2119079 (Refugee) - [2022] AATA 4889

2119079 (Refugee) [2022] AATA 4889 (30 November 2022)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
REPRESENTATIVE:  Mr Luke Daniel Brennan
CASE NUMBER:  2119079
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Ethiopia
MEMBER:Mark Bishop
DATE:30 November 2022
PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne
DECISION:The Tribunal remits the matter for reconsideration with the following directions:
(i)that the first named applicant satisfies s 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act; and
(ii)that the other applicants satisfy s 36(2)(b)(i) of the Migration Act, on the basis of membership of the same family unit as the first named applicant.

Statement made on 30 November 2022 at 2:43pm
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Ethiopia – member of particular social group – child of father with leprosy – social discrimination and violence and attacks and threats from husband’s family – fear of forced separation and loss of capacity to subsist – ethnicity – Amhara – delay in applying for protection – members of family unit – new claim for daughter on grounds of female genital mutilation – focus on major claim and socio-cultural unease at raising and discussing this issue – country information – lack of state protection and inability to relocate – significant deterioration of security situation – decision under review remitted
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5H(1)(a), 5J(1), 5H, 5L, 36(2)(a), (b)(i), 423A(2)
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2

CASES
Abebe v Commonwealth (1999) 197 CLR 510
Applicant S v MIMA [2001] FCA 1411
EQU19 v MICMSMA [2022] FedCFamC2G 609
MIEA v Guo (1997) 191 CLR 559
MIMA v Khawar (2002) 210 CLR 1
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

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 2 December 2021 to refuse to grant the applicants protection visas under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The applicants who claim to be citizens of Ethiopia applied for the visas on 13 April 2018. The delegate refused to grant the visas.
The applicants appeared before the Tribunal on 30 November 2022 to give evidence and present arguments. The second applicant is the husband of the first applicant. The second applicant’s claim for a Protection Vis is based upon being a member of the family unit of the first applicant.[1] The third applicant is a child of the marriage[2] of the first two applicants. Her date of birth is [Date][3] and hence at time of decision is [Age] years of age. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Amharic and English languages.
[1] See Doc ID number 10468663 paragraph 24
[2] See marriage certificate between the first applicant and second applicant dated [October] 2014 [Reference 1]
[3] See birth certificate in the name of the third applicant giving date of birth as [Date] in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia [Reference 1]
The applicants were represented in relation to the review.
Criteria for a protection visa
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.
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.
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).
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.
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
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
In her Application for a Protection Visa[4] dated 11 April 2018 the applicant declared she would suffer from the following:
·Social discrimination that could lead to psychological torture. In addition I will be a subject of victim of arbitrary violence that could lead my daughter to death.
·I have been psychologically tortured and experienced all forms of social violence and discrimination because of family history tied to leprosy which is till believed culturally as a form of curse from God.
·No one will help me in this regard as it is widely believed to be a curse from GOD among majority of the people including legal authorities in the country. In addition because of the nature of the violence it is difficult to get help for the discrimination I am facing.
·She has tried to live in different locations out of Addis Ababa and tried changing addresses to different sub cities in Addis Ababa.
·She is in constant fear for herself, hr spouse and her child because of prior life threatening encounters with her husband’s family.
·The authorities cannot help because the nature of the discrimination she suffers can be in the workplace, school, public places where it is not easy for the authorities to provide protection.
·She has tried to relocate to different parts of the country including Addis Ababa
[4] [Reference 2]
On 23 April 2021 the Department invited the applicant to attend an interview.[5] On 26 April 2021 and 27 April 2021 the applicant attended the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre (ASRC) seeking legal advice. On 1 May 2021 legal counsel for the Human Rights Law Program, ASRC wrote to the Department expressing concerns as to possible applicant interview attendance without first having provide a written statement. The ASRC sought 30 days to provide a written statement.[6] In response the Department rescheduled the interview and advised the ASRC accordingly.[7] The interview was rescheduled to 1 June 2021.[8] The interview notes can be found on the Departmental file.[9] The applicant provided further post interview submissions to the Department.[10]
[5] [Reference 3]
[6] [Reference 4]
[7] [Reference 5]
[8] [Reference 6]
[9] [Reference 7]
[10] [Reference 8]
The post interview submissions referred to above in paragraph 12 addressed the following:
Real Chance
·    [The first applicant] and [the third applicant] will be seriously harmed by [the second applicant]’s parents and siblings because of [the first applicant’s] family history of leprosy.
·    [The second applicant]’s family will try to break up their marriage, because of [the first applicant’s] family history of leprosy in Ethiopia.
·    If so, [the first applicant] will face serious harm as a single mother of a daughter with a family history of leprosy.
·    [The first applicant] and [the third applicant], their daughter, will face serious harm as women with a family history of leprosy.
·    [The first applicant] and [the third applicant] will face serious harm as women of Ahmaric ethnicity.
·     [The first applicant] and [the third applicant] will face serious harm as women of Ahmaric ethnicity living without a protective husband and father.
·    [The third applicant] will face serious harm in her capacity as vulnerable female child, all the more so if [the first applicant] becomes a single mother of a daughter with a family history of leprosy.
Witness Credibility
·The applicant evidence at interview with the Department was consistent with credible country and other independent information. The delegate did not express any concerns as to applicant credibility or evidence.
Well Rounded Fears of second and third applicants
·The second applicant has concluded that what [the first applicant] told him is true. He has not considered the risk to be merely far-fetched or remote. It is clear from his supporting statement that he has a very real fear of what will happen if he and his family are forced to return to Ethiopia.
