STZS and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) - [2020] AATA 2504

STZS and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2020] AATA 2504 (20 May 2020)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number(s): 2020/1252
Re:STZS
APPLICANT

AndMinister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs
RESPONDENT

DECISION
Tribunal:Member Rebecca Bellamy
Date of decision: 20 May 2020
Date of written reasons: 28 July 2020
Place:Brisbane

The decision under review is affirmed.
...........................[SGD].............................................
Member Rebecca Bellamy
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Non-revocation of mandatory cancellation of a Refugee Class XB, Subclass 200 visa - where Applicant does not pass the character test – whether there is another reason to revoke the mandatory cancellation decision – consideration of Ministerial Direction No. 79 – consideration of Australia’s international non-refoulement obligations – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
CASES
Afu v Minister for Home Affairs [2018] FCA 1311
Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 46 FLR 409
FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCA 500
FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 185
Gaspar v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 1166, (2016) 153 ALD 337
Marzano v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCAFC 66, (2017) 250 FCR 548
Minister for Home Affairs v Buadromo [2018] FCAFC 151
Suleiman v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 594
Uelese v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 348
YNQY v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 1466
SECONDARY MATERIAL
Direction No 79 – Visa refusal and cancellation under s501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under s501CA
REASONS FOR DECISION
Member Rebecca Bellamy
28 July 2020
THE ISSUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL

STZS (“the Applicant”) is a 23 year old citizen of Ethiopia. In November 2009, when he was 12 years old he moved to Australia with his family. The most recent visa granted to him was a Refugee Class XB (Subclass 200) visa (“the visa”) in August 2009.[1]
[1] Exhibit G1, s 501 G-Documents, G15, page 77.
In August 2018 a delegate of the Respondent decided to mandatorily cancel his visa under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (“the Act”) on the basis that he did not pass the character test due to criminal offending.[2]
[2] Exhibit G1, s 501 G-Documents, G3, page 9.
In September 2018, the Applicant made representations and provided supporting material as to why that decision should be revoked.[3] The decision was revoked in January 2019.[4]
[3] Exhibit R2, Respondent’s Tender Bundle, TB4.
[4] Exhibit G1, s 501 G-Documents, G3.
In June 2019, the Applicant was convicted of “burglary and commit indictable offence” and sentenced to imprisonment for 12 months.[5]
[5] Exhibit G1, s 501 G-Documents, G9, page 55.
This led to the Respondent, again, deciding to mandatorily cancel the Applicant’s visa under s 501(3A) of the Act in July 2019 on the basis that he did not pass the character test.[6] In August 2019 the Respondent received the Applicant’s revocation request, in which the Applicant made representations as to why the decision should be revoked.[7] In February 2020, the Respondent decided not to revoke its decision (“Decision under Review”)[8] and the Applicant was notified on 26 February 2020.[9]
[6]     Exhibit G1, s 501 G-Documents, G8, page 41.
[7]     Exhibit G1, s 501 G-Documents, G16.
[8]     Exhibit G1, s 501 G-Documents, G8.
[9]     Exhibit G1, s 501 G-Documents, G2, page 6.
The Applicant lodged an application with this Tribunal on 28 February 2020 seeking a review of the Decision under Review.[10] The Tribunal has jurisdiction to review that decision pursuant to s 500(1)(ba) of the Act.
Pre-Hearing Issues
[10] Exhibit G1, s 501 G-Documents, G2.
On 12 March 2020, the hearing of this matter was listed for 5 and 6 May 2020. On that date the Tribunal directed the Applicant to file and serve any witness statements and other evidence on which he sought to rely at the hearing, and a Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions (“SFIC”), by 3 April 2020. Both a listing notice and written direction were provided to the parties on 13 March 2020. The written direction stipulated that the Tribunal could only have regard to information presented orally in support of the Applicant’s case at the hearing if that information was set out in a written document given to the Tribunal and to the Respondent by 29 April 2020.
The effect of s 500 (6H) and s 500 (6J) of the Act is that the Tribunal could not have regard to any information presented orally in support of the Applicant’s case unless the information had been set out in a written statement given to the Respondent at least two business days prior to the hearing, and the Tribunal could not have regard to any document submitted in support of an Applicant’s case unless a copy of the document had been given to the Respondent at least two business days prior to the hearing. Section 500(8)(d) of the Act stipulates that a “business day” means a day that is not “a public holiday in the place concerned”. I note the 4 May 2020 was a public holiday in Queensland, the state in which the hearing was listed. Consequently, the date of 29 April 2020 was the final date by which the Applicant was required to provide any written material to the Tribunal. On 23 April 2020, a telephone directions hearing was held, with the assistance of an interpreter, in which the Tribunal impressed upon the Applicant that if he wished any person to give evidence on his behalf he was required to provide a statement from that person by 29 April 2020, and that if he wished to rely on any written material in the hearing he had to provide it by 29 April 2020. The Tribunal emphasised the importance of complying with that deadline. The following day the Applicant was provided with the email address of the Tribunal and of the lawyer for the Respondent. The Applicant failed to provide any material by 29 April 2020.
However, on 30 April 2020, a letter from the Applicant’s mother and a letter from a representative of the Queensland Somali Youth Council Inc. were emailed to the Tribunal. It appeared that there had been a last-minute effort to engage a lawyer and that this may have delayed the provision of those two documents to the Tribunal.
On 1 May 2020, a telephone directions hearing was held, with the assistance of an interpreter, for the purpose of giving the Applicant an opportunity to seek an adjournment which, if granted, would have allowed the Tribunal to consider the material the Applicant had provided. He took the opportunity to apply for an adjournment on a different basis, being that he wished to obtain legal representation. He said that he was previously unaware that he could have legal representation for this matter. This is despite him having the assistance of a lawyer when he submitted his application to the Tribunal.[11] Given the gravity of this matter, with the prospect of the Applicant being deported, the Tribunal granted an adjournment to 19 and 20 May 2020. I note that, as the Applicant was notified of the reviewable decision on 26 February 2020, if the Tribunal failed to make a decision by 20 May 2020, it would have been taken to have affirmed the decision.[12] The Tribunal directed the Applicant to provide any material he wished to rely on by 14 May 2020.
[11] Exhibit G1, s 501 G-Documents, G2, page 4.
[12] Section 500(6L) Migration Act 1958 (Cth).
On the evening of Thursday 14 May 2020, the Applicant’s solicitor lodged with the Tribunal:
· a 50 page SFIC, some 35 pages of which related to non-refoulement claims; and
· some 285 pages of other material, most of which was country information about Ethiopia.
The hearing commenced on Tuesday 19 May 2020. Five witnesses were to give evidence. In the interests of giving the Tribunal sufficient time to hear the matter and make a decision within the statutory time limit, one of the efficiencies that was agreed with the parties was that, as the Applicant was able to speak English to a reasonable degree, the interpreter would be used only when required rather than throughout the hearing. The Applicant was represented by experienced Counsel who, during the Applicant’s evidence, interjected when it appeared to him that the Applicant was having, or would have, difficulty understanding a question asked of him. At those times, and others, the interpreter was called upon. I am grateful for Counsel’s assistance in that regard. In assessing the Applicant’s evidence and the way in which he gave his evidence, I have taken into account that English is not his first, or even his second, language.
The Applicant’s mother, his older sister and one of his younger sisters also gave evidence. The Applicant’s mother speaks no English and required an interpreter for the entirety of her evidence. A fifth witness was to give evidence however, due to the evidence of the witnesses before him taking longer than expected, and his limited availability, he did not give evidence.
The Tribunal received the written evidence that is listed in the attached exhibit list, marked “Annexure A”. The hearing concluded shortly before 4pm on Wednesday, 20 May 2020. The decision was made and communicated to the parties at approximately 7.00pm that day.
What follows are the written reasons for the decision.
THE APPLICANT’S BACKGROUND AND OFFENDING HISTORY
Before the Applicant came to Australia
The Applicant’s parents are from Ethiopia and they are of Oromo ethnicity.[13] His mother said she grew up in an upper-middle-class family[14] who ran some businesses.[15] Her mother died when she was young.[16] She did not go to school and cannot read or write. She got married when she was around 17 or 18 years old.[17] She lived with her husband and his mother in the city while her father-in-law lived in the countryside.[18] Her father was imprisoned when she was an adult and she does not know why.[19] Her father-in-law told her he was involved in the Omoro Liberation Front (“OLF”).[20] To her knowledge his involvement was “not that obvious” and involved providing food and moral support.[21] Her husband owned a shop selling clothes and shoes[22] and he was not, to her knowledge involved in the OLF. According to the Applicant’s mother, at that time, the OLF was a vigilante group, not capable of launching a “strike” against the government.[23] The Applicant’s mother said that she was imprisoned in a military prison in around 1991 for about a year.[24] She believes this happened because her father-in-law was involved with the OLF so the Ethiopian authorities suspected her husband of involvement with the OLF.[25] She came to believe this because, although the authorities did not tell her why she was imprisoned, they asked her “What does he do? What is his job? Where does he go to?”.[26]
[13]    Transcript, page 60, line 10 and lines 27 to 30; page 61, lines 35 to 38; page 93, lines 8 to 10.
[14]    Exhibit A3, Letter of Support from Applicant’s Mother, paragraph 1.
[15]    Transcript, page 89, lines 15 to 16.
[16]    Transcript, page 65, line 39.
[17]    Transcript, page 60, lines 45 to 47.
[18]    Transcript, page 89, line 31 to page 90, line 10.
[19]    Transcript, page 65, lines 40 to 44; page 89, lines 25 to 29.
[20]    Transcript, page 62, lines 1 to 5.
[21]    Transcript, page 91, lines 30 to 35.
[22]    Exhibit A5, Statements of Applicant’s family members, page 10, paragraph 4.
[23]    Transcript, page 91, lines 32 to 40.
[24]    Transcript, page 63, lines 1 to 5; page 90, lines 18 to 21.
[25]    Exhibit A5, Statements of Applicant’s family members, page 10, paragraph 4.
[26]    Transcript, page 90, line 42 to page 91, line 7; page 91, lines 1 16 to 28.
The Applicant’s mother was released from prison but did not attempt to escape Ethiopia.[27] Years later, after the Applicant and his older sister had been born, she and her husband were imprisoned again.[28] She cannot remember how long she was imprisoned on that occasion.[29] One day they were taken to a hillside blindfolded and her husband was shot in front of her.[30] She was then taken back to the prison and subsequently escaped. She recalls that her photograph was in the newspaper because she was an escaped prisoner.[31] She fled to Kenya in 1997. The Applicant was a baby.[32] To her knowledge her husband’s mother and siblings were alive and not in prison at the time she left Ethiopia.[33] She did not claim that the authorities did anything to her father-in-law.
[27]    Transcript, page 91, lines 9 to 14.
[28]    Transcript, page 91, lines 12 to 14; Exhibit A5, Statements of Applicant’s family members, page 10, paragraph 4.
[29]    Transcript, page 63, lines 7 to 12.
[30]    Exhibit A5, Statements of Applicant’s family members, page 10, paragraph 4.
