1921601 (Refugee)

[2023] AATA 4504

1921601 (Refugee) [2023] AATA 4504 (25 October 2023)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1921601

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Ethiopia

MEMBER:Bridget Cullen

DATE:25 October 2023

PLACE OF DECISION:  Brisbane

DECISION:The Tribunal remits the matter for reconsideration with the direction that the Applicant satisfies s 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act.

Statement made on 25 October 2023 at 3.22pm

CATCHWORDS

REFUGEE – protection visa – Ethiopia – political opinion – relatives’ political opposition activities – some relatives killed, imprisoned or missing, and applicant imprisoned, questioned, tortured and raped – membership of particular social group – Amhara woman – significant questions of credibility – previous relationship contrived and incorrect and inconsistent information given – inconsistent evidence about father’s claimed disappearance – vague claims of own political activity – Australian citizen husband and possible citizen newborn child – limited support network – country information – human rights violations, active militia activity in region and widespread violence against women – no effective state protection and insufficient resources for services – real chance of serious harm – decision under review remitted

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5H(1)(a), 5J(1), 36(2)(a), 65

Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2

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 dependants.

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 on 31 July 2019 to refuse to grant the visa applicant a Protection (Class XA) Subclass 866 visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).

2. The Applicant applied for the visa on 12 March 2018. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that she was not a person to whom Australia owes protection obligations.

3. The Applicant made an online application for a review of the refusal with the Tribunal on 6 August 2019. The Tribunal notes that the Applicant used her alias name ‘[Alias/the applicant]’ (as recorded on the Department Protection Visa Decision Record) on the online application. The Applicant’s birth name is ‘[Birth name]’. The Tribunal accepts the Applicant to be one and the same person.

4. The Tribunal originally scheduled the hearing in this matter for 27 July 2023. On this date, the Tribunal determined that an adjournment was appropriate, in order for the Applicant to be able to organise the voluminous country information she sought to provide in a manner that was compliant with the Tribunal’s Migration and Refugee Practice Direction.

5. Specifically, Paragraph 11.7 of the Practice Direction asks that Applicants explain in their written submissions which parts of the country information they rely on and why that information is relevant to the review. Applicants should not just give the Tribunal a list of documents or links (or a data stick in this case). Practically, this makes it difficult for the Tribunal to understand what the Applicant considers to be important.

6. The Applicant then again appeared before the Tribunal on 17 August 2023, at the rescheduled hearing, to give evidence and present arguments.

7. The Applicant appeared at the hearing with [Mr A], who she says is her husband and also the father of her [baby]. Whilst the Tribunal is confident of [Mr A]’s identity, on the basis that it has obtained ICSE records that contain his photograph, which match his appearance at hearing as well as the identity information provided to the Tribunal at the time of hearing, the Tribunal has not been provided with either a marriage certificate or birth certificate.

8. The Tribunal does not have any reason to doubt that the Applicant and [Mr A] are in a marital relationship; nor does the Tribunal have any reason to doubt that the Applicant’s [child] is, in fact, her and [Mr A]’s [child]. There was obvious affection between the Applicant, [Mr A], and the [child] that attended the Tribunal on both hearing dates.

9. The Tribunal simply has not been provided with identity documentation facilitating the Tribunal’s ability to make these conclusions. The Tribunal notes that ICSE records reflect that [Mr A] became an Australian citizen as at [November] 2018.

10. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from [Father B], of [named Church].

11. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Amharic and English languages.

12. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration.

    CRITERIA FOR A PROTECTION VISA

13. The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s 36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations). An applicant for the visa must meet one of the alternative criteria in s 36(2)(a), (aa), (b), or (c). That is, he or she is either a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion, or on other ‘complementary protection’ grounds, or is a member of the same family unit as such a person and that person holds a protection visa of the same class.

14. Section 36(2)(a) provides that a criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee.

15. A person is a refugee if, in the case of a person who has a nationality, they are outside the country of their nationality 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)(a). In the case of a person without a nationality, they are a refugee if they are outside the country of their former habitual residence and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to return to that country: s 5H(1)(b).

