1911531 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for protection visas by a primary applicant and accompanying family members, who claimed they would face persecution if returned to Ethiopia. The applicant, of Oromo ethnicity, alleged involvement in discussions with farmers protesting government land acquisition and participation in online protests and a briefing by Ethiopian Satellite Television and Radio (ESAT), which he claimed was considered a terrorist media outlet by the Ethiopian government. He also feared being imputed as an anti-government activist and targeted due to his perceived wealth from studying overseas. The delegate had refused the visas, finding no real chance of serious harm due to imputed political opinion or ethnicity, nor a real risk of significant harm upon removal.

The court was required to determine whether the primary applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for one of the five prescribed reasons under the Act, and if there was a real chance of persecution upon return to Ethiopia. Additionally, the court had to consider whether, in the absence of refugee status, there were substantial grounds to believe that the applicant would suffer significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Ethiopia. The court was directed to consider relevant guidelines and country information assessments.

The court affirmed the delegate's decision, finding that the applicant had not established a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm. While acknowledging past unrest and mistreatment of ethnic Oromos, the court was not satisfied that the applicant's profile placed him at such risk. The applicant's claims regarding imputed political opinion, his association with ESAT, and fears of robbery and extortion were not considered sufficient to meet the threshold for protection obligations under the Act. The court applied the "real risk" test for significant harm, which it equated to the "real chance" test for well-founded fear.

The court affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse the protection visas.