[31]    Transcript, page 67, lines 8 to 21; page 87, lines 7 to 20.
[32]    Transcript, page 66, lines 18 to 46.
[33]    Transcript, page 91, line 43 to page 92, line 10.
The Applicant, his mother and his sister spent some time in a refugee camp in Kenya. In around 2000 the Applicant’s mother met a man who was also Oromo and they married.[34] The Applicant regards his step-father as his father and cannot recall a time when his step‑father was not part of his family.[35] The family spent some years in Nairobi until in 2004 they moved to the Dadaab refugee camp also in Kenya.[36] By this time there was another child in the family, and the family continued to grow until there were seven children.[37]
[34]    Transcript, page 92, lines 31 to 33.
[35]    Transcript, page 43, lines 19 to 26.
[36]    Transcript, page 68, lines 37 to 41; page 92, lines 21 to 29.
[37]    Exhibit G1, s 501 G-documents, PG16, page 88; transcript, page 77, lines 5 to 13.
At the camp, the family lived in a very basic hut and food and water were scarce. The Applicant’s older sister recalled that she and the Applicant would do odd jobs for people to earn money.[38] His mother recalled that, even though they were very poor, sometimes the Applicant would give some of the money he earned to others in the camp who were in need.[39]
[38] Transcript, page 101, line 40 to page 102, line 5.
[39] Transcript, page 84, lines 25 to 27.
Most of the people in the camp were from places other than Ethiopia, mostly Somalia and Sudan.[40] When the Applicant started going to school, at around eight or nine years old, the other children bullied him and called him “Oromo”.[41] At school other children took the Applicant’s and his sister’s books and bullied them.[42] It was necessary to leave the camp to attend school and to get water from a tap that was around 30 minutes’ walk from the camp. Leaving the camp was dangerous. The Applicant was afraid for himself and afraid for his mother when she went to work. He worried that his mother would be killed and never come back.[43] He said he worried that if something happened to her “I don’t know how we going to live without her and what we going to do and how we going to end up”.[44]
[40]    Transcript, page 8, lines 11 to 12.
[41]    Exhibit A4, Applicant's statement, paragraph 4.
[42]    Transcript, page 70, lines 31 to 35.
[43]    Exhibit A4, Applicant's statement, paragraph 5.
[44]    Transcript, page 9, lines 5 to 12.
The Applicant’s older sister said one day some people came to the school and killed a girl who was around 12 years old. She said that she witnessed this and told her mother and the Applicant about it.[45] In his statement, the Applicant said when he lived in the camp he saw people trying to kill each other with machetes, normally because of conflicts between different tribes, and that this traumatised him.[46] In oral evidence he said “I have seen people like killing each other and stuff like that and the struggle was real”.[47] He was then asked if he actually saw people get killed to which he replied “Yes, I have seen people get killed” and when asked how they were killed he said “They were killing each other with machetes and I thank God for that because my mum save me because I was traumatised, I was shocked, I couldn’t move, I didn’t know what to do.”[48] In the Applicant’s statement he said he saw people trying to kill each other with machetes and in oral evidence he said they were in fact killing each other with machetes. However, whether or not the Applicant witnessed people being killed or he witnessed people trying to kill each other, I accept that what he witnessed was frightening.
[45]    Transcript, page 101, lines 15 to 20; page 111, lines 1 to 30.
[46]    Exhibit A4, Applicant's statement, paragraph 5.
[47]    Transcript, page 7, line 46 to page 8, line 1.
[48]    Transcript, page 8, lines 14 to 19.
The Applicant’s mother ended up keeping her children from attending school because of her concerns for their safety. One day when the Applicant was nine or 10 years old he fell out of a tree and injured his head.[49] His older sister recalls a lot of blood and fearing that he would not survive.[50] It was not possible to get adequate medical care but the Applicant recovered. The injury caused a scar on one of the Applicant’s eyebrows and some of the children at the camp would bully him and call him “the devil kid”[51] or the “evil kid”.[52] The Applicant’s sister noticed that following the Applicant’s fall his memory was impaired. She gave the example that he would tell her he was going somewhere and that he would return at a certain time, but he would return hours later without realising that he was late.[53] She gave the impression that this sort of thing happened a lot. The Applicant said he thought this injury had an impact on his memory.[54]
[49]    Exhibit A4, Applicant's statement, paragraph 6.
[50]    Transcript, page 102, lines 15 to 34.
[51]    Exhibit A4, Applicant statement, paragraph 6.
[52]    Transcript, page 9, lines 24 to 29.
[53]    Transcript, page 102, line 43 to page 103, line 5.
[54]    Exhibit A4, Applicant's statement, paragraph 6.
I accept that life in the camp was hard, deprived and traumatic for the Applicant. I further accept that outside the Applicant’s family’s hut, and especially outside the camp, he did not feel safe, and that he worried about his mother’s safety and what would become of him if something happened to her. He must have felt terribly insecure. According to the time-line his mother gave, the family spent around five years in that camp before coming to Australia.
Life in Australia
In November 2009, when the Applicant was 12 years old, his family came to Australia and settled in Brisbane. While he felt positive about coming to Australia, he had nightmares about things that had happened in the refugee camp.[55]
[55] Transcript, page 10, lines 1 to 12.
According to the Applicant’s mother:
“We were all traumatised from what we had experienced but we did not get the support we needed; not because it wasn’t available but because we did not know how to access it.”[56]
[56] Exhibit A5, Statements of Applicant’s family members, page 11, paragraph, 11.
In the refugee camp the Applicant had spoken Omoro at home with his family and Somali outside his home. He did not speak any English.[57] As a result he found school difficult. He also had trouble remembering things that he had learned.[58] There has never been any medical investigation into whether the fall from the tree caused any neurological damage.[59]
[57]    Transcript, page 10, lines 28 to 29.
[58]    Ibid, lines 42 to 48.
[59]    Transcript, page 46, lines 36 to 37.
The Applicants parents had more children in Australia. The Applicant has one older sister and seven younger siblings.
According to the Applicant’s mother the Applicant “struggled to fit in to life in Australia”.[60] He was doing well at school and getting good grades, but he “made some bad friends at school. He started to spend more and more time out with these friends, and he would not come home until late.”[61] The Applicant’s mother said these friends would call the Applicant in the morning and when he left the house she thought he was going to school, only to find out later that he had not attended school.[62] She told the Tribunal:
“I did try to stop him going with friends and hang out with bad friends, I did try that but I didn’t succeed. He avoided - I tried to - whenever the telephone rings and he talks to them and he goes away and joins them, I tried whatever I could to stop him.”[63]
[60]    Exhibit A5, Statements of Applicant’s family members, page 11, paragraph 12.
[61]    Ibid.
[62]    Transcript, page 79, lines 31 to 35.
[63]    Transcript, page 82, lines 27 to 32.

The Applicant’s sister gave evidence that she saw that he was making friends with a certain student and, knowing that the student was badly behaved at school, she implored the Applicant not to associate with this person outside school.[64] The Applicant’s mother said she would approach the police about her concerns but they would tell her that they could not do anything until the Applicant got into trouble and that he had not been in trouble so far.[65]
[64] Transcript, page 104, lines 12 to 20; page 110, lines 20 to 44.
[65] Transcript, page 79, lines 40 to 46.
The Applicant’s mother said that over time the Applicant started to stay with friends and would almost never be home. She would call him and he would tell her he was fine but she thought that in reality he was struggling. Sometimes he would not answer her calls and she would only hear from him when he had been arrested.[66]
[66] Exhibit A5, Statements of Applicant’s family members, pages 11 and 12, paragraph 13.
The Applicant said in his statement:
“I started hanging out with the wrong crowd and let myself be influenced by my peers. I started breaking the law and then in around 2014, I started drinking alcohol with my friends”.[67]
[67] Exhibit A4, Applicant's statement, paragraph 9.
The Applicant left school in year 11.[68] The Applicant’s mother said initially at school in Australia he was okay but when he was about to start year 11 “that’s when he couldn’t continue”.[69] She also said that when he left school he would come home every now and then, and subsequently he ceased coming home completely.[70]
[68]    Transcript, page 11, lines 6 to 7.
[69]    Transcript, page 79, lines 23 to 27.
[70]    Transcript, page 80, lines 7 to 11.
When the Applicant first started drinking, he drank every day and he would normally consume a bottle of Jim Beam per day. He consumed alcohol in that way from 2014 to 2016.[71]
Juvenile offending
[71] Transcript, page 30, line 31 to page 31, line 9.
The Applicant’s recorded date of birth in Australian records is 1 January 1997. It was contended on his behalf that this is so because his exact date of birth could not be established. This would accord with standard practice and I accept it. The Applicant’s Counsel put to his mother that the Applicant was born in July, not January, 1997 and she agreed.[72] While she gave that evidence in response to a leading question, I am prepared to accept it. The Applicant has been dealt with by the criminal justice system on the basis that his date of birth is 1 January 1997.
[72] Transcript, page 61, lines 12 to 24.
In 2012, the Applicant committed the following offences:
·enter premises with intent to commit indictable offence;
·stealing;
·trespass – entering or remaining in dwelling or yard; and
·unauthorised dealing with shop goods.
He was dealt with in the Children’s Court and given a 12 month good behaviour bond.[73] The police contacted the Applicant’s mother and she attended court on that occasion.[74] She did not know what offences the Applicant had committed, although she thought it had to do with shoplifting. In 2013 the Applicant committed two public nuisance offences. He was dealt with in the Children’s Court and reprimanded.[75]
[73]    G1, s 501 G-Documents, PG9, page 59.
[74]    Transcript, page 80, lines 22 to 26.
[75]    G1, s 501 G-Documents, PG9, page 59.
In 2014, when the Applicant was 16 years old (according to DOB 1 July 1997), he committed the following offences:
·wilful damage (on two occasions);
·trespass – entering or remaining in dwelling or yard; and
·contravene direction or requirement.
The Applicant received fines and a good behaviour bond for those offences.
Offending when the Applicant was 17 (according to DOB 1 July 1997)
When the Applicant was 17 years old he committed the following offences in Gladstone:
·commit public nuisance and trespass - entering or remaining in dwelling or yard, for which he was sentenced to 8 months of probation;
·contravene direction or requirement, for which he was convicted but not further punished; and
·receiving tainted property, and fraud – dishonestly obtains property from another, for which he was sentenced to 60 hours of community service.
On the day before he was due to be sentenced for those three offences he committed assault occasioning bodily harm whilst armed/in company (x2). The Police Court Brief in relation to those offences contains the following information:
“On the afternoon of Wednesday, 26 November 2014 the defendant in this matter was drinking alcohol with friends at one of the units located within the complex…
At about 11:45pm on this same day, the defendant who was heavily intoxicated, approached the residence of [name redacted] to enter the unit where he had been staying. The permanent occupant of the dwelling denied the defendant access and told him that he could not enter because he had an infant female child inside and he would have to stay at another location until he was sober. The defendant became aggressive towards the elderly occupant, and the neighbour, who had just awoken, has approached the defendant in defense (sic) of his neighbour. The neighbour is the victim in this matter.