16. 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. Additional requirements relating to a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ and circumstances in which a  person will be taken not to have such a fear are set out in ss 5J(2)-(6) and ss 5K-LA, which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.

17. If a person is found not to meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), he or she may nevertheless meet the criteria for the grant of the visa if he or she is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that he or she will suffer significant harm: s 36(2)(aa) (‘the complementary protection criterion’). The meaning of significant harm, and the circumstances in which a person will be taken not to face a real risk of significant harm, are set out in ss 36(2A) and (2B), which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.

    Mandatory considerations

18. 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.

    CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

19. The issue in this case is whether the Applicant is a person to whom Australia has protection obligations to, either as a refugee or under complementary protection grounds. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration.

20. The Applicant’s claims for protection can be summarised as follows:

    ·Her parents were born in [District], Gondar;

    ·Her father, paternal uncle and paternal grandfather were involved in political activities with the Ethiopian People Revolutionary Party (EPRP) which was an opposition group against the ruling military government;

    ·Her grandmother and her grandmother’s sister were murdered during the time of “the Red Terror” when people suspected of being sympathetic to the EPRP were targeted;

    ·Her parents fled Ethiopia in 1985 and she was born in a refugee camp at [Location] in Eastern Sudan on [Date];

    ·Her mother died in childbirth and around 1998, she and her father were repatriated back to Ethiopia after the Tigre People Liberation Front (TPLF) replaced the Mengistu regime;

    ·Her father became an active member of the All Amhara People Organisation (AAPO) which advocated for freedom and equality of Amhara people;

    ·Her father used to make comments against the TPLF and their ethnic policy. He was repeatedly abducted and terrorised by the TPLF regime;

    ·In March 2006, his paternal grandfather and father’s brother were killed by the TPLF in the West Gondar Zone. Her father was also imprisoned but was released in August 2006;

    ·[In] September 2006, [the] police came to their house and took the Applicant’s father away. She has never seen nor heard from him again. She was [Age] years old at the time;

    ·The Applicant sometimes used to help her father with AAPO activities;

    ·She was arrested after her father disappeared [in] November 2006. She was questioned about where her father had hidden his gun and pistol. She was imprisoned for 45 days and every three days was tortured in different ways;

    ·When she was released, it was on the condition that she did not tell anyone how she was treated;

    ·[In] January 2007, when she arrived home she noticed three police standing close to her house. She recognised one of them from when she was imprisoned and they questioned her about the whereabouts of her father;

    ·The police circled and grabbed her and instructed her to open the house. They proceeded to search the house and ask the applicant which of her father’s friends had been to visit;

    ·The police officer started to hit her and this caused her body to shake uncontrollably, become incontinent and faint. She was carried into her bedroom and had something sprayed into her face which made it difficult for her to breathe or open her eyes;

    ·She remembers waking up later in the middle of the night and feeling much pain. She found clotted blood on her bed sheets, mattress, pillow and floor and realised that she had been raped and lost her virginity;

    ·She reported the attack to the police station but the officers just laughed at her;

    ·She became a target for harassment and attacks by men of the Tigrayan ethnic group due to her father’s profile; and

    ·The Tigrayan groups were systematically raping women from her ethnic community as a weapon of terror. 

21. The Tribunal has before it the following information from the Applicant’s Department file:

    ·Training Completion Certificate from [Institution];

    ·Ministry of Education General Secondary Education Certificate for the Applicant;

    ·Copy of the Applicant’s passport, issued by the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia;

    ·Applicant’s statutory declaration, dated 8 March 2018;

    ·Submission from the Applicant’s registered migration agent, undated and unsigned;

    ·Support letter from [name deleted] dated 29 June 2018, signed;

    ·Support letter from [name deleted] dated 21 June 2018, signed;

    ·Support letter from [name deleted], undated, signed;

    ·Displacement Tracking Matrix Gambella Region, Ethiopia, by the IOM, 26 March 2019;

