1919488 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by a woman from Ethiopia. The applicant claimed she had a well-founded fear of persecution based on her Oromo ethnicity, her imputed political opinion due to her father's past involvement with the Oromo Liberation Front (OLF), and her status as a single woman. The delegate had refused the visa, finding that the applicant herself did not possess a profile of interest to Ethiopian authorities and that any past interest in her father had not extended to his family. The delegate was not satisfied that the applicant would be imputed with anti-government or pro-Oromo political opinion, nor that she faced a serious risk of harm as a single woman.

The court was required to determine whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for one of the five reasons specified in s 5J(1) of the Act, and if there was a real chance of persecution upon return to Ethiopia. Alternatively, the court had to consider whether there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal, the applicant faced a real risk of suffering significant harm as defined in s 36(2A) of the Act. The court also had to consider the mandatory considerations outlined in Ministerial Direction No. 84, including the Refugee Law Guidelines and Complementary Protection Guidelines.

The court noted that the "real risk" test for significant harm under s 36(2)(aa) of the Act imposed the same standard as the "real chance" test for a well-founded fear under the Refugee Convention. The applicant's submissions to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) reiterated her claims, arguing that her ability to travel to Ethiopia did not negate her well-founded fear, and that she held an imputed anti-government and pro-Oromo political profile due to her father's activities. The AAT had invited the applicant to a hearing, indicating it was unable to make a favourable decision based solely on the existing material. Pre-hearing submissions to the AAT expanded on the applicant's claims, including new claims related to being a single mother, a victim of modern slavery, and her religion.

The decision under review was remitted.