2306755 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for protection visas by a mother and her children. The applicants, who are Muslim, sought protection on the basis of ethnicity and their status as a divorced mother. The first applicant is Oromo, and her husband is Somali. The dispute arose from the husband's social media posts and subsequent threatening communications, leading to their estrangement and his departure from Australia. The applicants also raised concerns about the children's integration, potential hardship upon return to Ethiopia, and the general risks associated with returning asylum seekers.

The court was required to determine whether the applicants faced a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm if returned to Ethiopia. Specifically, the court had to consider the first applicant's status as a divorced Oromo woman, the potential impact of hardship on her children, the risks associated with having sought asylum in Australia, and the cumulative effect of these factors. The court also needed to assess whether any claimed risks were specific to the applicants or were risks faced by the general population in Ethiopia.

The court reasoned that while the children would experience some material loss of opportunity, this did not amount to serious or significant harm. It found that being divorced or a single mother is not unusual in Ethiopia, and the first applicant did not present evidence of extenuating circumstances that would place her at risk due to this status. The court noted that labour force data indicated female participation in the workforce was comparable to Australia, suggesting she would be able to find work. While acknowledging that the family might face some hardship, the court concluded it would not amount to serious or significant harm. The court also found no evidence that individuals returning after seeking asylum are targeted, nor that the children would face a real risk of kidnapping or targeted harm due to having lived abroad. Considering all factors cumulatively, the court found that the applicants did not face a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicants protection visas, finding that they did not satisfy the criteria under section 36(2)(a) or (aa) of the Migration Act 1958.