Matters arising during the Interview
·[The first applicant] and [the second applicant] have both explained why they have not reported the conduct of [the second applicant]’s family to the authorities in Ethiopia. We submit that [the first applicant’s] response to what she has described happened to her, and then to her and her baby, over a period of time is not only plausible but a typical reaction to family violence. In support of this submission the applicant made reference to various Country Information (CI) and other NGO reports that made direct reference to intergenerational situations of family, sexual and domestic violence.[11]
[11] [Reference 8] paragraph 4.2 to 4.5
Time taken to make application for protection
·The applicant provided a plausible explanation for the time it took her to make an application for protection both in her supporting statement and at her interview. Her reasons are included in the reasons listed as valid reasons in the Department’s Protection Visa Processing Guidelines, Section 3.53.5 Delay in claiming refugee status or presenting other information. We also note that there is a complexity to the family’s claims that would have been difficult for them to address adequately without legal or migration agent assistance.
Country Information
·The applicant submitted that DFAT’s assessment of risks for Amharas and others, and the state of security generally in Ethiopia, in the August 2020 DFAT report needs to be considered as subject to and superseded by the more recent country information attached as part of the Appendix to these submissions, including the 19 April 2021 Al Jazeera article reporting on recent significant ethnic violence across Ethiopia.
·The applicant provided a copy of an Amnesty International CI report that specifically addressed Ethiopian of Amhara ethnicity with a family history of leprosy. This report contained multiple links to some historical and some current reports that addressed the following:
oRisk to a person and their family who have a history of leprosy in Ethiopia.
oRisks of harm of Ethiopians of Amhara ethnicity.
oRelocation options for a person of Amhara ethnicity.
oEthiopia’s police force.
·This report addressed disability and stigma, discrimination in the community and workplace, marginalisation within the wider community and awareness of le[prosy causation factors.
·
The applicant provided a copy of an Al Jazeera report dated 18 May 2021 that summarised the imposition of a state of emergency in Amhara

Additional Matters
·The applicant addressed matters relating to real chance, relocation issues, relocation and complementary protection, protection from authority and more generally protection measures under complementary protection.[12]
[12] [Reference] paragraphs 6 to 8.3
The applicant provided a statutory declaration[13] dated 26 May 2021 to the Department. The Tribunal summarises it as follows:
[13] [Reference]
·The applicant fears that if she and her family are forced to return to Ethiopia there is a real chance of the following:
oShe and her daughter will be seriously harmed by her husband’s family because of her family history of leprosy.
oHer husband’s family will try to break up her marriage because of her family history of leprosy in Ethiopia.
oIf so, she will face serious harm as a single mother of a daughter with a family history of leprosy.
oShe will face serious harm as a woman and mother of Amharic ethnicity.
oShe will face serious harm from all of those risks cumulatively.
·The applicant was born on [Date], is of Amhara ethnicity, is Orthodox Tewahdo, is married, has 1 daughter, has no siblings, her father suffered from leprosy, he disappeared approximately 11 years ago, she does not know if he is alive, her mother is aged [Age] and lives alone outside the city of Addis Ababa, her mother has no contact with her own family.
·Society in Ethiopia believes leprosy is a result of God’s curse to a sin committed by the victim and as a result no-one wants to be associated with a victim of leprosy or the person’s family.
·She grew up within her family facing pressure, loneliness, discrimination and stigma because of her father’s leprosy. She left university because of emotional and psychological torture she experienced from other students and dormitory mates.
·She first met her future husband in 2012. Her future husband’s family rejected her in 2014 shortly before their marriage when they discovered the family history of leprosy. Her husband’s family pressured him to break off the relationship and proposed marriage. Her husband came to Australia in 2016 to study for a [Qualification]. After she fell pregnant her husband’s family began to harass and abuse her to such an extent she shifted home.
·She completed high school but left university early.
·She suffered from a rash as a child. Her mother tried spiritual and traditional treatments. They did not work. Her father informed her mother of his leprosy. They temporarily separated and her mother returned to her family until she was requested to leave because of their fear that leprosy might be contagious. Her father suffered from the effects of leprosy and received hospital treatment. Her father was fired from his job as [an Occupation] and the family lived in isolation. She was taunted as a child. She suffered from a severely deprived childhood. Her mother currently lives alone outside the city. She sends money to her mother. Generally as she grew up people insulted her, taunted her because of her father’s leprosy, she changed schools, the family income declined, she was forced to work a long way from home she was (de facto) fired after some customers left her [Workplace] and she suffers from weight related issues.
·Her friends left her when they discovered her father suffered from leprosy.
·She attended [University] in the north of Ethiopia. Students from her home area spread the news of her father’s leprosy. She suffered emotional and psychological torture. The stigma, discrimination and suffering was unbearable. She did not receive any emotional support like she did from her parents. Her father disappeared in December 2010.
·She outlined the circumstances of meeting her future husband, her advice to him of her father’s leprosy, her initial rejection and later acceptance of his offer of marriage, her introduction to his family, the Ethiopian cultural tradition of seeking parental blessing post elder meeting of the bride to be, her husband to be and full disclosure of the leprosy issue to his family, a resulting big quarrel between the husband to be and his family, future in law approaches to her mother to stop the planned marriage, the decision of her husband to be to live with her and her mother distant from his family, their formal marriage, subsequent non-acceptance by her husband’s family, her pregnancy, her husband’s decision to come to Australia initially on his own, threats from her husband’s family, she felt under duress to shift her home because of threats to her safety, an attempt by her husband’s family to hurt the new born child in the hospital, an attack by her mother-in-law immediately post release from the hospital after a caesarean birth, further change of address to avoid her husband’s family, a further attack on the baby at [Number] days of age by her husband’s family and further temporary relocations.