    ·Displacement Tracking Matrix Oromia Region, Ethiopia, by the IOM, 26 March 2019;

    ·Displacement Tracking Matrix Ethiopia, by the IOM, March 2019;

    ·Displacement Tracking Matrix Afar Region, Ethiopia, by the IOM, 26 March 2019;

    ·Global Report on Internal Displacement 2019, by the Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre, 10 May 2019;

    ·Democracy Under Threat in Ethiopia, by Tewodrose G Tirfe, 9 March 2017;

    ·ESAT DC Daily News video, 13 November 2017;

    ·Amhara Protests in Gonder, Northern Ethiopia video, undated;

    ·Ethiopia: Police among victims of Gondar attack video, undated;

    ·Hiber Radio Daily Ethiopian News video, 25 September 2017; and

    ·Post-interview submission including a support letter from [Organisation] and an assortment of website links.

22. The Applicant submitted the following information to the Tribunal:

    ·Statutory declaration of the Applicant, dated 8 August 2023, signed;

    ·Statutory declaration of the Applicant, dated 2 September 2020, signed;

    ·Copy of the original Protection Visa Submission to the Department from the Applicant’s registered Migration Agent Darryl Sean McNeill;

    ·An email from the Applicant dated 18 July 2023, containing an assortment of website links; and

    ·Support letter from [Fr B], priest at [named Church] dated 8 August 2023.

    DECISION

    COUNTRY INFORMATION

23. In accordance with Ministerial Direction No. 84 of 24 June 2019 made under s 499 of the Act, the Tribunal has considered the country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), in order to assess the Applicant’s claims. The Tribunal has referred to the latest DFAT report on Ethiopia dated 12 August 2020.

    Amharas

    3.9 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.
    3.10 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.

    Women

    3.57 Article 35 of the constitution enshrines a range of rights for women, including: equality with men in the enjoyment of constitutional rights and protections; equal rights in marriage; the entitlement to affirmative measures to remedy the historical legacy of inequality and discrimination against women and to enable women to participate in society equally with men; the right to maternity leave at full pay; equal rights with the respect to the use, transfer, administration and control of land and the inheritance of property; equal rights in employment, including in relation to pay and promotion; and the right of access to family planning education, information and capacity. Article 34 stipulates that marriage can be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses. Gender equality is a priority for the current federal government.
    3.58 Ethiopia scores highly in international rankings for gender equality in political participation. In October 2018, Ethiopia elected a female president (the only African female head of state at the time of publication). In parallel, Prime Minister Abiy appointed women to half of all positions in the Council of Ministers, including the ministers of defence, trade and industry, and peace (with the latter responsible for overseeing the federal police and all civilian intelligence agencies). Abiy has also appointed women to head the Supreme Court and the NEBE. Women hold 37.3 per cent of seats in the current federal parliament. Some state legislatures have an even higher representation of women. The World Economic Forum ranks Ethiopia 82nd out of 153 countries in its 2020 Global Gender Gap Index, including 16th for political participation (ahead of the likes of Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Switzerland and the UK).
    3.59 Local sources told DFAT that, while women’s political participation has increased, the situation for the average Ethiopian woman remains challenging. Women aged 15-24 have higher literacy rates than men, but girls are more likely to be out of school than boys, particularly in rural areas (see Education). Women typically have fewer employment opportunities than men, in both urban and rural areas, and their participation in the labour force (at 74.2 per cent) is significantly lower than that of men (86.5 per cent). This is influenced by a number of factors, including societal discrimination, traditional norms and attitudes regarding gender roles, and women’s generally lower levels of educational attainment. Early marriage is widespread, and negatively impacts the ability of girls to attain an education and participate in the labour force (see Children). DFAT heard that it is common in rural areas for young girls to be married off in order to ease the financial burden on the girl’s family, particularly during times of drought. Women often lack financial independence, particularly in rural areas. Ethiopia ranks 125th out of 153 countries for economic participation and 140th for educational attainment in the 2020 Global Gender Gap Index.
    3.60 According to local sources, access to sexual reproductive health services is limited. The fertility rate is 3.9 children per woman, but regional variations exist (the fertility rate in Somali State is 7.1). Abortion is allowed in some circumstances, including: where the life and physical health of the woman is at risk; in instances of rape, incest and foetal impairment; if a woman has physical or mental disabilities; or if she is younger than 18 years of age. Most abortions now occur in health facilities. Local sources told DFAT that, while professional abortion services exist, women often do not know where to find them. Abortion carries significant social stigma.
    3.61 DFAT heard anecdotally that divorce is not uncommon in urban areas and divorce rates are increasing overall. Women’s growing economic independence in urban areas and the availability of legal aid services and courts were cited as contributory factors. Being a single woman or seeking divorce from one’s husband is widely accepted in major urban areas and carries less social stigma compared to rural areas. According to local sources, single or divorced women may face greater economic challenges but not societal discrimination in urban areas.