The defendant has continued to yell abuse and he aggressively approached the occupant to gain entry to the unit. The victim has intervened and pushed the defendant against the wall and told him to leave. The defendant has then walked away yelling abuse at the victim telling him “I will be back”.
The defendant returned within a few minutes in company with his cousin. The victim started to explain to the defendant that he was not welcome and would need to sleep at his friend’s house until he had sobered up. The defendant was standing behind his cousin and has lept forward towards the victim and hit him in the face area using a light bulb that he had hidden in his right hand. As a result, the [victim] has suffered a large cut to his left ear that instantly began to bleed. The victim has retreated inside the unit and has returned a moment later to observe the defendant’s cousin restraining the defendant.
An ambulance was called and transported the victim to the hospital for treatment where he received approximately a dozen stitches to his ear area.
Police attended the scene and arrested the defendant in relation to another matter. Whilst in custody the defendant was questioned in relation to this matter. During this questioning, the defendant admitted to striking the [victim]. The defendant stated that he was defending himself when being assaulted by the victim. The defendant stated that he was heavily intoxicated and could not recall how he came to be in possession of the light bulb. The defendant stated that he found it in his pocket and decided to use it.
…
Gladstone detectives then obtained witness statements from both the victim and the defendant’s cousin. Versions provided, clearly contradicted the defendant’s version of events. These statements indicated that the defendant was not acting in self defense (sic) and had struck the victim with the glass bulb without provocation.”[76]
[76] Exhibit R2, Respondent’s Tender Bundle, page 31.
[Underlining added]
In the hearing, the Applicant gave the following evidence:
“Okay, what happened was the owner of the house he told us there’s a kid in the house so we are not allowed to drink here. So then the neighbour told (indistinct) over to my place and drink here. So we went over to his place to drink and I was (indistinct) go back there and they told me I’m not allowed to go in because there was a kid there. It wasn’t me, that was my friend that [they] told him you not allowed in the house. And he came back to me and he told me this guy is telling me to not to enter the house. So… I just follow him and after that’s when we went to the guy. I don’t know what happened between them before I haven’t went there, so when I went to the guy and I told him I want to ask him what’s going on I see the guy have machete, so when I see his machete I was going to punch him. I didn’t want to hit him or anything, I didn’t even know how did the lightbulb get into my hand. So that was self-defence myself...”[77]
[Underlining added]
[77] Transcript, page 22, lines 8 to 21.
Then the following exchange occurred:
Q: So is your evidence that you hit the man with a lightbulb because he had a machete?
A: Yes, he had a machete. If it wasn’t for my friend that he didn’t call me this [whole] thing wouldn’t happen, it was just a misunderstanding.
Q: Sorry, because of a misunderstanding you hit someone in the face with a lightbulb?
A: No, no, that’s self-defence because he have machete. So me I’m not all there because I’m drunk because I have not the right to hit someone but like if someone has machete you have to do what you have to, you know, so I was just - and is not kind of my fault because he was my friend for he is the one who take me there the first place because he told me he wants to go see his missus father and he has a job, he can help us with job and stuff like that, you know. So and he was meant to be my witness when I went to court and he didn’t want to be witness, he just left me like that, so I didn’t know what to do, so I just pled guilty.
Q: Can you provide any reason why the police record would not refer to the victim having a machete?
A: Because the police, they even took long, they didn’t come that quick because I went back to the…house…that the guy that we were drinking at his house and that’s when the police came to the house and they arrest me from there so what happened from that time I don’t know what happened, what he did to the machete and stuff like that because, um, my friend was - he was pushing me, he was telling me, ‘Let’s go, let’s go’ too so I wasn’t even kind of sure, like, what really happened…”[78]
[Underlining added]
[78] Ibid, lines 23 to 46.
The Applicant subsequently said:
“I was defending myself and actually I was defending my friend too because he’s the one who dragged me to the situation so there was - I had no option to - I had to do what I had to do because in - and I don’t really know, like, how did the police put it or what he said to the police or it’s just - I just plead guilty so to just - because it was - at the same time it was my fault if I shouldn’t follow him all the way to Gladstone or, you know, drink with him this whole problem wouldn’t happen (indistinct) and for my mistake.”[79]
[Underlining added]
[79] Transcript, page 23, lines 31 to 38.
The Police Court Brief recounts what the Applicant told them about the incident and there is no mention of the Applicant claiming that the victim had a machete. The Applicant was asked if he had told the police that the victim had a machete, to which he said:
“Um, yes, I told them. Yes, I told them that he has machete but they said - they said he didn’t have machete. Of course he wouldn’t have machete because he is next to his house, he can just go inside and put it back, you know.”[80]
[80] Ibid, line 42 to page 24 line 1.
However, the Applicant’s answer does not explain why the Police Court Brief makes no mention of the Applicant reporting that there was a machete. The version the Applicant gave to the police, according to the contemporaneous police records, is that he was assaulted by the victim. There is no mention of a machete. The version he gave the Tribunal did not allege that the victim assaulted him but did allege that the victim had a machete. These versions are inconsistent with each other and with the versions given by the victim and the Applicant’s friend – according to the police records - which indicated that the Applicant was not acting in self-defence and was not provoked. I reject both versions given by the Applicant. I find that the Applicant was intoxicated and unhappy with the victim, that he yelled abuse at him and made a threat that he would be back, that he co-opted his friend and returned as he had said he would, that he attacked the victim without provocation, and that he was then restrained by his friend.
Offending between 2015 and 2017
The Applicant returned to Brisbane and in 2015, while on bail for the assaults, he committed the following offences:
a)breach of bail condition, for which he was fined;
b)fail to appear in accordance with bail undertaking (x2), for which he was sentenced to one month imprisonment suspended for two years;
c)commit public nuisance (x2), for which he was not further punished;
d)breach of bail condition, for which he was not further punished;
e)possess utensils or pipes for use, for which he was not further punished; and
f)wilfully damage property, for which he was not further punished.
In September 2015, he was dealt with for the offences in (a) and (b). He was also remanded in custody. In November 2015, after having spent 70 days in pre-sentence custody, he was dealt with for the rest of the offences, the assaults from November 2014 and for breaching his probation order and community service order. For the assaults, he was sentenced to six months imprisonment with immediate parole, i.e. he was released from custody.
Upon release, the Applicant went back to his friends and started drinking again.[81] He also started using “ice” and he became addicted to it.[82] He said he took it every day and spent all his money on it. He was not working and began committing crimes to get money to buy it. He said he stopped living at his family’s home because he was addicted to drugs, and that he slept on the streets or sometimes stayed with friends.[83] He stopped seeing his mother but she used to call him and he told her he was okay because he did not want to worry her.[84] The Applicant would use methamphetamine more than once in a day, up to five times per day, if he could afford it.[85]
[81]    Exhibit A4, Applicant statement, paragraph 11.
[82]    Ibid, paragraphs 11 to 12.
[83]    Ibid, paragraph 12.
[84]    Ibid.
[85]    Transcript, page 32, lines 10 to 17.
In 2016, the Applicant committed the following offences:
·commit public nuisance, for which he was fined;
·fail to appear in accordance with bail condition, for which he was not further punished;
·enter premises and commit indictable offence, for which he was sentenced to four months imprisonment suspended for 18 months; and
·stealing for which he was sentenced to two months imprisonment suspended for 18 months.
In relation to the enter premises and commit indictable offence, which related to a vehicle that was broken into, the Police Court Brief includes the following information:
“… an unknown number of offender’s (sic) have damaged the front passenger door lock and gained entry to the vehicle and stolen property including a fault locator tool, laptop charger, mobile phone charger, a multi charger and prescription glasses.
The informant has reported the incident and Police Scenes of Crime officer has attended and completed a forensic exam. As a result of that forensic exam the defendant in this matter was identified as a suspect in this offence.
…
[86] Exhibit R2, Respondent’s Tender Bundle, TB1, page 2.
The defendant initially stated that he had not been to Runcorn and had no knowledge of that vehicle and that he had never seen or touched a vehicle of that description. However when asked about his fingerprints on the vehicle he stated that it is possible that one of his friends had used his gloves, which caused his fingerprints to be on the vehicle.”[86]
When asked by the Tribunal about this offence, the Applicant said he could not recall it. The stealing charge arose from the Applicant and an associate taking a removalist trolley belonging to a shop and failing to return it.[87] These offences were dealt with in July 2017 (see below).
[87] Ibid, page 3.
On 9 January 2017, the Applicant committed the following offences:
·possession of a knife in a public place or school;
·fail to take reasonable care and precaution in respect of syringe or needle; and
·possess utensils or pipes that had been used.
The Police Court Brief in relation to these offences includes the following information:
“…. Police…conducted a street check of two male person(s)…. One of the male persons provided his details and Police confirmed his identity via Police database photographs. It was at this time he was identified as the defendant in this matter.
Police located drug-related property on the defendants (sic) friend and Police asked the defendant if he had anything on him that he should not have, the defendant said “maybe”. As a result of that conversation the defendant was detained for the purpose of a search.
Police conducted a search of a black Nike backpack and located in the main compartment a small spider man backpack and a used glass pipe which was broken at the end.
A search of the person located in the left pants pocket one used needle and syringe, one medium sized stainless steel kitchen knife and one used needle and syringe in his right pants pocket.
The defendant…participated in an electronic record of interview (EROI). The defendant stated he located the black backpack two days ago new Woodridge rail and found the used glass pipe and two used needles inside the bag. He has kept to the bag and items and tonight placed the two used needles in his pockets and the pipe in his backpack. The defendant was unable to explain why he placed the used needles in his pants pocket and offered no reasonable or emergent reason for taking possession of the items.
The defendant also stated he is aware it is an offence to not properly dispose of needles and to be in possession of a utensil.
The defendant stated he had been using the knife to cut a cake at his friend’s house that night, however could not provide a reason that the knife is in his pocket and not left at the friends home or in one of the two back packs.[88]
[Underlining added]
[88] Ibid, page 7.
In the hearing, the Applicant denied that the knife was a kitchen knife. He said it was a “knife that has the screwdriver and stuff like that that you can bend it and use it as a key too if you want to attach it to it so it was just that one. I wasn’t going to use it to (sic) for anything”.[89] The contemporaneous police records describe the knife as a kitchen knife and note that the Applicant did not explain why it was in his pocket. It would also be unusual to use a pocket knife to cut cake. Because of the inherent implausibility of the Applicant’s evidence about the knife, I prefer the contemporaneous police records that describe the knife as a kitchen knife. I further find that he was carrying it in his pocket despite having a bag, and that he did not provide a reason for carrying it in that manner. I note that this occurred at a time when, according to the Applicant, he was using methamphetamine daily.
[89] Transcript, page 47, lines 35 to 44.
In February 2017, the suspended sentence of one month imprisonment that had been imposed for two offences of failing to appear in accordance with bail undertaking in September 2015 was activated so the Applicant was required to serve that sentence. He was sentenced to another month of imprisonment in addition to failing to appear in accordance with bail undertaking earlier that month. However, he was granted immediate parole. In relation to the failure to appear, the Police Court Brief includes the following information:
“On the 9^th of January 2017 the defendant entered into a Bail Undertaking ... The sole condition of this undertaking was that the defendant surrender himself into custody of the….Court on the 8^th of February 2017 to have his matters mentioned.