·She departed Ethiopia for Australia in 2017.
·Details of full disclosure to her husband in Australia in 2018 after she overheard neighbours talking about protection and their departmental interview.
·Sher outlined her fear of inhuman treatment against herself and her daughter if she returns to Ethiopia. She fears her husband’s family will murder her daughter because of the grandfather’s leprosy. Her husband is not yet reconciled to his family in Ethiopia.
·She has not reported the malicious attacks of her husband’s family to the police as she does not believe the police could or would protect her.
·She and her child cannot be safe anywhere in Ethiopia if she is separated from her husband.
The decision record (not provided by the applicant despite numerous Tribunal requests) sets out a lengthy and detailed history of leprosy in Ethiopia.[14] The Tribunal notes the finding of the delegate that “…I accept that it is credible that the applicant’s father had leprosy and that it impacted their family income, livelihood and social interactions with others because of the stigma associated with the disease.” The Tribunal notes the multiple references, quotes and findings in the decision record cited by the applicant in her various submissions and statements.
[14] Decision record pages 5 to 8 and citations listed therein.
The applicant provided a written submission summarised by the Tribunal as follows:
·The applicant’s personal and immigration histories as set out in detail in their various statements. These histories as set out in paragraphs 8 to 23 of the submission were largely consistent with the summaries provided in paragraphs11 to 14 above. In summary the applicant and her family came to experience the stigma and prejudice associated with leprosy held by many in Ethiopia, reflecting common beliefs that leprosy is hereditary and physically contagious; that leprosy is a curse from God; and that leprosy manifests as a form of punishment for a person’s sins. Based on these beliefs, people with leprosy or believed to have leprosy are outcast and subjected to discrimination and persecution throughout Ethiopian society. On an official level, Ethiopia upholds discriminatory laws relating to leprosy, such as family laws under which leprosy may be used as a reason for the dissolution of marriage.
·Legal framework inclusive of well-founded fer of persecution, serious harm, reasons for persecution and applicant fear of persecution is well-founded. The applicant particularised her fear of serious harm under the following two headings:
1.Serious Harm
o[The first and third applicants] fear harm at the hands of [the second applicant]’s family in the form of:
a. A threat to their lives;
b. Loss of liberty;
c. Significant physical harassment and ill treatment;
d. Cruel, inhuman treatment or punishment; and
e. Degrading treatment or punishment.
o[The first and third applicants] fear harm in Ethiopian society generally in the form of:
a. Loss of liberty;
b. Significant economic hardship;
c. Denial of access to basic services and denial of capacity to earn a livelihood, threatening their capacity to subsist;
d. Cruel, inhuman treatment or punishment; and
e. Degrading treatment or punishment.
·The applicant also particularised the fear of real harm for the third applicant as fear of “harm in respect of [the second applicant]’s family and broader Ethiopian society from Female Genital Mutilation (FGM), being a form of significant physical harassment and ill treatment, amounting to torture.”
·The applicant addressed reasons for persecution.
2.Reasons for Persecution
oIn the present case, the “essential and significant” motivations underlying the persecution feared by the applicants are:
a. [The first applicant]’s membership of a particular social group including, but not limited to:
i. Imputed leprosy sufferer in Ethiopia;
ii. Child of a leprosy sufferer in Ethiopia;
iii. Mother of an imputed leprosy sufferer in Ethiopia; and –
If, in all the circumstances, she were separated from [the second applicant] –
iv. Single woman imputed with leprosy in Ethiopia; and
v. Single mother in Ethiopia.
b. [The third applicant]’s membership of a particular social group including, but not limited to:
i. Imputed leprosy sufferer in Ethiopia;
ii. Child of an imputed leprosy sufferer in Ethiopia;
iii. Young girl at risk of FGM; and –
If she and her mother were separated from [the second applicant] –
iv. Child of a single woman imputed with leprosy in Ethiopia.
3.Membership of a Particular Social Group
oThe applicant submitted the applicant satisfied the criteria of being a member of a particular social group because it was ““specific, readily definable body or group of people forming part of a larger whole.”[15] and hence satisfied the three conditions for such a group as set out by the High Court in Applicant S v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs.[16]
[15] Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Khawar (2002) 210 CLR 1, [53] (Callinan J).
[16] [2001] FCA 1411, and specified in s 5L of the Act, namely that:
4.The applicant’s fear of persecution is well-founded
oThe Applicants are required to establish that there is a “real chance” of future persecution, in order for their fear to be well-founded. This is merely something above the level of speculation.[17] The applicant submitted that as she had suffered past persecution and absent “…a substantial ameliorative change in country circumstances since the applicant’s departure…”[18] it was open to the Tribunal to make a finding of continuing well-rounded fear of persecution based on past harm inflicted on the applicant and particularised as follows:
[17] Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Guo (1997) 191 CLR 559 at [572].
[18] Abebe v The Commonwealth (1999) 197 CLR 510 at [192] (Gummow and Hayne JJ): “If a person has been persecuted in the past for a Convention reason, this history may ground an inference that the person subjectively fears repetition of persecution and an inference that this fear is well-founded.” See also Chan at [391] (Mason CJ), [399] (Dawson J) and [406] (Toohey J).
[The first applicant] credibly describes past harm inflicted on her by [the second applicant]’s family, including:
a. physical attacks on her and [the third applicant];
b. threats of harm including death threats directed at her and her [mother]; and
c. persistent and unyielding harassment directed at her, [the third applicant], her mother and [the second applicant].