    Gender-Based Violence

    3.62 Gender-based violence is a criminal offence punishable by up to 20 years’ imprisonment. In practice, the law is rarely enforced. Marital rape is not explicitly prohibited. A local source told DFAT the authorities largely consider events behind closed doors to be private matters.
    3.63 Gender-based violence is widespread in Ethiopia. Typically, gender-based violence is intimate-partner based and occurs in domestic settings. Local sources told DFAT gender-based violence is a countrywide phenomenon that occurs across all ethnic groups and religions. An Ethiopian Demographic Health Survey from 2016 found that 23 per cent of women aged 15-49 had experienced physical violence, and 10 per cent had experienced sexual violence. A 2018 academic study found almost half of women had experienced gender-based violence in their lifetimes. According to the UNDP, 28 per cent of women aged 15 and older have experienced intimate partner violence. DFAT heard anecdotally violence against women is most prevalent in Afar and Somali states, where the vast majority of the population is Muslim and the family legislative framework is based on traditional practices and sharia law (see Judiciary). Local sources told DFAT refugee and IDP women and girls are particularly vulnerable to gender-based violence, including, in the case of Gambela State, rape perpetrated by men making cross-border incursions from South Sudan.
    3.64 Societal norms and a lack of financial independence mean violence against women is under-reported, and victims generally do not seek legal remedies, particularly in rural areas. According to reports, men widely consider hitting or beating their wife to be justified in certain circumstances, including where a wife has burned her husband’s food, argued with him, left the house without telling him, neglected the children or refused to have sexual intercourse with him. A local source told DFAT there was an acceptance among many women to tolerate domestic violence and submit to the sexual desires of their husbands.
    3.65 The authorities have taken measures to combat gender-based violence. In 2010, the federal government developed a Strategic Plan for an Integrated and Multi-Sectoral Response to Violence against Women and Children and Child Justice in Ethiopia. Protection units for women and children operate in some police stations and prosecution offices, and there are special benches dealing specifically with violence against women in federal and regional courts. The government has committed to establishing a free hotline service for victims of gender-based violence. According to local sources, there are 11 shelters countrywide for women escaping domestic violence. Shelters typically accommodate between 20 and 50 women. A woman can stay in a shelter for a maximum of 1.5 years. Shelters include counselling services and childcare centres, allowing women to bring their children and to pursue employment. Some shelters are government-run, while some are administered by NGOs with UN support. Some local charities provide financial assistance to victims of physical and sexual abuse. One such charity, Agar, operates in Addis Ababa and Oromia and Amhara states.
    3.66 Local sources told DFAT that, while services for victims of gender-based violence exist, including shelters, they are insufficient. Demand for shelters is reportedly increasing, particularly among younger women, but they remain scarce — space constraints mean women are often turned away. Of the 11 shelters currently in operation, three are located in Addis Ababa, and only one in Oromia State (covering a population of over 30 million). There are no shelters in Afar, Gambela and Somali states. DFAT heard anecdotally that reporting of gender-based violence is increasing, but remains low overall, largely due to women’s economic dependence on men.
    3.67 DFAT assesses women in Ethiopia face a high risk of domestic violence and sexual harassment. Sexual assault, including spousal rape, is common. DFAT assesses support services for women escaping from domestic violence have improved but are insufficient overall.