The defendant failed to appear on this date and as a result a warrant was issued for his arrest.
…
[90] Exhibit R2, Respondent’s Tender Bundle, TB1, page 12.
When questioned the defendant stated he had drank too much with a friend the previous evening and as a result slept too late to attend court.”[90]

In April 2017, the Applicant breached bail conditions on four separate occasions. At least one of those arose from the Applicant failing to appear in court when he was required to. It is not apparent from the materials before me what the other three breaches related to. In May 2017 the Applicant was remanded in custody.
In July 2017, the Applicant was convicted of the breaches of bail and other offences he committed in 2016 and 2017. The learned Magistrate made the following remarks:
“Mr [name redacted] you have pleaded guilty today to 10 charges. Amongst them is for breaches of bail and there is drug offences, and the most serious offences are the entering and committing indictable offence, that is, breaking into the car and stealing the property from the car… The entering in the car and stealing property from that car is, in my view, the most serious of the offences that you are facing today. And the police say that the property you stole was worth some four and a-half thousand dollars, although there is no documentation to confirm that is the case, and apparently one of the tools that was stolen was very expensive. I note that you have got limited capacity to pay for the property that you stole, so I am not going to make any orders for restitution today because I have taken that into account in the penalties I am otherwise imposing.
The drug offending is, of course, concerning. You are still a young person. You are only 19. And if you start using drugs, you are going to be spending more and more time in custody. You have now had some 78 days in custody so you know what that is going to be like if you continue to use drugs when you get out, and also to hang around with the people that have been getting you into trouble so far. The offending, particularly the breaking into the car and the stealing property, is serious offending and the penalty I impose must reflect the seriousness of that, and also the fact that you come to Court with other offences on your criminal history, particularly the very serious offending in November 2015.[[91]]
I accept back in November you were up in Gladstone with your friend who led you astray and got you involved in some very serious offending at that time. Unfortunately, this has not stopped and even though you have returned down this way, you have continued to engage in further criminal activity. You need to be more careful about who your friends are because they are getting you into increasing trouble. I am told your family is very supportive of you, and particularly your mother and your older sister, and they have said that once you are released from custody you will be able to reside with them.
The orders which I’m going to make will be in line with what both the police and the defence have submitted today, so I am going to impose orders which will see you released from custody but under supervision, and tight supervision, for a lengthy period of time. If you are serious about getting yourself straightened out and getting away from the company that has been leading you into trouble, you need to take advantage of these orders otherwise you are going to be placed back into prison again.”[92]
[Underlining and bold added]
[91] This appears to be a reference to the assaults occasioning bodily harm whilst armed/in company.
[92] Exhibit G1, s 501 G-documents, PG10, page 71.
In relation to the breaches of bail undertaking, and for the offences the Applicant committed in January 2017, he was sentenced to probation for 18 months. He was also dealt with for failing to appear in accordance with bail condition and sentenced to imprisonment for the 78 days that he had already spent in pre-sentence custody. As stated above, he was sentenced to suspended sentences of imprisonment for breaking into the car and stealing items from it and for stealing the removalist trolley.
Contrary to the expectations of the learned Magistrate, the Applicant did not live with his mother and sister in the family home when he was released from custody (and in fact never moved back into the family home).
In June 2018 the Applicant was convicted of drug driving which breached the suspended sentences that were imposed in July 2017 for breaking into the car (and stealing items from it) and stealing the removalist trolley (committed in 2016). The court extended the suspended sentence.
The First Decision to Cancel the Applicant’s Visa
In May 2018, the Applicant committed the following offences in the same offending episode:
·burglary and commit indictable offence, for which he was sentenced to 14 months imprisonment; and
·fraud – dishonestly gain benefit/advantage, for which he was sentenced to 2 months imprisonment.
In relation to those offences the Court Police Brief includes the following information:
“Between 9 a.m. and 12 noon an unknown offender attended the dwelling and entered via a closed but unlocked door at the side of the house. Once inside, the offender stole a quantity of property, including an Apple iPhone 7 (valued at $1000), Apple Mac laptop computer (valued at $1000), a Commonwealth Bank card belonging to the complainant, a gold necklace (valued at $1000), a pair of Swarovski drop earrings (valued at $100), a Garmin active watch (valued at $300), Nikon T510 camera (valued at $500), a 6 pack of Corona beers (valued at $20) and a bottle of Sailor Jerry Rum (valued at approximately $40).
…
The burglary was discovered when the complainant, who was not at home at the time, received notifications from the Commonwealth Bank regarding usages on his card. The complainant then went home and discovered the burglary…
In all there were six unauthorised usages on the complainant’s bank account in between 12:58 p.m. and 1:20 p.m at the Greenslopes mall shopping centre…[There follows a list of transactions which are for groceries alcohol and scratchies costing relatively small amounts]
[The following day] police attended this location and obtained CCTV footage of these transactions. This footage showed a black African male, skinny build, wearing a black baseball cap with a distinctive gold skull logo on the front, a black top and black pants with a white Puma logo on the left leg. He was wearing blue running shoes.
This male was later positively identified as the defendant as he had been spoken to by police wearing exactly the same clothing at about 9 a.m. on the day of the burglary at a location approximately two minutes walk from [redacted] where the burglary occurred.
[Five days later] the defendant was located… After he was recognised by police from his description being circulated. He was found in possession of a distinctive black backpack with white lines on it, that had also been stolen during the burglary… He was still wearing the same track pants with the Puma logo on the left leg, and in his backpack was a black baseball cap with a gold school Raiders American Football League team logo on the front.
The defendant was taken to … [the] police station where he agreed to participate in a record of interview. He admitted to committing the burglary as well as the frauds, saying that he did the burglary with an associate. The defendant claimed that he only stole the liquor and the credit card and backpack whilst his associate took all the jewellery and phone and computer equipment. The defendant stated that this property was exchanged for drugs by his associate and claimed to not know where. The defendant was upset with his conduct and regretted his actions saying that he was easily led and under the influence of liquor at the time of committing the offence.”[93]
[Underlining added]
[93] Exhibit R2, Respondent’s Tender Bundle, TB1, page 19.
The Applicant was remanded in custody on that day.
In early August 2018, the Applicant was sentenced to 14 months imprisonment for “burglary and commit indictable offence”, and to two months imprisonment for “fraud – dishonestly gain benefit”. He was also dealt with for some other offences. He was ordered to serve the extended suspended sentence. In relation to each sentence, he was given almost immediate parole.
In the same sentencing episode the Applicant was sentenced to two months imprisonment for ”Fraud-dishonestly gain benefit/advantage”. The facts of that offence, according to the Police Court Brief, are that a telephone order was placed with Dominos for pizza and other items to be delivered to a park approximately 300m from the business shopfront. Those items were delivered to two males who took the items and provided a bank card number which was declined. The males then ran away with the items. The police searched for the phone number that was used in the police database and identified that the order was placed using the Applicant’s phone number. The Applicant was subsequently arrested in relation to an unrelated matter (which appears to be the burglary and use of the stolen bank card) and he volunteered to the police that he had stolen pizza from Dominos the night before.[94] I note that the Applicant and his accomplice arranged for their order to be delivered rather than collecting it from the shopfront only 300 meters away where there were presumably multiple staff and possibly a security system. This suggests an element of planning.
[94] Ibid, page 23.
The remarks of the learned sentencing Magistrate included the following:
“You have pleaded guilty… to five charges, the most serious of which is the burglary…that involve you, I am told, in the company of another person, entering a dwelling where a number of pieces of property were taken, in particular, an iPhone, a laptop, some jewellery, a necklace that was worth $1000.
Following that, you have pleaded guilty to a fraud charge…I am told $224.80 was used in that offending. I am also advised that you made admissions to that offending. You have also pleaded guilty to stealing pizzas valued at $62.09, that having occurred in May 2018 when, after your bank card was declined, you decamped with that food. You have pleaded guilty to a traffic matter where you were detected driving with a drug that had been picked up in your saliva.
I take into account the personal matters that have been raised on your behalf, in particular your youth, and I bear that in mind. You are only 21 years of age. You came to Australia from Ethiopian when you were 12 years of age. You were illiterate at that time, although you are now able to speak English. You have the support of your mother and sister in Court. I take into account that you have had a difficult childhood and that you were no doubt traumatised by your earlier experiences before you came to Australia. I bear in mind that you may have undiagnosed mental health issues that are being investigated and you have a limited education, having spent time in the special education unit at the school that you attended.
You must understand that burglary is regarded very seriously by the Courts here. Its seriousness consists of the fact that people are entitled to be safe in their own houses and not have the risk of people coming in and taking their property, and I am sure you would not want someone coming in and taking property that belonged to your mother at her house. The Courts must impose penalties upon offenders that commit the offence of burglary that is going to act as a personal deterrent to them, that is, so that they do not do it again, but also make it clear to other members of the community that that sort of offending will not be tolerated by the Courts. You understand that?”
[The defendant replied in the affirmative]
…
“… when you are released on the 23^rd August, you will be on parole for a further-about 10 and a-half months, okay? So if you reoffended during that period, you will be taken back to prison to serve the remainder of that sentence, most likely in full. You with me on all that?”
[The defendant replied in the affirmative]
“You understand?”
[The defendant replied in the affirmative]
“It is in no one’s interest that you go back to prison. It is certainly not in your family’s interest, it is not in your interest, but you will do that if you - if the Court determines that the community needs to be protected from you. So if you choose to abuse alcohol or drugs or commit further property offences involving people’s property, it is most likely you will get sent back to prison for the protection of the community. Do you understand all of that?”
[The defendant replied in the affirmative][95]
[Underlining added]
[95] Exhibit G1, s 501 G-Documents, PG10, pages 64 to 66.
On 15 August 2018 a delegate of the Respondent decided to mandatorily cancel the Applicant’s visa on the basis that he did not pass the character test.
When the Applicant was in custody, he felt sick because he was not using “ice”. To cope he took a prescription drug called Subutex which helped. It was not prescribed to him but he got it from other prisoners. Some of the older inmates tried to help and mentor him and persuade him that there was a “better life than this” and he feels that they helped him.[96]
[96] Exhibit A4, Applicant’s statement, paragraph 14.
In September 2018 the Applicant submitted a written request for the decision to cancel his visa to be revoked. His written application included a Personal Circumstances Form.[97] As the Applicant is illiterate someone helped him prepare his revocation request.[98]
[97] Exhibit R2, Respondent’s Tender Bundle, TB4.
[98] Transcript, page 35, lines 31 to 32.
In the Personal Circumstances Form, he gave his current address as the address of the Immigration Detention facility where he was detained in Brisbane.