She also describes past harm inflicted upon her from Ethiopian society at large, including:
a. discrimination causing significant economic hardship and homelessness;
b. inability to access basic services; and
c. inability to earn a livelihood, threatening their capacity to subsist.
·Country Information (CI). The applicant made extensive references (inclusive of citations and extracts from various government and NGO reports) to relevant CI that addressed leprosy stigma in Ethiopia, single women in Ethiopia and Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) in Ethiopia that lead to the conclusion that the applicant’s fear of future harm is well-founded.
5.Lack of effective state protection
oThe applicant submitted the Ethiopian authorities are unwilling and unable to provide the applicants with effective protection in any part of Ethiopia against the harm they fear. The applicants cited a submission[19] from the Ethiopian National Association of Persons Affected by Leprosy (ENAPL), described as the sole NGO combating anti-leprosy stigma to the UNHCR that stated as follows:
[19]Ethiopian National Association of Persons Affected by Leprosy, ‘Elimination of Discrimination Against Leprosy
“There is no particular polices and action plans employ to promote awareness raising to tackle stigma and discrimination as specific to leprosy but there is general policy of disability. So far promoting awareness raising mainly done by ENAPAL with specific support of Ministry of Labour and Social affairs (MOLSA) and Ministry of Health (MoH).”
oThe Tribunal notes that in this respect a report from the Sasakawa Health Foundation dated 22 September 2022 under the heading “New Building Stands as Symbol of Dignity and Hope For Persons Affected by Leprosy in Ethiopia” that details the funding and construction of a new 5 story building in Addis Ababa for ENPAL that will ”… will enable the organization to operate on an independent footing and stand as a symbol of dignity and hope for a long-marginalized community” and its recent opening attended by “by dignitaries including Ethiopian Minister of Women and Social Affairs Dr. Ergoge Tesfaye, Minister of Health Dr. Lia Tadesse, and WHO Goodwill Ambassador for Leprosy Elimination Yohei Sasakawa.[20]
oThe Ethiopian state perpetuates discrimination through anti-leprosy laws which remain in force, as highlighted earlier this year by the UN Special Rapporteur.[21] In this context the applicant submitted they were unable to “…access state protection from family violence because police responses to such matters are wholly inadequate due to systematically entrenched cultural norms by which family violence is seen as a family matter to be dealt with inside the home.”[22]
oThe submission noted the more recent DFAT CI Report for Ethiopia found that “…women in Ethiopia face a high risk of domestic violence…”[23] and that “…that domestic violence, as it is understood in Australian law, is not confined to intimate partner violence, but can take place between other family members.”[24]
oIn respect of FGM, the applicant submitted that DFAT reports that the practice has been outlawed, and “authorities and NGOs have sought to change cultural and societal attitudes to FGM by working with communities, including schools and religious institutions.” It notes, however, that “[w]hile the incidence of FGM has declined, it remains widespread […]”, and “the law against FGM is rarely enforced.”[25] Other statistics cited above regarding the prevalence of FGM suggest that the state is ineffective in protecting women from what remains a widespread cultural practice.[26]
6.Relocation
[20]New Building Stands as Symbol of Dignity and Hope For Persons Affected by Leprosy in Ethiopia
[21] ‘End leprosy discrimination laws ‘without delay’, UN rights expert urges’, UN News (online, 29 January 2022)
[22] Doc ID Number 10468663 paragraph 95.
[23] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, DFAT Country Information Report Ethiopia (12 August 2020), paragraph 3.67
[24] See eg, Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 4AB(1).
[25] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, DFAT Country Information Report Ethiopia (12 August 2020), paragraph 3.10
[26] 61 See in particular, UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund, A Profile of Female Genital Mutilation
o The applicant submitted that relocation outside of Addis Ababa for Amharas is unsafe in the context of the current inter-ethnic conflict and this limits the realistic scope of relocation to the Addis Ababa region. The applicant provided detail of numerous CI and NGO reports that post date the more recent DFAT CI Report for Ethiopia.[27]
[27] Doc ID number 10468663 paragraphs 109 to 116. In this context the Tribunal also refers to Case Number 2118846 dated 21 November 2022 which identifies Amhara ethnicity and widespread levels of violence committed against such ethnic groups and relevant citations therein.
7.Unreasonableness of relocation
o The applicant submitted that relocation has to be assessed as to whether is safe and accessible in a reasonable and practical sense having regard to:
a. The Applicants’ Amharic ethnicity;
b. The Applicants’ susceptibility to family violence, including direct attacks and the spreading of rumours imputing them with leprosy;
c. The Applicants’ status as outcasts due to imputed leprosy, likely resulting in their lack of access to employment, accommodation and a basic livelihood; and
d. The Applicants’ lack of any contacts or support outside of Addis Ababa.
In the event that [the first applicant] and [the third applicant] were separated from [the second applicant], the following factors also apply –
a. [The first applicant]’s status as a single mother and survivor of family violence, without male protection;
b. [The third applicant]’s status as a single woman without male protection;
c. [The first applicant]’s lack of employability due to her previous experiences of persecution and employment discrimination;
d. [The first applicant]’s lack of family support outside of Addis in order to participate in the workforce; and
e. [The third applicant]’s susceptibility to FGM and early marriage.

In evidence the applicant advised the Tribunal as follows:
·Her mother lives alone, is on her own and is wholly dependent on remittances of approximately $10,000 per annum from the applicant to survive.