1. In addition to considering the information contained in the 12 August 2020 DFAT Report, the Tribunal has considered the following information, brought to its attention by the Applicant:

   • Report of the Ethiopian Human Rights Commission (EHRC)/Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) Joint Investigation into Alleged Violations of International Human Rights, Humanitarian and Refugee Law Committed by all Parties the Conflict in the Tigray Region of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, undated;
   • Article - UNHCR Position on Returns to Ethiopia, dated March 2022 – Relevantly, the article recommends that:

   UN human rights experts have also expressed grave concern about widespread and documented incidents of sexual and gender-based violence committed against women and girls in the Tigray, Amhara and Afar regions of Ethiopia by parties to the conflict.

   * * *

   In the current circumstances, with ongoing conflict and violence in parts of the country, large-scale internal displacement, and severe humanitarian needs, UNHCR does not consider it appropriate for States to deny persons from Ethiopia international protection on the basis of an internal flight or relocation alternative.

   • Article - Conflict fuelling sexual violence in northern Ethiopia, by ReliefWeb, dated 2 August 2022;
   • Article - Tigray rebels raped women in Ethiopia’s Amhara region: Amnesty, by Al Jazeera, dated 10 November 2021;
   • Article – Ethiopia: more than 200 Amhara people killed in attack blamed on rebels, The Guardian, dated 20 June 2022;
   • Article - More than 4 000 arrested in Amhara as Ethiopia cracks down on militia, by The Guardian, dated 30 May 2022;
   • Oral Update of the International Commission of Human Rights Experts on Ethiopia to the UN Human Rights Council, Geneva, dated 30 June 2022;
   • Article - War in Ethiopia, by the Center for Preventive Action, updated 12 May 2022;
   • Article - DHS Designates Ethiopia for Temporary Protected Status for 18 months, by US Department of Homeland Security, dated 21 October 2022 – The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services official website indicates that:

   Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas has designated Ethiopia for Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for 18 months, effective Dec. 12, 2022, through June 12, 2024

   • Article – Interfaith tensions simmer in Ethiopia, by Alemnew Mekonnen and Benita van Eyssen, dated 5 June 2022;
   • Article – Inter-religious clashes in Ethiopia, by the United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner, dated 1 November 2022;
   • Article – Ethnic Division in Ethiopia: Fostering Grievance, Repression and Hatred, by Ben Lowings, dated July 2022;
   • Country Policy and Information Note Ethiopia: Oromos, the Oromo Liberation Front and the Oromo Liberation Army, by UK Home Office, dated 14 March 2022;
   • Article – Malaria kills 37, infects more than 130 000 in Oromia in three months alone, by the Addis Standard, dated 29 October 2022; and
   • UNHCR Fact sheet: Response to Internal Displacement in Ethiopia, January to December 2021.

   Context of the Applicant’s claims

2. The Applicant first arrived in Australia in 2012, on a prospective marriage visa. She was granted a temporary partner visa (Class UK, Subclass 820) on 13 December 2012. On 12 October 2016, the Applicant was refused a permanent partner visa (Class BS, Subclass 801), which she reviewed in the Tribunal, and which resulted in the Tribunal affirming the refusal on 15 February 2018. On 12 March 2018, the Applicant lodged the protection visa application that is the subject of this review.

3. The Applicant claims that she has no family remaining in Ethiopia, following her father’s disappearance in 2006. The delegate had concerns about the Applicant’s credibility, which are reflected in the decision record that the Applicant provided to the Tribunal. Firstly, whilst not material to the Applicant’s claims for protection, the Applicant’s marriage was found to be contrived, and the Applicant was found to have been complicit in changing her name and birthdate to support a claim that two males included in her partner visa application were her dependent brothers.