The revocation request contained the following statement:
“I’ve lived in Australia as an Australian since I’ve been 12 years of age and I travel from Ethopia to Kenya before that I was a refuee in Kenya. My whole family lives in Australia. I don’t have family in Ethiopa or Kenya. I amited my mistakes And served my time. I’m hoping for a second chance as I am afraid to be sent back to a country I do not know there is currently a war in my country and it wouldn’t be a good environment for me to be in, also being Somali it’s much more difficult to understand the culture in Ethiopia and I am afraid to be descriminated against, I strongly believe staying in Australia would be a better decision for me as I am ready to give back to the society for all the troubles I have caused.”[99]
[Errors in original]
[99] Exhibit R2, Respondent’s Tender Bundle, TB4, page 71.
The Applicant’s self-identification as Somali was not explained in any written or oral evidence. It is at odds with his evidence that he was stigmatised in the refugee camp because he was not Somali. He gave evidence in the hearing that both his parents are Ethiopian and of the Oromo tribe, and that he considers himself to be of the Oromo tribe because his parents are.[100] I am satisfied that the Applicant knows that he is of Ethiopian origin and is of the Oromo tribe.
[100] Transcript, page 42, lines 21 to 42.
In the Applicant’s written request, the question “Do you believe that there are any factors that help to explain your offences which should be taken into account by the decision-maker?” was answered thus:
“I was mix up with the wrong crowd. I was under the influence of alchol at the time, I mainly wasn’t straight. Lost a few family members back home I was thru a lot as a young man. I also take my responsibility for my crime I have done [in the past]. I have realised the great deal of problems I have caused due to all my offences and troubles and I am sincerely sorry, coming to a new country and struggling with the language and surroundings made me vulnerable and open to the wrong crowd, most of my offences were due to peer pressure and the need to feel like I had a belonging.”[101]
[Errors in original, underlining added]
[101] Exhibit R2, Respondent’s Tender Bundle, TB4, page 80.
In the hearing the Applicant was asked to clarify what he meant by “lost a few family members back home”. He said he meant that his mother could not find some of her family members, as opposed to those family members being deceased.[102]
[102] Transcript, page 45, lines 9 to 17.
The response to questions about fears or problems he would face if he returned to Ethiopia he said:
“Yes there is many problems I would face. I left when I was very young and therefore I do not know anything about the country and i’m afraid to go back, i’m afraid I might get taken by rebels and use for the wrong things or maybe even killed.[103]
…
I am concerned about the war that’s going on, i will mostly be forced to join a rebel army so I fear death or harsh prison environment.”[104]
[Errors in original]
[103] Exhibit R2, Respondent’s Tender Bundle, TB4, page 81.
[104] Ibid, page 83.
Under the heading “Any Other Information” is the following statement:
“I want to sincerely say and show how deeply and genuinely sorry i am for all the troubles i have caused to society and all the people i have hurt, i lost my father at a very young age and so i never really had a father figure when growing up, i was mentally not okay from all the struggles i faced back home, there was days and nights when i didn’t have access to food or water so coming to Australia was a big change for me and unfortunately it affected me negatively, i struggled to fit in and was facing hardships at school, i didn’t understand English so everything was much more difficult for me, i started hanging out with people similar to me to feel more belonging and connected but these people weren’t there for my best interest, i was peer pressured into doing alot of bad things but to me i saw it as nothing but a way to feel accepted by people, after spending alot of time in jail being in and out and seeing how disappointed and hurt my family was, i mentally and emotionally couldn’t handle it so i fell into the use of high amounts of alcohol and drugs to help with the pain but all it did was make me worse and continue my troubles, but i have stopped the use of both substances and i am now changing for the better. Please consider all the above.”[105]
[Errors in original, underlining added]
[105] Ibid, page 81.
Under the heading “Impediments to Return” it is stated “I hear voices, have nightly bad dreams and I have mental problems”.[106]
[106] Ibid, page 83.
The Applicant was transferred to an Immigration Detention centre in Perth. There he used “ice”.[107]
[107] Exhibit A4, Applicant's statement, paragraph 15.
The decision to cancel the Applicant’s visa was revoked on 31 January 2019 and he was released from Immigration Detention. The Applicant went to his parents’ home because he had not seen his family for a long time. This is the last time he saw his younger siblings in person.[108] He said he tried to stay away from his friends but they contacted him on Facebook.[109] He said he “straight away went to my friend’s and I was using drugs, yes.”[110]
[108] Transcript, page 54, line 39 to page 55 line 19.
[109] Transcript, page 52, lines 8 to 18.
[110] Transcript, page 12, lines 38 to 40.
I note the Applicant was sent a letter advising him of the revocation of the decision to cancel his visa which contained a warning that further offending could result in his visa being cancelled. However, he claims that he left the letter at the detention centre and did not read it. The Applicant is illiterate in any event and I am satisfied that he did not read the letter. The Applicant gave evidence that prior to the first cancellation he did not realise his visa could be cancelled because it was a “permanent visa”.[111]
The Second Decision to Cancel the Applicant’s Visa
[111] Transcript, page 34, line 35 to page 35, line 15.
At the end of March 2019, two months after the Applicant was released from Immigration Detention and while he was on parole, he committed burglary and commit indictable offence. The Police Court Brief states:
“… the defendant, along with [redacted] attended [redacted] the home address of the victim. The victim was not home at the time that the offence occurred and the dwelling was locked and secured.
The offender gained entry to the dwelling by forcing open the rear door. Once inside, a number of property items were stolen, including a television, gaming consoles, perfume, a safe and neumoerous (sic) other personal items.
The victim returned home after the offence and found that their home had been broken into….
Police attended and a forensic examination of the scene was conducted. A forensic examination of a mobile phone box inside the dwelling that had been handled by offenders during the break revealed a latent fingerprint that was later matched to the defendant.
On… police executed a search warrant at [redacted] where a number of property items stolen during the burglary were recovered.
…
[112] Exhibit R2, Respondent’s Tender Bundle, TB1, page 27.
The defendant initially denied any involvement in the offence, however later admitted that he had gone into the unit and stolen the television with [redacted] and placed it in the garage of Unit 2.”[112]

The Applicant was remanded in custody. In June 2019 he was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment with an immediate parole eligibility date. The learned Magistrate who sentenced the Applicant relevantly stated:
“You have pleaded guilty to one offence of burglary. It is agreed at the bar table that the normal starting point for a sentence of that matter is 18 months imprisonment. Young men who have no previous criminal history quite often get non-custodial sentences for that matter. You are still a young man. But you are certainly not a young man with no criminal history. There are six pages of criminal history and you have previous convictions - eight previous convictions, at least, for burglary and some for break and enter. More importantly, you were on parole last year, for a sentence awarded last year, when you committed this offence in March of this year.
… You must understand that you are the author of your own demise. When you are on parole, you must not commit further offences. And you would have been warned about that, probably, by a number of people.
… I note your plea of guilty, which is very important. I also note that you have had a dysfunctional upbringing, with coming from another country. Obviously, with issues - just excuse me. Obviously, with difficulties as a childhood - probably exposed to things that no one else would - in a country like Australia, would normally be exposed.
And you have had trouble, no doubt, with language and with the accustomising yourself to culture. And probably have had family members go missing that you would never see again. That is appreciated by the Court by someone in your circumstance. And it is hardly surprising that there is a provisional diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder from a mental health assessment Court liaison service report that has been provided to me. It probably explains your drinking. That seems to be the problem. Now, because you were drunk - it will never be a factor in mitigation. You chose to get drunk and if being drunk is a character modifier that causes you to commit these offences, you have just got to stop drinking.
But those are matters and issues for you to deal with. The parole board is not going to let you out, I would have thought, until such time as they are convinced that you are going to do something about this problem with alcohol. And to do that, you may need to get help for your post-traumatic stress disorder. But these are all things that you need to deal with. However, that - all of that may be of little comfort to the man into whose house you entered and breached the sanctity of it. It is a particularly despicable crime and it is a crime that stays with the victims of burglary for many, many years - the thought that someone was in their house, doing things with their property and stealing it, is something that disturbs people for many, many years.
And that is why the Courts - was why the parliament has imposed life imprisonment as the maximum penalty. And it is why the Courts have routinely sent people to jail for committing that offence.
… I have taken into account all matters in relation to sections 9 and 11 of the Penalties and Sentences Act, and particularly your plea of guilty and your dysfunctional upbringing. However, I am satisfied that it is appropriate and no more severe in all the circumstances that you should be sentenced to a term of imprisonment….”[113]
[Underlining added]
[113] Exhibit G1, s 501 G-documents, PG10, pages 61 to 62.
In July 2019 a delegate of the Respondent decided to mandatorily cancel the Applicant’s visa on the basis that he did not pass the character test. The Applicant subsequently submitted a request for that decision to be revoked. His revocation request contained the following statements:
“I’m still young and wanted to change my life as a teenager and build myself to be better and contribute to the Australian society. My life before was really rough, we didn’t know what day we were going to eat, i lived in danger and fear constantly. Mentally it is one of the major factors of my dysfunctionality, i am not mentally okay, all of my experience have made me vulnerable to being a troublemaker, i was led by the wrong crowd and i want to change that now. Going back home is really not a safe choice for me, i would highly be happy to be given a second chance to prove how good of a person i am.”[114]
[114] Exhibit G1, s 501 G-documents, PG16, page 83.
“At an early age i was caught up in the wrong crowd, i made mistakes of allowing myself to believe they were my friends but unfortunately they weren’t they led me and encouraged me to commit crimes and get up to all sorts of mishaps, after falling into those traps, i developed a drug and alcohol addiction which propelled me into a deeper hole of troubles and it took alot of strength to recover myself and stop myself.”[115]
“The risk of me reoffending is 0%, i have come clean from alcohol and drugs therefore i am now self aware of myself and made a promise to myself, my family and the Australian society that i will never reoffend again, i want to make it clear i am ready to comform to a new way of life.”[116]
“Back home it would be very dangerous for me to return to that environment, their is a lot of violence, poverty and it would be a very unsafe situation for me especially since i arrived from a better country.[117]
“… I have grown up in Australia so most things i know are here, i consider Australia home, i don’t think i will be able to handle the hardships of my home country.”
“I just came to Australia with my family, I don’t have anyone else that who is willing to support me, therefore I am kindly requesting to the Minister to consider my case.”[118]
“The past 6 years i have been driven to drink due to my mental health and my past has come to haunt me i have a problem with drinking and i do it because i am sad and depressed Due to the years living in Bad places all my childhood i ask of you to please give me another chance to seek professional help i now realize my Life is important and my mother does really cares about me i want to get proffessional help with my drinking if i am sent back to Ethiopa i have no one there and i cant even speak that language or have no one to help me there my mother needs me and wants me to get help please i ask of you to allow me to go to a Rehab or seek professional help i had a horrible time growing up in Kenya from 3 till i was 12 years old and it has done me no favours being around alcoholics and drugs all my childhood because of the people i hang around with if i was placed on a kerfue and recived real help that i desperatly want now i will be fine and i will do the right thing from now on i ask of you to allow me to find a drug counsellor on the outside of jail to fix my head up thank you for your valuable time.”[119]
[Errors in originals]
[115] Ibid, page 95.
[116] Ibid.
[117] Ibid, page 98.
[118] Ibid.
[119] Exhibit G1, s 501 G-documents, PG17, pages 114 to 115.
