1930270 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for protection visas by two applicants, who are of Oromo ethnicity and members of an opposition political party in Ethiopia. The applicants claimed they had a well-founded fear of persecution due to their ethnicity and political opinion, and that there was a real chance they would be persecuted if returned to Ethiopia. Alternatively, they argued that there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal, they would suffer significant harm. The court was required to determine whether the applicants met the criteria for a protection visa under the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), specifically whether they had a well-founded fear of persecution for one of the five prescribed reasons, or whether they faced a real risk of significant harm upon return to Ethiopia.

The court considered the applicants' claims, including the first applicant's history of arrest, torture, and detention in Ethiopia for participating in demonstrations and his membership in the Oromo Federalist Congress (OFC). The court also took into account country information regarding the recent deterioration of security and political tensions in Ethiopia, particularly concerning the Oromo population. The legal principles applied included the assessment of a "real risk" of significant harm, which the court noted imposes the same standard as the "real chance" test for a well-founded fear of persecution. The court also had regard to Ministerial Direction No. 84 and relevant guidelines and country information assessments.

The delegate had previously refused the protection visas, finding that while the applicants were of Oromo ethnicity and held anti-Ethiopian political opinions, the first applicant was not considered a high-profile political dissident and his political profile was not enduring. The delegate was not satisfied that the applicants were refugees or persons in respect of whom Australia had protection obligations. However, upon review, the court found that the evidence, including the applicants' detailed claims and recent country information, indicated a real chance of persecution or significant harm. Consequently, the decision under review was remitted.