4. Ultimately, the delegate formed the view that the Applicant is Amhara, and was born in Gonder, Ethiopia in [Year]. The Tribunal has no reason to find otherwise, and accepts that the Applicant’s identity is as reflected in the delegate’s decision record.

5. The Applicant’s evidence raises very significant questions of credibility. A key concern focusses on whether the Applicant’s father disappeared following his arrest, as she claimed. The delegate’s decision record reflects the following:

   The applicant was asked about the incident where her father was taken in September 2006. She explained they were [at] their home when two uniformed soldiers came to their house, grabbed her father and told him that he was under arrest. The applicant maintains that she has not seen or had contact with her father since this time. At the applicant’s second PV interview on 24 July 2019, the applicant confirmed this, and also confirmed that she is not aware of any other living relatives. It was put to the applicant for comment that there was information before the department that she had sent money to ‘[Mr F]’ (the claimed name of her father) residing in Khartoum, Sudan in October 2014, June 2015 and January 2016. The applicant responded that this was somebody who claimed to be her father and that she stopped sending him money when she realised this was not the case.

   She provided that she had been looking for her father by telling people about her story at the [place] she was working in Australia. She explained that one customer used to live in Sudan and knew someone with her father’s name. She stated she called this person and realised he was not her father, but that this person then agreed to assist with her search and she then found a second person who claimed to be her father. When asked why she thought her father might have been in Sudan she explained that she did not have any closure and was very hopeful of finding him. It was put to the applicant for comment that she sent money to this person over a period of 14 months and was asked whether she thought this man was therefore her father for this whole duration. The applicant responded that she thought that he was maybe alive but when she talked to this man realised it was not him.

   The applicant was asked how she communicated with this man and she responded that it was by telephone and on the first occasion she was so happy to have found him that her happiness covered everything else. The applicant was asked how many times she had spoken with him before realising that this was not her father. She stated that she could not remember. It was put to the applicant that I found it difficult to understand how she could speak with this man and not realise he was not her father, particularly over the period from October 2014 to January 2016. The applicant stated that because she had no family, she was just happy and it was only when this man had not been able to answer questions about what happened to him and whether he had been taken to prison, that she realised her mistake.

6. The Tribunal asked the Applicant about this issue, as it seems rather unusual for the Applicant to have sent funds for more than a year without having realised that the person to whom she was sending funds was not, in fact, her father. The Applicant says that she was sad to realise that her father was not alive; yet the Applicant has never made inquiries with the Red Cross or UNHCR to try to locate her father.

7. The unusual circumstances surrounding the Applicant’s father, coupled with the concerns surrounding the Applicant’s identity generally and inconsistent information given in conjunction with the Applicant’s partner visa application, leave the Tribunal with the impression that the Applicant has not been truthful about fairly significant issues. The Tribunal cannot be confident that the Applicant’s claims have been particularised in a way that is entirely truthful.

8. The Tribunal does accept that the Applicant is female, Amhara, and that she had a challenging set of life circumstances. The Tribunal thinks it likely that human desperation, borne of a desire to enjoy a better, safer life is the motivation for the inconsistent information given by the Applicant. However, this does make it difficult for the Tribunal to place weight on evidence given by the Applicant.

9. The Applicant says she was born in a Sudanese refugee camp in [Year] before returning to Ethiopia with her father in 1998. Sadly, her mother died in childbirth. Prior to entering into the sham marriage with her claimed cousin, the Applicant completed a [Course] from [Institution]. She lived in the Gondor region of Ethiopia before coming to Australia.

10. The Applicant says that she was involved, with her father, in political activities that caused her to become a target for harassment by Tigrayan groups. She claims that she was imprisoned and raped. The Tribunal observes that these claimed events transpired around 2007. The Applicant then completed her [course] between 2002 to 2004 E.C. (approximately 2009 –2012 in the Gregorian calendar) following these claimed events. The Tribunal thinks it unusual that the Applicant would be able to undertake such significant study following life events of such a dramatic nature. However, it is possible that the Applicant could be particularly resilient, and the Tribunal does not discount this possibility as it is clear that the Applicant has confronted many obstacles in her life.

