorities to ask these questions as his location would be known.  The applicant said they tell her to tell him to go back or they (his family members) will be taken and tortured.  The Tribunal asked whether this had in fact happened.  The applicant said no but they are closely watched, including because she still asks about his brother. 

8. The Tribunal asked the applicant where the original charge was.  He said he did not know but he had been charged with defection.  After he came to Australia everything in Ethiopia deteriorated and there were mass killings and abductions, indefinite detention was common, journalists were gaoled.  He would arrive at the airport with no clearances, no work, no livelihood.  The Tribunal asked the applicant if he had been contacted by the Ministry since he stopped work.  He said he did not.  The Tribunal asked the applicant if he had been formally dismissed from his employment.  The applicant said this would have had happened automatically.  The Tribunal asked what plan had been made for his work back in Addis in the lead up to the end of the posting.  The applicant said there was no plan but he had assumed he would be going back to the [old] section of [government agency]. 

9. The Tribunal put to the applicant that the country information indicated that failed asylum seekers were not, per se, at risk of serious harm in Ethiopia.   The applicant said he would not risk applying for protection if he was not in serious danger. 

   Country information

10. The DFAT Country information report on Ethiopia, published in August 2020, contains the following information:

    The Government of Tigray is engaged in a number of border disputes, predominantly with the Government of Amhara state.  Ethnic Tigrayans have clashed with Ethnic Amharans in the Welkait and Raya woredas, with both sides claiming foul play by the other. Conflict has persisted in rural areas, and Tigrayans have also been targets for violence in eastern Amhara State (approximately 37,000 Tigrayans were living in Amhara State at the time of the 2007 census).

    …

    Amharas

    The Amhara people are the second-largest ethnic group in Ethiopia, at 26.9 per cent of the population. While they reside predominantly in Amhara State, ethnic Amharas are present throughout Ethiopia, with significant populations in Oromia and SNNP states (2 million and 420,000, respectively). Nearly 1.3 million Amharas were residing in Addis Ababa at the time of the 2007 census, making them the single-largest ethnic group in the capital. Most Amharas are Orthodox Christian. Their language, Amharic, is the official national language. The Amhara governed Ethiopia for the longest period before the EPRDF came to power in 1991, including during military rule and the era of the monarchy. Like the Oromo, the Amhara felt marginalised by the Tigray under the EPRDF, and protests in Amhara State helped catalyse the resignation of Prime Minister Desalegn in February 2018. Similarly to the Oromo, Amhara nationalism has increased with Ethiopia’s democratic opening and lifting of restrictions on freedom of expression.

    The Amhara are represented politically at the federal level, including in the current federal government and the senior ranks of the public service and the military (until recently Amharic was the sole working language of the federal bureaucracy). Roughly a quarter of lower house members in Federal Parliament are elected from Amhara State. The current federal president is an ethnic Amhara, and the Amhara were second only to the Oromo in their representation in the Council of Ministers at the time of publication. Political parties representing Amhara interests are active. DFAT assesses the arrest of Amharas during the 2014-18 anti-government protests was not ethnically motivated, but reflected the then-federal government’s sensitivity to political opposition. DFAT assesses Amharas face a low risk of official discrimination based on their ethnicity, including with respect to employment in the public sector. The Amhara have been the subject of ethnic-based attacks in states where they do not constitute a majority, particularly in Benishangul-Gumuz. DFAT assesses that, like most other groups, Amharas face a moderate risk of violence in areas or states where they are a minority.

    …

    DFAT assesses that returnees, including failed asylum seekers and/or government critics and opponents, face a low risk of monitoring, harassment, detention and official discrimination. While the authorities have significant intelligence‑gathering capabilities and are likely to be aware of major anti-government protest activity undertaken in other countries and online, DFAT assesses that people who openly criticise the ruling party while they are outside of Ethiopia face a low risk of official harm on their return to Ethiopia.

    FINDINGS AND REASONS

11. The Tribunal finds that the applicant’s country of nationality is Ethiopia.  It accepts that he is of the Amhara ethnic group and also has Welkait-Tegede ethnic heritage. 

12. The applicant claimed to fear persecution and significant harm because of his political opinion, being opposed to the ruling government, and because of his ethnicity.  Ethnicity can be characterised as a particular social group.  The applicant’s claims therefore may first be considered under the refugee criterion. 

13. Ethiopia does suffer from chronic ethnic conflict, especially along its regional borders.  But the country information indicates that Amharas are only at risk of violence in areas where they are minority, including if they are Welkait or Tegede Amhara.  The applicant was born in the Amhara regional capital, and lived and worked there and in Addis Ababa, where Amhara have a strong presence in parliament and in the government.  He does not face a real chance of serious harm on the basis of his ethnicity. 

14. The applicant claimed that his relatives were involved in resistance to the take over of the Welkait and Tegede areas of Amhara by the Tigrayan region which occurred in the 1990s. and that some of them were consequently persecuted and even killed.  However, the claimed influential roles of his family in this dispute were not substantiated.  The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant’s family were tortured or imprisoned because of their ethnicity or religious standing or that any of his relatives have disappeared.

15. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the Amhara-Tigray conflict has resulted in the applicant being imputed with any opinion against the Ethiopian regime or against Tigrayans in general.  Nor does this conflict present him with any risk of being seriously harmed in the future. 

16. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant was involved in student protests at Mekelle, and therefore does not accept that he was detained.  The 2005 post-election protests and related crackdown were widely reported and there are no reports that they occurred in Mekelle.  Ethiopia: Crackdown Spreads Beyond Capital | Human Rights Watch (hrw.org).  Further, it is unlikely the applicant would have been appointed to a government position first in Amhara and then in Addis Ababa with that background. 