The Applicant’s revocation request was accompanied by a letter from the secretary of the United Somali Association of Queensland (“USAQ”). This is the witness who was unable to give evidence in this matter because of his limited availability. The letter relevantly states:
“I am writing this character reference letter for [the Applicant] who is currently in prison. I have known [him] since he arrived in here as a young refugee in 2009.
His family a highly respected and active member of Somali community, [the Applicant] was and is a smart young man however unfortunately, recently he mixed with wrong young men and developed behaviours which is out of his character. Recent visit in prison by the community and religious leaders, [the Applicant] has shown regret and [remorse] of his action and he is willing to change.
Thus, United Somali association of Queensland and Moorooka Islamic Centre youth project coordination team are willing to help and assist [the Applicant] to reform and put his life back together and contribute to Australian society and Somali community in a positive way.
Upon release [the Applicant] will live with his mother at [address redacted] and will access the community support on regular basis.”[120]
[120] Exhibit G1, s 501 G-documents, PG16, page 100.
This witness subsequently provided a letter of support to the Tribunal, as a representative of the Queensland Somali Youth Council Inc, which largely repeated his previous letter, and added the following relevant information:
“… I am the current senior Youth worker of (QSYC). Myself and management of QSYC has long history of working with mainstream service providers relevant to the immediate settlement needs of our new emerging Somali community including education, health, Police, Housing, Family Domestic Violence, Social Service, and immigration.”[121]
[121] Exhibit A2, Letter of Support – Mr Abdul Mohammed of QSYC.
I am not satisfied that this witness has first-hand knowledge of the Applicant’s character or of the people the Applicant was associating with during the years when the Applicant was committing offences. For instance, he says the Applicant “recently” mixed with the wrong young men whereas the Applicant has been offending since 2012. However, I accept that this witness and the USAQ and Moorooka Islamic Centre Youth Project Coordination Team are willing to assist the Applicant with his rehabilitation.
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
Revocation of the mandatory cancellation of visas is governed by s 501CA(4) of the Act. Relevantly, this provides that:
(4)       The Minister may revoke the original decision if:
(a)      the person makes representations in accordance with the invitation; and
(b)      the Minister is satisfied:
(i)     that the person passes the character test (as defined by section 501); or
(ii)    that there is another reason why the original decision should be revoked.
The Applicant made the representations required by s 501CA(4)(a) of the Act. Thus, the issue is whether the discretion to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant’s visa may be exercised. As a starting point, it is necessary to refer to the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia’s observations in Minister for Home Affairs v Buadromo:[122]
“…there has been some discussion in the authorities as to whether s 501CA(4) contains a residual discretion in the decision-maker by reason of the use of the word ‘may’ in the chapeau of the subsection, or whether the balancing of the factors favouring a refusal to revoke the cancellation is part of the one exercise of determining whether there is another reason the original decision should be revoked. The weight of authority in this Court favours the latter view…”[123]
[122] [2018] FCAFC 151.
[123] Ibid, [21], citing, inter alia, Gaspar v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 1166, (2016) 153 ALD 337, [38] (North ACJ); Marzano v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCAFC 66, (2017) 250 FCR 548, [31] (Collier J, with whom Logan and Murphy JJ agreed).
There are therefore two issues presently before the Tribunal:
·whether the Applicant passes the character test; and
·whether there is another reason why the decision to cancel the Applicant’s visa should be revoked.
If the Applicant succeeds on either ground, the weight of authority indicates that the Tribunal must find that the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa must be revoked.[124] I will address each of these grounds in turn.
[124] Ibid.
Does the Applicant Pass the Character Test?
The character test is defined in s 501(6) of the Act. Under s 501(6)(a), a person will not pass the character test if they have “a substantial criminal record”. This phrase, in turn, is relevantly defined in s 501(7)(c), which provides that a person will have a substantial criminal record if they have “been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more”.
The Applicant was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment and given a parole eligibility date. What matters for present purposes is the term of imprisonment to which a person has been sentenced, not the amount of time they have actually served.[125] Accordingly, there is no doubt that the Applicant has a “substantial criminal record” and, therefore, he does not pass the character test.[126] He cannot rely on s 501CA(4)(b)(i) of the Act for the mandatory cancellation of his visa to be revoked.
[125] See Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 46 FLR 409, 415-416; See also s 501(7A) of the Act which relevantly provides:
[126] Exhibit A1, Applicant’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions (“SFIC”), paragraph 8.
Is There Another Reason Why the Cancellation of the Applicant’s Visa Should be Revoked?
In considering whether to exercise the discretion in s 501CA(4) of the Act, the Tribunal is bound by s 499(2A) to comply with any directions made under the Act. In this case, Direction No 79 – visa refusal and cancellation under s501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under s501CA (“the Direction”) has application.
For the purposes of deciding whether or not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of a non-citizen’s visa, paragraph 6.3 of the Direction contains several principles that must inform a decision maker’s application of the considerations in paragraphs 7 and 8.
Paragraph 7(1) of the Direction provides that:
(1) Informed by the principles in paragraph 6.3 above, a decision maker:
…
b) must take into account the considerations in Part C, in order to determine whether the mandatory cancellation of a non-citizen’s visa will be revoked.[127]
[127] The Direction, sub-paragraph 7(1)(b).
Paragraph 8(1) of the Direction provides that:
Decision-makers must take into account the primary and other considerations relevant to the individual case. There are differing considerations depending on whether a delegate is considering whether to refuse or grant a visa to a visa Applicant, cancel the visa of the visa holder, or revoke the mandatory cancellation of the visa. These different considerations are articulated in Parts A, B and C...
Part C provides for the decision-maker to take into account “Primary Considerations”[128] and “Other considerations”.[129] The Primary Considerations are set out in paragraph 13.(2) of the Direction (contained in Part C) and they are:
(a)Protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct;
(b)The best interests of minor children in Australia; and
(c)Expectations of the Australian community.
[128] The Direction, paragraph 13.
[129] The Direction, paragraph 14.
The Other Considerations are set out in paragraph 14(1) of the Direction (contained in Part C) and they are:
(a)International non-refoulement obligations;
(b)Strength, nature and duration of ties;
(c)Impact on Australian business interests;
(d)Impact on victims; and
(e)Extent of impediments if removed.
I note the importance of the Other Considerations being “other” considerations, as opposed to “secondary” considerations. As noted by Colvin J in Suleiman v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection:[130]
“…Direction 65 [now Direction 79] makes clear that an evaluation is required in each case as to the weight to be given to the 'other considerations' (including non‑refoulement obligations). It requires both primary and other considerations to be given 'appropriate weight'. Direction 65 does provide that, generally, primary considerations should be given greater weight. They are primary in the sense that absent some factor that takes the case out of that which pertains 'generally' they are to be given greater weight. However, Direction 65 does not require that the other considerations be treated as secondary in all cases. Nor does it provide that primary considerations are 'normally' given greater weight. Rather, Direction 65 concerns the appropriate weight to be given to both 'primary' and 'other considerations'. In effect, it requires an inquiry as to whether one or more of the other considerations should be treated as being a primary consideration or the consideration to be afforded greatest weight in the particular circumstances of the case because it is outside the circumstances that generally apply.”[131]
[130] [2018] FCA 594.
[131] Ibid, [23].
The principles set out in paragraph 6.3 of the Direction, that should inform the decision-maker’s application of the primary considerations and other considerations are summarised as follows:
(1)Australia has a sovereign right to determine whether non-citizens who are of character concern are allowed to enter and/or remain in Australia;
(2)The Australian community expects that the Australian Government can and should refuse entry to non-citizens, or cancel their visas, if they commit serious crimes in Australia or elsewhere;
(3)A non-citizen who has committed a serious crime, including of a violent or sexual nature, and particularly against women or children or vulnerable members of the community such as the elderly or disabled, should generally expect to be denied the privilege of coming to, or forfeit the privilege of, staying in Australia;
(4)In some circumstances, criminal offending or other conduct, and the harm that would be caused if it were to be repeated, may be so serious that any risk of similar conduct in the future is unacceptable;
(5)Australia has a low tolerance of any criminal or other serious conduct by people who have been participating in, and contributing to, the Australian community only for a short period of time;
(6)Australia has a low tolerance of any criminal or other serious conduct by visa Applicants or those holding a limited stay visa, reflecting that there should be no expectation that such people be allowed to come to or remain permanently in Australia; and
(7)The length of time a non-citizen has been making a positive contribution to the Australian community, and the consequences of a visa refusal or cancellation for minor children and other immediate family members in Australia, are considerations for determining whether to exercise the discretion.
PRIMARY CONSIDERATION A – PROTECTION OF THE AUSTRALIAN COMMUNITY
In considering this Primary Consideration A, paragraph 13.1(1) of the Direction compels decision-makers to have regard to the principle that the Government is committed to protecting the Australian community from harm as a result of criminal activity or other serious conduct by non-citizens. This paragraph stipulates that remaining in Australia is a privilege that this country confers on non-citizens in the expectation that they are, and have been, law abiding, that they will respect important institutions and that they will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community.
In determining the weight applicable to Primary Consideration A, paragraph 13.1(2) of the Direction requires decision-makers to give consideration to:
(1)The nature and seriousness of the non-citizen’s conduct to date; and
(2)The risk to the Australian community should the non-citizen commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct.
The Nature and Seriousness of the Applicant’s Conduct to Date
When assessing the nature and seriousness of a non-citizen’s criminal offending or other conduct to date, paragraph 13.1.1(1) of the Direction specifies that decision-makers must have regard to a number of factors. Relevant (for present purposes), amongst those factors are:
(a)The principle that, without limiting the range of offences that may be considered serious, violent and/or sexual crimes are viewed very seriously;
(b)…
(c)…
(d)Subject to paragraph (b) above, the sentence imposed by the courts for a crime or crimes;
(e)The frequency of the non-citizen’s offending and whether there is any trend of increasing seriousness;
(f)The cumulative effect of repeated offending;
(g)…
(h)Whether the non-citizen has re-offended since being formally warned, or since otherwise being made aware, in writing, about the consequences of further offending in terms of the non-citizen’s migration status (noting that the absence of a warning should not be considered to be in the non-citizen’s favour);
(i)….

She went on to say that sending the Applicant to Ethiopia “would be a death sentence for him”,[257] and she believed he would be killed as a result of the ethnic violence in Ethiopia. She said if the Applicant tried to live in one part of Ethiopia or to move from one area to another people would ask him to explain his heritage and ethnicity and when he was unable to do so they would kill him on the assumption that he was of a different ethnicity to them and would accuse him of being a spy and informant for other tribes.[258]
[257] Ibid, page 14, paragraph 25.
[258] Ibid.
She said:
“In Ethiopia, when the police arrest you they don’t take you to court. Whether you have done anything wrong or not, they will torture you and hold you for years, and kill you. They don’t care if a person has mental health issues, they will torture them and make the person admit to things they have not done.”[259]
and
“There is no place he could live in Ethiopia and I do not believe he would survive….He would not be able to get the support he needs for his mental health in Ethiopia, they do not have those kinds of services and there would be no one to help him find them.”[260]
[259] Ibid, paragraph 27.