11. There is, however, no persuasive information before the Tribunal capable of establishing that the Applicant was involved in any significant political activity that would cause her difficulty on return to Ethiopia. The Applicant has now resided in Australia for more than 11-years – the risk of her being identified as a political operative on return is, in the Tribunal’s view, exceedingly remote. The Tribunal is prepared to accept that the Applicant was politically interested while living in Ethiopia, but her claims are vague, and sit in a context where the Tribunal also has doubts about her overall credibility.

12. The Tribunal does not accept that, were the Applicant to return to Ethiopia, that she would be at risk of harm given her status as a political opponent of the government.

13. However, the Applicant also claims to fear returning to Ethiopia as an Amhara female. The Tribunal has carefully assessed these concerns by reference to the objective country information available to it.

    Risk to the Applicant in returning to Ethiopia as an Amhara female

14. The Applicant claims that as an Amhara woman in Ethiopia, there is a real chance she will be seriously harmed. Despite some progress, the Country Information cited above indicates that gender-bias is rife in Ethiopia, and widespread violence against women and girls remains a serious problem throughout Ethiopia.

15. Although the Applicant says that she is married to [Mr A], who is also the father of her [child], the Tribunal accepts that were she to return to Ethiopia, that she would be returning alone. As mentioned above, the Tribunal has established that [Mr A] possesses Australian citizenship. The Tribunal has not sighted a birth certificate for the Applicant’s child, and observes that it is possible that the Applicant’s child is an Australian citizen by birth.

16. [Mr A]’s evidence was that, on obtaining Australian citizenship, he automatically lost his previously held Ethiopian citizenship. The DFAT Report, in relation to dual citizenship, indicates that Ethiopia does not recognise dual citizenship.

17. The Tribunal accepts that [Mr A] would find it difficult to return to Ethiopia with the Applicant, having now obtained Australian citizenship and consequentially lost his Ethiopian citizenship.

18. The Applicant’s evidence was that returning to Ethiopia with a small baby, without a male partner, would place her at great risk. The Tribunal accepts that, having resided in Australia for a significant period, that the Applicant has a limited support network available in Ethiopia were she to return. The Applicant would find it difficult to find work, despite her education, as she has a young baby for whom she must provide care.

19. Media reports from August 2023 indicate that rebel forces in the Amhara region have taken up arms against Ethiopia’s military.[1] Reports indicate that the Ethiopian government has accused the Amhara militia of seeking to overthrow the government.[2] The unrest is reported to have:

    …quickly become Ethiopia’s most serious security crisis since a two-year civil war in the Tigray region, which borders Amhara, ended last November [2022]. The escalation in violence in Amhara prompted Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed’s government to declare a six-month state of emergency there last week.”[3]

    [1] What’s behind the latest fighting in Ethiopia? | News | Al Jazeera

    [2] Ethiopia accuses Amhara militia of seeking to overthrow government | News | Al Jazeera

    [3] Ethiopian forces push Fano fighters from Amhara’s Gondar city | News | Al Jazeera

20. A 9 August 2023 Human Rights Watch report indicates that[4]:

    Previous states of emergency declarations under Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed’s administration resulted in mass arrests, prolonged arbitrary detentions, politically motivated charges, and unlawful restrictions on movement and communication.
    

    [4] Deepening Crisis in Ethiopia’s Amhara Region | Human Rights Watch (hrw.org)

    Though the emergency declaration still needs approval from parliament, the current text contains sweeping restrictions on a range of actions that could undermine basic rights. It grants the government far-reaching powers to arrest criminal suspects without a court order, impose curfews, ban public gatherings, and carry out searches without a warrant. While currently limited to Amhara, the declaration could be extended to “any area of the country as necessary.” Federal police in the nation’s capital, Addis Ababa, have already arrested Christian Tadele, an opposition member of parliament and outspoken critic of the ruling party and the government’s actions in the Amhara region.