·The applicant attended 3 schools (religious, elementary and high school) prior to entering university. She remained at university for only 3 months because she was ostracised, harassed and isolates by other students because of her father’s leprosy.
·Except for a period of 3 months she has always lived in Addis Ababa. Post university she worked in a [Workplace] [until] she was no longer called in by the owner as customers refused to attend the [Workplace] on account of [her] having leprosy.
·The applicant is Christian orthodox and practised her faith in Ethiopia at a church for those who suffer from leprosy and practices her faith in [Church] at [Suburb]. Her husband works as [an Occupation] for [a] company. The applicant works [in two jobs]. Their joint family income is approximately [amount] per annum.
·The applicant wishes to remain in Australia because life is peaceful here, she is not afraid in Australia, she does not suffer from any discrimination, she can work, her daughter attends school and is not hassled or harassed or threatened in any way.
·The applicant’s husband (the second applicant) is a strong man. He looks after his family and provides for them well. He supports and understands the applicant. She is fearful of losing him and is again fearful of the pressure and threats his family in Ethiopia would bring to bear upon him if the family returned to the home country. She is afraid he will leave his family and then she will be a single woman with a history of leprosy without male protection.
·Her husband paid for her to come to Australia. She has minimal involvement with the Ethiopian community in Melbourne.
·The applicant advised the Tribunal that ever since she was a little girl she was teased, people were hurtful, she was physically attacked she had no friends and school mates isolated her because of her father’s leprosy. This continued through her teen years with letup until she entered university. She suffered similar treatment from the time of leaving university until she arrived in Australia.
·She explained that almost the entire Ethiopian community believes leprosy is passed from generation to generation, these prejudices cross religions and communities and leprosy sufferers and their families live in isolation or remote sections of many towns and cities across Ethiopia.
·Her family has not been active politically and has never been involved in any political, social, community or charity groups.
·If she returns to Ethiopia she does not know where she will live. She thinks she will try and live where there is a concentration of Amhara people but even now they suffer from organised persecution in many parts of Ethiopia. She advised she could not think of a safe place to live because Amhara people are under constant attack.
·She advise she would not be able to work in Ethiopia because her husband’s family would alert any employer to her family background of leprosy as they had in the past. She believes she would be isolated, have no community participation and alienated from society. She believes her daughter would suffer from the same ostracism.
·Her husband came alone to Australia in 2015 to study his [Qualification]. There were insufficient funds for the applicant to accompany him plus he was pregnant at time of his departure.
·The applicant advised she did not raise Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) at time of her application for a Protection Visa or in any engagements with the Department because she did not think it was important. FGM is normal in Ethiopia. It is common within the Ethiopian community. It crosses social groups and religions. Her mother suffered from such violation. The bigger fear was leprosy. She was not at ease for social or cultural reasons in discussing FGM with other people.
The Tribunal as outlined in paragraph 17 above examined the applicant as to FGM. In addition to her evidence the applicant specifically addressed this issue in her written submission to the Tribunal.[28] This was a new issue not previously raised with the Department.
[28] Doc ID number 10468663 paragraphs 80 to 94, 104 and 115 plus Doc ID number 10493580
The applicant has raised a claim that was not raised before the primary decision was made and presented evidence in the application that was not presented before the primary decision was made.
Section 423A of the Migration Act addresses how the Tribunal is to deal with new claims or evidence. S.423A provides as follows:
MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 423A
How Tribunal is to deal with new claims or evidence
(1) This section applies if, in relation to an application for review of a Part 7-reviewable
decision (the primary decision), the applicant:
(a) raises a claim that was not raised before the primary decision was made; or
(b) presents evidence in the application that was not presented before the primary decision
was made.
(2) In making a decision on the application, the Tribunal is to draw an inference
unfavourable to the credibility of the claim or evidence if the Tribunal is satisfied that the
applicant does not have a reasonable explanation why the claim was not raised, or the
evidence was not presented, before the primary decision was made.
The operations of this section were discussed in the recent case of EQU19 v MICMSMA[29] which dealt with new evidence provided by an applicant during a hearing and the Tribunal’s consideration of that new evidence without reference to s 423A of the Act. This decision illustrates a circumstance in which a failure to expressly address s 423A(2) did not amount to jurisdictional error. It is the first judicial authority stating that there is no formal method or process for obtaining an explanation for a claim that falls under s 423A.
[29] [2022] FedCFamC2G 609
The Tribunal asked the applicant to explain why the matters relating to FGM were not raised before the primary decision was made or why the evidence (applicant’s legal submissions plus various submissions, statements and statutory declarations) was not presented before the primary decision was made. The applicant responded as set out in paragraph 17 above.
The Tribunal views the applicant’s decision of wanting to remain in Australia in the context of having endured a life of prejudice, discrimination and violence, being a witness to and subject of repeated horrendous violence by her husband’s family over a period of many years on a significant number of occasions to herself and her daughter.
In these circumstances the applicant was of the view that FGM being a routine matter and customary in her home country was not worthy of raising before the Department. The applicant was committed to raising with the Department what she considered a major matter and the causative issue in these proceedings: the issue of her father’s leprosy. In addition the Tribunal notes the applicant sought legal advice soon after her arrival in Australia.[30]
[30] See paragraph 12 above.
The Tribunal is of the view the applicant has provided a reasonable explanation in terms of s 423A (2) of the Migration Act.
The second applicant gave evidence as follows:
·He has completed his [Qualification], works as [an Occupation] for [a] company and earns approximately [amount] per annum.
·He advised his role of husband and father was very important. He enjoys his life with his family in Australia. He does not wish to return to Ethiopia. He is an active in his daughter’s school and the school community.