17. The applicant claimed to have been the victim of constant harassment and surveillance because of his political views, culminating in a report being made against him and a court order for his arrest.  However, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is politically opposed to the Ethiopian regime.  While he expressed criticisms in his submissions in support of his claims, he has not done anything to oppose the regime while he was employed by it, or since.  The only evidence of his opinion is that he has apparently shared an article on [social media] concerning the identity and geographic restoration of Welkait-Tegede in October 2018, and one on the dominance of Tigray in the polity.  He gave inconsistent information about whether he expressed his views to other government officials, but the preponderance of his evidence was that he SUPPRESSED his pro-Amhara opinions because this was required as part of his job as a government official.  This is sensible, but it does not amount to serious harm. 

18. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant’s brother was involved with Ginbot 7, as there is insufficient detail about his role and activities.  In relation to his brother the applicant was unable to explain why hardly any inquiries had been made as to his whereabouts.  The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant’s brother has disappeared. 

19. The Tribunal does is not satisfied that the classification of the position that the applicant was posted to [was] motivated by his ethnicity or political opinion.  Firstly there is no persuasive evidence that its level was actually changed, and even if it was there are plausible operational reasons why [agency] staff might be restructured.  Similarly the Tribunal is not satisfied that the delay in the applicant taking up his posting was discriminatory in any way.  That he was able to work at a relatively senior level in the [agency] and get an overseas posting indicates that he was fully accepted by the regime.  He would not have got these roles if he was seen as a political opponent.  Moreover, the extension of his diplomatic visa means the applicant’s posting was extended from April to August 2018, which is most unlikely if his [Manager] had decided he was a security risk. 

20. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant was treated unfavourably by his [Manager], and that this was partly motivated by his Amhara ethnicity.  But he was not seriously harmed.  Working long hours and arguing about [work] is not serious harm.  The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant was made to reply to enquiries about human rights issues or, if he was, that there was anything oppressive in this.

21. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant felt under pressure to engage with the diaspora and find out information about them and encourage them to donate funds to the regime.  This is unpleasant, and symptomatic of an autocratic regime, but the Tribunal does not accept that this amounted to serious harm as far as the applicant goes.  The Tribunal accepts that the applicant’s sister in law left the family home because she objected to this.  Again, this does not constitute serious harm to the applicant. 

22. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the report purportedly written about the applicant by his [Manager] is genuine.  It does not reflect the facts of what he was doing at all, rather it echoes his own embellished claims.  He stayed on at the post after it was purportedly sent to the capital.  He was not recalled.  That the applicant’s posting was extended from April to August 2018 indicates he was at least tolerated.  The Tribunal is satisfied that either someone else has written the letter on her letterhead and forged her signature, or she has colluded in his claims.  It is not satisfied that the report was ever sent to the EPRDF. 

23. The applicant would need to obtain a civilian passport to return to Ethiopia.  However this does not constitute persecution and the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant will have any difficulty in obtaining a passport.

24. The applicant said that colleagues had left their posts in other countries due to the political situation in Ethiopia.  The Tribunal has no information supporting this claim or that it is due to fear of persecution. 

25. The Tribunal does not accept that the Court order is genuine.  It purports to be an element in a wider legal process against the applicant, including criminal charges, but there is no other paperwork.  The Court Order does not refer to any specific provision of the law which is breached by being a “deserter and traitor”.  Moreover it refers to elements of the Civil Code which would not appear to be apt. 

26. The applicant implied that he was a diplomatic defector.  However there is no evidence he has resigned or even been dismissed from his [job].  If he had been there would be some correspondence.  He just hasn’t gone home.  If the applicant had defected he would have had some contact requiring him to explain his behaviour. 

27. Having considered the evidence as a whole, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant is an activist or has an anti-government profile.  He has not (nor has his wife) mobilised Amharas or people from Welkait-Tegede against the government.  He was never blacklisted as an anti-government agitator.  He is not a person of political influence.  The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant’s family home is being randomly searched or that his father was interrogated and harassed or his mother questioned about his whereabouts. 

28. Country information indicates that failed asylum seekers face a low risk of any kind of official harm on return to Ethiopia, and there is no information before the Tribunal suggesting the risk is any higher for asylum seekers who have worked as government officials. 

29. In summary, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicants face a real chance of serious harm for reasons of race or political opinion, or membership of a particular social group, or for any of the reasons specified in s 5J(1).  They therefore do not have a well-founded fear of persecution as required by s.5J(1).  The Tribunal finds that the applicants are not refugees as defined in s.5H(1). 

30. Having concluded that the refugee criterion is not met, the Tribunal considered the application of the complementary protection provisions.  As the Tribunal has already found that the applicants do not have a real chance of serious harm in relation to the claims discussed above, similarly it finds that there is not a real risk of significant harm to them, as defined, in relation to those claims.  No other claims were made, other than that the applicant would have to secure a new job on return to Ethiopia.  This does not amount to significant harm as defined in the Act.

    CONCLUSION

31. For the reasons given above the Tribunal is not satisfied that either of the applicants is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(a) or (aa). 

32. The applicants are not members of the same family unit as a person has been granted a protection visa on the basis of being owed protection. 

33. Accordingly, the applicants do not satisfy the criterion in s 36(2).

    DECISION

34. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicants protection visas.

    Genevieve Hamilton
    Member