[260] Ibid, paragraph 28.
A number of difficulties arise from the evidence of the Applicant’s mother. First, it is noteworthy that in her letter of support, dated 23 April 2020,[261] she touched on the traumatic experience of life in refugee camps in Kenya, she asserted that the Applicant’s offending was out of character, and she asked for him to be given one more chance, but she did not express a belief that he would be at risk of being tortured or killed if returned to Ethiopia. These are very important claims and the fact that she did not make them initially undermines their credibility.
[261] Exhibit A3, Letter of support – Applicant’s mother.
Second, in her statement, the Applicant’s mother said that her husband and father-in-law were suspected of being part of the OLF because of her father-in-law’s “seniority”. In the hearing, she said her father-in-law was in the OLF. Later in the hearing she said his involvement was not obvious and limited to things like providing food and moral support.[262] Her changing narrative suggests to me that she has a limited understanding of the OLF and her father-in-law’s relationship with it.
[262] Transcript, page 91, lines 33 to 35.
Third, the Applicant’s mother did not claim that the Applicant would be imputed with OLF affiliation. Rather, her evidence was that the Applicant would be the victim of ethnic violence or that he could be imprisoned for no lawful reason.
Fourth, while I accept that the Applicant’s mother may genuinely believe that her husband was arrested and killed because of imputed OLF links for his father’s involvement in the OLF, I am not satisfied that her belief is soundly based and I do not, therefore, accept it at face value.
When asked why her husband was arrested and taken to prison, the Applicant’s mother responded:
“Look, there was widespread power abuse by the regime by whoever was in power at the time and my husband’s father was helping whoever was resisting the power abuse. My husband was not a member of the group, had not much to do with them but because his father was helping the resistance that’s where the problem arose, that was our crime.”[263]
[263] Transcript, page 65, lines 25 to 29.
She was then asked “Okay. So was he killed because of his father’s involvement in the Oromo Liberation Front?” to which she replied “Yes, that’s correct”.[264]
[264] Ibid, lines 31 to 34.
In the course of her examination in chief it emerged that she and her husband had been imprisoned twice. When asked, in relation to the first time she was imprisoned, “Did the police, or the authorities, tell you why they put you in prison?”[265] she responded:
“No, they were not required to tell me. They don’t tell anybody anything. But when I was in the cell, I had the question of, ‘What does he do? What is his job? Where does he go?’”.[266]
[265] Transcript, page 90, lines 40 to 41.
[266] Ibid, lines 43 to 45.
She was asked “About who?” To which she replied “My husband”.[267] She was asked “Did you have any idea why they had put you in prison?”[268] to which she said:
“No, when they put me in gaol I didn’t know the reason was because of their questions in the day I’m learning the reason of what - of what they are (indistinct) because of the punishment, because of the questioning they used to asking me about my husband and about the family, that’s what - that’s how I learnt of what the reason of my arrest was.”[269]
[267] Ibid, line 47; page 91, line 1.
[268] Transcript, page 91, lines 16 to 17.
[269] Ibid, lines 19 to 23.
She was then asked “What did you think the reason was after you learnt all that?” She replied, “The resistance - you support the resistance that was what they were arresting him or arresting me and that was the reason.” [270]
[270] Ibid, lines 25 to 28.
However, she later said her father-in-law’s involvement in “the resistance” was not obvious and that he supported them “maybe with some food, maybe some moral support”.[271] She said at the time the resistance was not strong and they were not able to “strike any or launch any obvious action, they were just vigilante.”[272]
[271] Ibid, lines 33 to 35.
[272] Ibid, lines 36 to 40.
The Applicant’s mother was asked if, to her knowledge, her husband’s mother was still alive to which she said yes but she did not know her whereabouts.[273] She said to her knowledge she had not been imprisoned.[274] Further she was unaware of any of her husband’s brothers or sisters having been imprisoned before she left Ethiopia.[275] She did not claim that her father-in-law had been targeted by the Ethiopian authorities.
[273] Ibid, lines 45 to 48.
[274] Transcript, page 92, lines 4 to 5.
[275] Ibid, lines 7 to 10.
The Applicant’s paternal grandfather’s involvement in the OLF was very limited, and he did not live in the same town as her and her husband. She was never told by the authorities that her husband was suspected of OLF involvement. It does not appear, at least in recent years, to be normal for the authorities to withhold such an accusation. The Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada reported in May 2015 that:
“In the vast majority of interrogations involving Oromos, there are accusations that they are either members of OLF, or are involved in the Oromo opposition, which many take to mean OLF.”[276]
[276] Exhibit A10, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Responses to Information Requests - Ethiopia: The Oromo Liberation Front (OLF), including origin, mandate, leadership, structure, legal status, and membership; treatment of members and supports by authorities (2014-2015), page 45.
The Applicant’s mother said she and her husband were held in a military prison. I am unable to find reference to military prisons in country information but there are military facilities in Ethiopia. The Applicant’s mother did not name the prison or facility or give any other details about it, so her evidence does not necessarily support an inference that she and her husband must have been arrested for crimes against the State. It is drawing a long bow to conclude that the Applicant’s parents were targeted by the authorities because of his grandfather’s minor, “not obvious”, support of the OLF. I am not satisfied that either of the Applicant’s parents were targeted by the Ethiopian government on the basis of perceived links to the OLF. I accept that the Applicant has a historical connection to his grandfather who supported the OLF. However, the Applicant’s mother’s evidence was that when she left Ethiopia, as far as she was aware, no-one in the Applicant’s grandfather’s immediate family had been imprisoned or killed. This tends to indicate that those family members were not imputed with anti-government political opinion such that they were targeted by the authorities. Accordingly, the possibility that the Applicant would be imputed with anti-government political opinion such that he would be of interest to the authorities, because of his grandfather’s activities when he was a baby and his absence from Ethiopia, is remote.
I note that the country information contains a report by “France 24”, in January 2020, that farmers in rural areas of Oromia were afraid of harvesting their crops for fear of being accused of growing food for the OLF.[277] The Applicant does not claim to have any experience in farming or have means to buy land. I am not satisfied that there is any more than a remote possibility that the risk perceived by rural farmers in Oromia would apply to the Applicant if he were to be returned to Ethiopia.
[277] Exhibit A1, Applicant’s SFIC, paragraph 100.
It was contended that the Applicant could be imputed with anti-government political opinion on the basis that he is a returnee who lacks knowledge regarding his ethnicity and heritage. I am unable to find any country information in support of this contention. Taking into account all of the claims and evidence with respect to imputed political opinion, I am not satisfied that there is a real possibility that, should the Applicant be returned to Ethiopia, he would be harmed on the basis of imputed anti-government political opinion as a returnee.
Further, I am not satisfied that the Applicant lacks knowledge of his ethnicity and heritage or that Ethiopian citizens who return from living overseas are at risk of harm merely by virtue of being returnees. The DFAT country report states that:
“DFAT understands that there are very few successful involuntary returns to Ethiopia of failed asylum seekers from western countries. Authorities typically welcome voluntary returnees to Ethiopia who are not outspoken opponents of the government. The government has on occasion publicised voluntary returns, in recognition of the Ethiopian diaspora’s contribution to the economy through remittances. There have been some reports of authorities monitoring voluntary returnees for a period following their return…DFAT assesses that people who returned to Ethiopia and who are perceived as being political activists opposed to the government are likely to face a high risk of being monitored, harassed, arrested and detained, particularly if they continue to engage in political activities upon their return. DFAT also assesses that people who openly criticise the Ethiopian government while they are outside Ethiopia face a high risk that the Ethiopian authorities will be aware of these activities and take action against these people upon their return.”[278]
[278] Exhibit R2, Respondent’s Tender Bundle, TB2, paragraphs 5.20 to 5.21.
The Applicant has not engaged in political activism against the Ethiopian government or openly criticised the Ethiopian government.[279] I am not satisfied that there is a real risk of harm to the Applicant, should he be returned to Ethiopia, on the basis that he is a returnee from a Western Country and/or because he does not know his heritage or ethnicity (because I am satisfied that he does).
[279] Transcript, page 55, lines 43 to 45.
I note that, Ethiopia appears to be adverse to accepting involuntary returnees. Accordingly, if the Applicant does return it is most likely to be on a voluntary basis.
Conclusion
I am not satisfied on the evidence before me that there is a real chance that the Applicant would suffer harm owing to any Refugee Convention related ground, or that there is a real risk that the Applicant will suffer significant harm within the meaning of s 36(2A) of the Act. I am not satisfied that Australia would be in breach of its international non-refoulement obligations if the Applicant were to be returned to Ethiopia. The Applicant has not applied for, or been the holder of, a Protection Visa so the statutory bar in s 48A of the Act does not apply to him and he can apply for a Protection Visa.
I am satisfied that there is a real possibility that the Applicant could be imprisoned in harsh and unsafe conditions for drug possession and that he could consequently suffer harm and/or hardship. This Other Consideration therefore weighs in favour of revocation and attracts moderate weight.
(b) Strength, nature and duration of ties
The Applicant has lived in Australia since November 2009 when he was 12 years old. He has no memory of life in Ethiopia, and his only real home has been Australia. He is now 23 years old.
The Applicant commenced offending in 2012, three years after his arrival. The Applicant has never been employed and has done very minimal voluntary work. Paragraph 14.2(1)(a) of the Direction is only slightly favourable to him.
With respect to paragraph 14.2(1)(b), the Applicant has ties to his immediate family. He had very little contact with them between 2015 and 2019, however he has reconnected with them during his most recent period of incarceration and detention. His social ties were to people he considers to be bad influences and no longer wishes to associate with. Apart from them he does not appear to have significant social ties.
The Applicant’s mother gave evidence that when she found out that the Applicant’s visa was cancelled she was “shocked” to the extent that she was taken to hospital.[280] Both the Applicant’s mother and his elder sister gave evidence that they would be negatively impacted if the Applicant was deported to Ethiopia. His mother said that she would be “devastated” and that so would the entire family. I do not accept that the entire family would be devastated: the younger siblings have spent very little time with the Applicant in the last six years, and the fact that the Applicant’s step-father was not even aware of these proceedings suggests his interest in the Applicant remaining in Australia is not as great as his mothers’ and adult siblings’. However, I accept that the entire family would be negatively impacted to some degree if the Decision under Review is not revoked.
[280] Transcript, page 83, lines 18 to 19.
The Applicant’s elder sister told the Tribunal that, with respect to the Applicant, “We have been together our whole lives and I need him with me”.[281] She said she is worried about the impact on her mother as her mother has some health problems and she does not know what this would do to her.[282] The Applicant’s younger adult sister described the Applicant as like a best friend and she said they were very close.[283] Given the Applicant’s absence from the family home since 2015 and limited contact with the family, I consider this to be an exaggeration. However, I accept that she will be negatively impacted if the Applicant is deported. Overall, I am satisfied that the effect of non-revocation on the Applicant’s family would be negative, especially on his elder sister and even more so on his mother. The Applicant is entitled to a significant measure of weight under paragraph 14.2(1)(a) of the Direction.