·He described [Suburb] as a multi-cultural immigrant community suburb about an hour from Melbourne. He practises his religion in Australia.
·He is fearful that if he returns to Ethiopia his family will pressure him to leave his wife and daughter. He does mis his own family in Ethiopia. Sometimes he regrets how things have turned out.
·His parents enjoy a high income, his parents are both educated people, his father own and runs a [business] and is a person of respect and authority in his community in Ethiopia. He explained his parents and siblings had attacked his wife on numerous occasions not out of ignorance but because those actions reflected the attitude of the wider Ethiopian community and if they did not move to remove their daughter-in-law (the applicant) from her husband (the second applicant) they would in turn suffer economic harm as they were not acting upon and respecting community values and attitudes.
The Tribunal has given consideration to all the above information.
Findings
The Tribunal finds as follows:
·The applicant is a person of Amhara ethnicity.
·Until her arrival in Australia she led a life of isolation, harassment, physical attack, separation, alienation, prejudice, violence, the fear of future violence and discrimination on account of the fact her father suffered from leprosy.
·Her in-laws on many occasions have mentally, emotionally and physically attacked and harmed her and her daughter without remorse or regret because her father suffered from leprosy.
·He in-laws have continued to harass her in Australia.
·This continuing abhorrent and aberrant behaviour is both tolerated, encouraged and engaged in by family, local communities, educational institutions, workplaces, the wider Ethiopian community in all parts of Ethiopia. This behaviour is tolerated and countenanced by government agencies and institutions. Local authorities have little interest in involving themselves in this abhorrent and aberrant behaviour.
·If the applicant should return to Ethiopia this form of pre-existing behaviour would most likely re-appear to the long term harm of the applicant and her family. There is a serious chance the applicant’s husband would succumb to his family pressure and leave his wife and daughter. In those circumstances the applicant would be destitute and alone without spouse, home, employment or a future.
·There is a serious likelihood the applicant’s daughter would suffer torture in the form of FGM.
·The applicant would be unable to re-locate in safety in any part of Ethiopia because this fear of leprosy crosses cities, regions and states.
Conclusions
The Tribunal notes the DFAT report on Ethiopia that was last updated in August 2020 predates a number of developments which have led to the significant deterioration of the security situation in the country, including the outbreak of conflict later that year and continuing to the present time in many parts of the country. Therefore, the report does not include information about the latest political and humanitarian crisis affecting all parts of Ethiopia, including Addis Ababa. The Tribunal is of the view DFAT’s assessments in relation to the risk faced in Ethiopia of someone with the applicant’s background and horrific life experience have been superseded in light of these developments. Indeed as late as 18 October 2022 the Wall St Journal reported that fighting had erupted again in Ethiopia and that tens of thousands of Eritrean troops had crossed into the restive province of Tigray cutting off humanitarian aid as mediation stalled. Hence what were isolated incidents of violence have spread initially to many instances of military engagement in different parts of the country, then to civil war and finally foreign state intervention and invasion for different political reasons. This article states cross border fighting has renewed, scheduled cease fire talks in South Africa failed to start, seesaw battles continue, more than half a million troops from 3 countries are fighting, an estimated 500,000 persons have died since 2020, the state of Eritrea is seeking permanent battlefield gains and the prospects for success and ceasefire are problematic at best. For additional detail see concerning the more recent developments in Ukraine and wheat supplies and the effect on Ethiopia see paragraphs 59 and 60 in Case number 2118846.
The Tribunal is of the view because of the demonstrably poor political and security conditions of Ethiopia, including in Addis Ababa, the applicant’s background and horrific life experiences relating to family leprosy will lead to a likely outcome of a marriage separation post return to Ethiopia. Hence the applicant faces the life of a single woman alone in a country where FGM is still considered routine. In these circumstances there is a real chance that she would again be the subject of verbal abuse, continuing taunting, isolation, marginalization, discrimination, denial of employment, denial of opportunity, denial of the opportunity to own her own home and raise her daughter as she deems appropriate and gross physical assault as would her daughter. The Tribunal does not regard these likely outcomes as fanciful or confected. They are based on the real life experience of the applicant until 2017 and the current life experience of her mother.
The Tribunal accepts the applicant’s Amhara ethnicity places her at heightened risk of harm, and that the authorities would provide little comfort or protection.
The Tribunal accepts CI confirms that interethnic violence has increased significantly under Abiy’s prime ministership, including against and between Ethiopians of Oromo and Amhara ethnicity. In the conflict between the Ethiopian government and allies, and the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF), armed groups formed along ethnic lines have perpetrated widespread abuses against civilians and members of other armed groups, including unlawful or arbitrary killings, forced disappearances and rape. Country information also makes clear that there is a real risk of interethnic violence in all parts of Ethiopia, including in Addis Ababa and against Amhara people.
The Tribunal is of the view conflict and human rights abuses are occurring across Ethiopia, perpetrated by both government security forces and armed groups formed along ethnic lines.
The Tribunal accepts, the security situation in Ethiopia following the signing of the peace treaty between the government of Ethiopia and the TPLF on 2 November 2022 remains volatile. A lasting peace is far from assured. It is clear from the above information that the federal government does not have control over the entire nation and that they are not able to bring about peace between the ethnic groups.
The Tribunal is of the view the risks facing the applicants as a family imputed with leprosy, and facing significant family violence at the hands of the second applicant’s family who, based on their misapprehended leprosy stigma, wish to separate the applicants’ family at all costs. In doing so, the Tribunal accepts the lack of state protection afforded to family violence victims and actual or imputed leprosy sufferers; and the inability of Amharas and women without male protection to relocate within Ethiopia.
