1836316 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for protection visas by an Ethiopian national and his wife. The applicant, an ethnic Amhara, claimed he feared persecution in Ethiopia due to his ethnicity and his opposition to the ruling government. He alleged he had been subjected to discrimination in his government employment, witnessed abuses against his family and ethnic community, and had been detained for participating in a protest. He also claimed to be under surveillance and classified as an anti-government conspirator. The applicant's wife, of Gurage ethnicity, had no independent claims.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason, namely race or political opinion, or whether he was owed complementary protection. The Tribunal was required to consider the applicant's claims in light of relevant country information and the provisions of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), including the circumstances under which Australia does not have complementary protection obligations. These circumstances include the reasonableness of relocation within the country, the availability of protection from domestic authorities, or if the risk faced is general to the population rather than personal.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not establish a well-founded fear of persecution. While acknowledging the applicant's ethnicity and the general human rights concerns in Ethiopia, the Tribunal identified credibility concerns with the applicant's account. Crucially, the Tribunal determined that the applicant's alleged experiences, including surveillance and classification as an anti-government conspirator, did not amount to persecution for a Convention reason. Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not demonstrated that he could not relocate to a safe area within Ethiopia or obtain protection from domestic authorities, nor that the risks he claimed to face were not general to the population.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicants protection visas, finding that they did not satisfy the criterion in section 36(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).