21. The DFAT report states that violence against women is widespread in Ethiopia. Typically, it occurs in domestic settings and is a countrywide phenomenon that occurs across all ethnic groups and religions. The DFAT report indicates that men widely consider hitting or beating their wives to be justified in certain circumstances, including for burning his meal, arguing, leaving the house without permission, neglecting children, or refusing to have sex. Societal norms and a lack of financial independence mean violence against women is under-reported, and victims generally do not seek legal remedies, particularly in rural areas.

22. Further, the DFAT reports that there are creditable reports of abuses committed by federal and regional police forces ranging from beatings and arbitrary arrest and detention and rape, torture and extra judicial killings. The police force has been implicated in extra judicial killing during past counter insurgency operations.

23. The Tribunal observes that the United States Department of Homeland Security has designated Ethiopia as a country that has Temporary Protected Status, until June of 2024. The UNHCR does not consider that internal relocation within Ethiopia is a practical alternative. Both of these reports are more recent than the DFAT Report from 2020 – the UNHCR Position on Returns to Ethiopia is dated March 2022, and the Department of Homeland Security information covers a date range between 12 December 2022 and 12 June 2024.

24. On the available country information, the Tribunal finds that the Ethiopian police force does not provide any effective protection in relation to any harm the Applicant may suffer because of being an Amhara woman, should she return to Ethiopia.

25. While services for gender-based violence exist, including shelters, it’s reported that they are insufficient. The Tribunal accepts that the Applicant would have difficulty securing housing on return to Ethiopia, as she does not have an obvious support network. Demand for shelters is reportedly increasing, resulting in many women being turned away. Of the 11 shelters currently in operation, 3 are located in Addis Ababa, and only one in Oromia State (covering a population of over 30 million). There are no shelters in Afar, Gambela and Somali states. DFAT assesses that woman in Ethiopia face a high risk of domestic violence and sexual harassment. Sexual assault, including spousal rape, is common.

26. The present situation, as at October 2023, is quite parlous for the Applicant given her status as an Amhara female. There is presently significant unrest, coupled with human rights violations, occurring throughout Ethiopia. The UN-mandated Commission of Human Rights Experts on Ethiopia released a report on 13 October 2023 outlining a “staggering level of human rights violations and mass killings”, including “mass killings, widespread and systematic rape, sexual violence - including sexual slavery, deliberate starvation, forced displacement, and large-scale arbitrary detentions, all of which constitute war crimes and crimes against humanity”.[5]

    [5] Ethiopia: Victims ‘left in limbo’ as rights probe mandate ends | UN News

27. In September of 2023, the United Nations Special Adviser issued a warning[6] in relation to Gondor, where the Applicant resided in Ethiopia prior to her travelling to Australia:

    On 24 September, the historic city of Gondar in Amhara reportedly saw heavy urban combat when local militias known as the Fano entered the city, prompting intense clashes with the Federal Forces. “Reports that Eritrean troops and Amhara militia members continue to commit grave violations in Tigray, including the systematic rape and sexual violence of women and girls, are disturbing. There have been numerous credible reports of violations against Amhara civilians since the announcement of a state of emergency in August 2023. 

    [6] Ethiopia: United Nations Special Adviser warns of heightened risk of genocide and related atrocity crimes amid increased violent clashes in Tigray, Amhara, Afar and Oromi - Ethiopia | ReliefWeb

28. Therefore, based on the available country information and the Applicant’s evidence, the Tribunal accepts that there is a real chance she will be seriously harmed as a female person of Amhara ethnicity if she is returned to Ethiopia.

    CONCLUSIONS

29. Having considered the Applicant’s claims singularly and cumulatively, the Tribunal finds that, if she is removed from Australia to Ethiopia, there is a real chance she will suffer serious harm because she is a female person of Amhara ethnicity. As such, the Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant is a non-Australian citizen in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations as a refugee.

30. For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(a).

    DECISION

31. The Tribunal remits the matter for reconsideration with the direction that the Applicant satisfies s 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act.

    Bridget Cullen
    Senior Member