The Tribunal finds that the applicants have a well-founded fear or returning to Ethiopia, based on the real chance they would suffer significant harm in the form of family violence including death threats and physical violence at the hands of the second applicant’s family; as well as extreme discrimination as imputed leprosy sufferers, leading to a loss of livelihood. The third applicant further fears coercion into FGM or early marriage. In the event that the second applicant’s family succeed in breaking up their family, the first and second applicants have a real fear of gender-based violence and the inability to subsist as single women without male protection.
The Tribunal is satisfied the applicant, if removed to Ethiopia, would reside in Addis Ababa, with her family being the city in which she and her family have lived for many years whilst regularly forced to shift seeking safe haven albeit marred by the current and likely ongoing need to again relocate from time to time for reason of fear to her safety. This is no way to live.
The Tribunal accepts that it would most likely imperil the applicant’s marriage and a likely outcome is separation and being forced to live alone without male protection as a single woman with a dependent child. In the prevailing conditions, dominated by civil war, drought, severe economic hardship, food and water scarcity, the applicant would be compelled to re-enter mainstream life in Addis Ababa.
She would need to do so to earn an income. In this context there is a real chance, the applicant as a ‘new face’ returnee or alternately as a stigmatised ‘old face’ returnee will be obliged to deal with ethnocentric individuals and hostile family, people and groups hostile to the Amhara people, as she competes for a place in society, and access to scarce commodities, such as food to subsist with her husband and family or alternately alone.
Turning now to the practice of FGM as was stated elsewhere[31] the Tribunal finds that the risk of such a damaging, humiliating and coercive practice to the third applicant would not be far-fetched or fanciful or remote, should the return to Ethiopia.
[31] See Case number 1815235 (Refugee) (unreported, 12 May 2022) per Member Darcy at [65] as cited in Document ID number 10468663 at paragraph 89
The Tribunal accordingly finds that there will be a real risk of the third applicant as a [Age] year would be physically coerced into the torture of FGM, mostly likely at the hands of other women in the family of the second applicant who fear this child would be stigmatized or bullied and her consequent ability to marry being limited due to a perception that she is not ‘pure’ and suffers a hereditary curse from God.. In this regard it is important to acknowledge that FGM is not perceived as violent but as justifiably carried out by perpetrators as it is perceived to provide protection for girls and done with community approval consistent with long term practice in Ethiopia.
In addition the Tribunal notes the evidence of the first applicant that her mother was subjected to the torture of FGM and the first applicant only escaped this torture because at the relevant time she suffered a bodily rash (unrelated to leprosy) and it was considered unwise to embark upon FGM whilst she suffer from this rash.
In these circumstances the first applicant as a single woman will be unlikely to be able to defend her daughters from this organised, approved and systemic torture due to her own expected parlous state of homelessness, unemployment and community alienation.
The first applicant will not likely avail her daughter of the protection of the Ethiopian authorities because of this dependency, her distrust in the authorities and their continuing de facto approval of the practice.
While the protection of the state is withheld by the authorities in these foreseeable circumstances, the first and third applicants do not have reasonable access to its protection to the extent for the Tribunal to consider and accept the chances of such harm to the applicants in question would be remote or far-fetched.
Having considered the applicant’s claims individually and cumulatively, the evidence, considered as a whole and in combination with the cited country information and numerous current and topical government and NGO reports, is sufficient to establish to the satisfaction of the Tribunal the existence of a real chance the applicant would be subjected to serious harm for reasons of her membership of a particular social group, that group being family members who have been the subject of ongoing, purposeful and protracted physical, mental and emotional harm because they are family members of a person who suffers or did suffer from leprosy. In addition the Tribunal is satisfied the applicant would be subjected to serious harm for reason of her Amharic ethnicity these being reasons that meet the provisions of s 5J(1)(a) of the Act if she is removed to Ethiopia now or in the reasonably foreseeable future. Accordingly, the applicant satisfies the criterion in s 36(2)(a) of the Act.

Consequently, the Tribunal is satisfied the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution for a reason specified in s 5J(1) of the Act and that the applicant meets the definition of refugee as set out is s 5H of the Act.
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).
Secondary Applicants
The secondary applicants are members of the family unit of the applicant who is a person who satisfies the criteria set out in s 36(2)(a) of the Act
DECISION
The Tribunal remits the matter for reconsideration with the direction that the applicant satisfies s 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act and the secondary applicants satisfy s 36(2)(b)(i) of the Migration Act.
Mark Bishop
Senior Member
Attachment - Extract from Migration Act 1958
5 (1) Interpretation
…
cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment means an act or omission by which:
(a)     severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person; or
(b)     pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person so long as, in all the circumstances, the act or omission could reasonably be regarded as cruel or inhuman in nature;
but does not include an act or omission:
(c)     that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(d)     arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
degrading treatment or punishment means an act or omission that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation which is unreasonable, but does not include an act or omission:
(a)     that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(b)     that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
torture means an act or omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person:
(a)     for the purpose of obtaining from the person or from a third person information or a confession; or
(b)     for the purpose of punishing the person for an act which that person or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed; or
(c)     for the purpose of intimidating or coercing the person or a third person; or
(d)     for a purpose related to a purpose mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c); or
(e)     for any reason based on discrimination that is inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant;
but does not include an act or omission arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
receiving country, in relation to a non-citizen, means:
(a)     a country of which the non-citizen is a national, to be determined solely by reference to the law of the relevant country; or
(b)     if the non-citizen has no country of nationality—a country of his or her former habitual residence, regardless of whether it would be possible to return the non-citizen to the country.
…
5H    Meaning of refugee
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person in Australia, the person is a refugee if the person is:
(a)     in a case where the person has a nationality – is outside the country of his or her nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country; or
(b)     in a case where the person does not have a nationality – is outside the country of his or her former habitual residence and owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to return to it.
Note:     For the meaning of well-founded fear of persecution, see section 5J.
…
5J     Meaning of well-founded fear of persecution
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person has a well-founded fear of persecution if:
(a)     the person fears being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion; and
(b)     there is a real chance that, if the person returned to the receiving country, the person would be persecuted for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(c)     the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of a receiving country.
Note:     For membership of a particular social group, see sections 5K and 5L.
(2)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country.
Note:     For effective protection measures, see section 5LA.
(3)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if the person could take reasonable steps to modify his or her behaviour so as to avoid a real chance of persecution in a receiving country, other than a modification that would:
(a)     conflict with a characteristic that is fundamental to the person’s identity or conscience; or
(b)     conceal an innate or immutable characteristic of the person; or
(c)     without limiting paragraph (a) or (b), require the person to do any of the following:
(i)alter his or her religious beliefs, including by renouncing a religious conversion, or conceal his or her true religious beliefs, or cease to be involved in the practice of his or her faith;
(ii)conceal his or her true race, ethnicity, nationality or country of origin;
(iii)alter his or her political beliefs or conceal his or her true political beliefs;
(iv)conceal a physical, psychological or intellectual disability;
(v)enter into or remain in a marriage to which that person is opposed, or accept the forced marriage of a child;
(vi)alter his or her sexual orientation or gender identity or conceal his or her true sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.
(4)If a person fears persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a):
(a)     that reason must be the essential and significant reason, or those reasons must be the essential and significant reasons, for the persecution; and
(b)     the persecution must involve serious harm to the person; and
(c)     the persecution must involve systematic and discriminatory conduct.
(5)Without limiting what is serious harm for the purposes of paragraph (4)(b), the following are instances of serious harm for the purposes of that paragraph:
(a)     a threat to the person’s life or liberty;
(b)     significant physical harassment of the person;
(c)     significant physical ill‑treatment of the person;
(d)     significant economic hardship that threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(e)     denial of access to basic services, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(f)     denial of capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist.
(6)In determining whether the person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a), any conduct engaged in by the person in Australia is to be disregarded unless the person satisfies the Minister that the person engaged in the conduct otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening the person’s claim to be a refugee.
5K    Membership of a particular social group consisting of family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person (the first person), in determining whether the first person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for the reason of membership of a particular social group that consists of the first person’s family:
(a)     disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced, where the reason for the fear or persecution is not a reason mentioned in paragraph 5J(1)(a); and
(b)     disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that:
(i)the first person has ever experienced; or
(ii)any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced;
where it is reasonable to conclude that the fear or persecution would not exist if it were assumed that the fear or persecution mentioned in paragraph (a) had never existed.
Note:     Section 5G may be relevant for determining family relationships for the purposes of this section.
5L    Membership of a particular social group other than family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person is to be treated as a member of a particular social group (other than the person’s family) if:
(a)     a characteristic is shared by each member of the group; and
(b)     the person shares, or is perceived as sharing, the characteristic; and
(c)     any of the following apply:
(i)the characteristic is an innate or immutable characteristic;
(ii)the characteristic is so fundamental to a member’s identity or conscience, the member should not be forced to renounce it;
(iii)the characteristic distinguishes the group from society; and
(d)     the characteristic is not a fear of persecution.
5LA Effective protection measures
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country if:
(a)     protection against persecution could be provided to the person by:
(i)the relevant State; or
(ii)a party or organisation, including an international organisation, that controls the relevant State or a substantial part of the territory of the relevant State; and
(b)     the relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (a) is willing and able to offer such protection.
(2)A relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) is taken to be able to offer protection against persecution to a person if:
(a)     the person can access the protection; and
(b)     the protection is durable; and
(c)     in the case of protection provided by the relevant State—the protection consists of an appropriate criminal law, a reasonably effective police force and an impartial judicial system.
…
36     Protection visas – criteria provided for by this Act
…
(2)A criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is:
(a)     a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee; or
(aa) a non-citizen in Australia (other than a non-citizen mentioned in paragraph (a)) 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 the non-citizen being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that the non-citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b)     a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:
(i)is mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant; or
(c)     a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:
(i)is mentioned in paragraph (aa); and
(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant.
(2A)A non‑citizen will suffer significant harm if:
(a)     the non‑citizen will be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life; or
(b)     the death penalty will be carried out on the non‑citizen; or
(c)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to torture; or
(d)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or
(e)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment.
(2B)However, there is taken not to be a real risk that a non‑citizen will suffer significant harm in a country if the Minister is satisfied that:
(a)     it would be reasonable for the non‑citizen to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b)     the non‑citizen could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(c)     the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the non‑citizen personally.
…

a) The group is identifiable by a common characteristic or attribute; and
b) This characteristic or attribute is not the shared fear of persecution; and
c) The characteristic or attribute must distinguish the group from society at large.

Affected Persons and Their Family Members: Non-Governmental Organizations
Questionnaire’, submission to the UN Human Rights Council
<

NEWS PROVIDED BY Sasakawa Health Foundation, Sep 02, 2022

< Ethiopia, 2020, 8 < pdf>.