[281] Exhibit A5, Exhibit A5, Statements of Applicant’s family members, page 18, paragraph 15.
[282] Ibid.
[283] Ibid, page 20, , paragraph 6.
Overall, the strength, duration and nature of ties to the Australian community warrants the allocation of a moderate level of weight in favour of revocation.
(c) Impact on Australian business interests
The Applicant does not claim that his removal from Australia would adversely impact on Australian business interests. This consideration is not relevant to the determination of this application.
(d) Impact on victims
This Other Consideration (d) requires a decision-maker to assess the impact of a non-revocation decision (i.e. where the Applicant does not get his visa restored to him) upon, inter alia, the Applicant’s victim(s). There is no evidence before the Tribunal relating to the impact that the Applicant’s continued presence in Australia would have on any victims. This Other Consideration (d), is therefore neutral.
(e) Extent of impediments if removed
As a guide for exercising the discretion, paragraph 14.5(1) of the Direction directs a decision-maker to take into account the extent of any impediments that the non-citizen may face if removed from Australia to their home country, in establishing themselves and maintaining basic living standards (in the context of what is generally available to other citizens of that country), taking into account:
(a)the non-citizen’s age and health;
(b)whether there are any substantial language or cultural barriers; and
(c)any social, medical and/or economic support available to that non-citizen in that country.
The Applicant is young, able bodied (except for the matter addressed in paragraph 282) and does not report any medical conditions. When he was in the Kenyan refugee camp he was resourceful, doing odd jobs for others to earn money. The Applicant’s sister said that the Applicant is “good with mechanical things” and gave examples of the Applicant regularly fixing things like their father’s car, the fridge, the television and their sibling’s bicycles. She said he “seems to just know how to do these things”.[284] The Applicant gave evidence that he is good at fixing things, that “when I look at stuff I can - I can, like, learn quick...but it’s just my problem is writing and reading”.[285] He said he can work as a mechanic, mow, paint, and use a forklift.[286] Based on this evidence, I am satisfied that the Applicant has income earning potential.
[284] Ibid, page 18, paragraph 14.
[285] Transcript, page 46 lines 8 to 14.
[286] Ibid, lines 10 to 20.
The Applicant’s mother said that she would not be able to send money regularly to the Applicant if he were returned to Ethiopia because she has a health condition and her husband is her carer, so she could not financially support the Applicant.[287] I accept that the Applicant’s family could not provide financial assistance to him in Ethiopia.
[287] Transcript, page 95, lines 35 to 41.
In his statement, the Applicant reported being stabbed in 2018 and taken to hospital unconscious. He said he underwent surgery, still has breathing issues from this incident and needs further treatment for it.[288] He did not give details of the breathing issues or the treatment. There is no medical evidence about this incident or injury and no evidence that the Applicant has sought treatment for it either in prison or in Immigration Detention. There is not sufficient evidence to support a finding that the Applicant suffers from any physical disability or significant health problems due to this incident.
[288] Exhibit A4, Applicant’s statement, paragraph 23.
In oral evidence the Applicant said that he speaks Somali[289] and he can understand Oromo when it is spoken to him but he can’t speak it.[290] He said when his family speak to him in Oromo he replies in Somali.[291] However, he said that when he is at home with his family he speaks Oromo.[292] The Applicant’s mother gave evidence that the language she normally speaks when she speaks with the Applicant is Oromo. She was asked if the Applicant speaks back in Oromo, and she said “Yes, we try to-we keep trying to teach him how to speak Oromo”. She was asked if he was able to or she was still trying to teach him, to which she responded “No, he knows. He understands. He understands, and we not only him, but all the kids we try to teach our language since they arrived. We speak with them in Oromo”.[293]
[289] Transcript, page 10, line 40.
[290] Transcript, page 44, lines 24 to 25.
[291] Transcript, page 45, lines 1 to 3.
[292] Transcript, page 43, lines 7 to 8 and lines 27 to 30.
[293] Transcript, page 95 line 43 to page 96 line 14.
The Applicant also speaks Somali and English. English is the most widely spoken foreign language in Ethiopia and it is taught in all secondary schools there.[294] He is not literate in any language, however illiteracy is not aberrant in Ethiopia where around 50% of the population is illiterate.[295] There is no evidence that the Applicant could not live in an Oromo speaking area. I am satisfied that the Applicant will not experience language barriers.
[294] Exhibit R2, Tender Bundle, TB2, paragraph 2.3.
[295] Ibid, paragraph 2.12.

The Applicant has not lived in Ethiopia since he was a baby and he said he knows nothing about Ethiopia.[296] I accept that he is unfamiliar with the country and the culture, which will undoubtedly present some initial difficulties.
[296] Transcript, page 42, lines 7 to 8.
There are some other matters that were put forward by the Applicant, and on his behalf, that are relevant to this Other Consideration.
In the Applicant’s second revocation request, he said:
“Back home it would be very dangerous for me to return to that environment, their is a lot of violence, poverty and it would be a very unsafe situation for me especially since i arrived from a better country.[297]
and:
“If i am sent back to Ethiopa i have no one there and i cant even speak that language or have no one to help me there….”[298]
[297] Exhibit G1, s 501 G-Documents, PG16, page 98.
[298] Exhibit G1, s 501 G-Documents, PG17, page 114.
When the Applicant was asked in the hearing what he thought would happen if he were sent back to Ethiopia, he said “As me I don’t have no family back there and I haven’t seen how the life of Ethiopia as I will just be killed.”[299]
[299] Transcript, page 15, lines 30 to 33.
The Applicant was asked why he thought he would die if he was sent back to Ethiopia, and he responded “Because I don’t have no one back home and I don’t know how the life is like up there so it will just - it will just be hard for me to live.”[300]
[300] Transcript, page 42, lines 3 to 6.
In oral evidence the Applicant was asked if he had any family in Ethiopia to which he responded “No”.[301] Both of the Applicant’s sisters said that he does not have any family in Ethiopia.[302] The Applicant’s older sister gave evidence that if the Applicant were to go to Ethiopia “it would be really tough because there is no one there, no family and it would be really hard for him.”[303] She said in her statement that she worries that if the Applicant has to return to Ethiopia he might harm himself and “We do not know anyone who we could tell him to go to for help”.[304] She did not explain in her statement or in her oral evidence why she thought the Applicant might harm himself. In the absence of any reliable evidence in support of that assertion I give it no weight.
[301] Transcript, page 6, line 33.
[302] Exhibit A5, Statements of the Applicant’s family members, page 18, paragraph 17; transcript, page 117, lines 25 to 27.
[303] Transcript, page 117, lines 25 to 27.
[304] Exhibit A5, Statements of the Applicant’s family members, page 18, paragraph 17.
The Applicant’s mother said “[The Applicant] does not know anybody in Ethiopia, we do not have any family there. I have tried to trace my father and two brothers through the Red Cross, but have never been able to find them.”[305]
[305] Ibid, page 14, paragraph 29.
In response to questions from the Tribunal, the Applicant’s mother admitted that her current husband has family in Ethiopia, he contacts them “every now and then”, and he has a good relationship with them “to some extent”.[306] When she was asked if those relatives could help the Applicant if he had to go back to Ethiopia the following exchange occurred:
A: No, they can’t. Where they live, it’s just the - it is not in the township, and they don’t know anything about the town. They will not be able to help him, in any way, shape or form.
Q: Why is that? Why can’t he live where they live?
A: They are elderly people in the up-country. They are 60, 70, 80 years old, individuals, and he will not be able to stay with them, and they will not be able to help him.
Q: But why?
A: Even when my husband tries to contacting them, there is no telephone system to get in contact with this individual is in there, in the up-country, and my son being such a town boy, there’s no way he can stay with him, or they can look after them. But even my husband when he wants to know their whereabouts, or talk to them, it is not easy.”[307]
[306] Transcript, page 92, lines 40 to 47; page 93, lines 16 to 18.
[307] Transcript, page 93, lines 20 to 41.
The fact that the Applicant’s step-father has maintained contact with his relatives after living outside Ethiopia since 2000 (at the latest) suggests a positive and abiding relationship. It was evident that no enquiries had been made of these relatives as to whether they could support the Applicant. It does not necessarily follow that just because a person is elderly, they are unable to offer support, especially to a person who could help them in return by doing manual jobs and fixing things. Accordingly, I do not accept that there is absolutely no possibility that the Applicant’s step-father’s family in Ethiopia could help the Applicant “in any way, shape or form”. My impression was that the Applicant’s mother had closed her mind to the possibility that her husband’s relatives could help the Applicant and given overly-pessimistic evidence about that. I am not satisfied that the Applicant has no-one in Ethiopia. Rather, I find that there are relatives of his step-father who may be in a position to offer emotional or other support to him.
It was contended that returning to Ethiopia could cause the Applicant’s psychological condition to worsen. This is speculative at best. There is no diagnosed condition and the symptoms he reports are nightmares, inability to get back to sleep and headaches. He is not currently receiving any counselling or any treatment for a psychological or mental health condition. The evidence does not suggest that being imprisoned and going off methamphetamine has caused his psychological health to worsen. I do not accept that returning to Ethiopia would cause the Applicant’s psychological health to worsen. I am satisfied that the Applicant would benefit from counselling to deal with the traumatic memories from his childhood.
In 2017, DFAT reported that Ethiopia’s health system had undergone a significant transformation over the past two decades, including expansion of health facilities and increase in the number of health professionals working across the country. There had been strong improvements in some health outcomes however the improvements came from a very low base, for example life expectancy had increased from 56.3 years in 2005 to 64.6 years in 2015. There are counselling services in Ethiopia, and one of the Government’s priorities is increasing mental health support, however this initiative is at an early stage[308] and I accept that the Applicant would have very limited access to such services in Ethiopia.
[308] Exhibit R2, Respondent’s Tender Bundle, TB3.
According to the DFAT report, despite very high growth rates, averaging more than 10% per year over the past decade, Ethiopia was still a very poor country. More than a third of the population lived in extreme poverty (according to the World Bank’s international extreme poverty line of $1.90 per day) and around 40% of the population was clustered just above the poverty line. The largely rural population was heavily dependent on agriculture. Most Ethiopians lived in rural areas, and approximately 85% of the population were engaged in the agriculture sector, primarily subsistence agriculture. Around 60% of Ethiopians were under the age of 25. Increasing urbanisation was placing pressure on urban infrastructure, housing and service provision. A key challenge for Ethiopia was to improve opportunities for formal paid employment, particularly in urban areas and particularly for women. Employment was a significant driver of both internal migration (typically to Addis Ababa), and formal and informal external migration, particularly to Saudi Arabia where there are a large number of Ethiopians employed as domestic workers (women) and construction workers (men).[309] I am satisfied that the situation may have improved slightly since the report was published but remains largely the same. In Ethiopia, the Applicant will face the challenges relating to maintaining basic living standards that apply to the general Ethiopian population. Further, his unresolved trauma from his childhood may go untreated, although that is no different to his current situation which has been, to date, by his own choosing.
[309] Exhibit R2, Respondent’s Tender Bundle, TB2, paragraphs 2.5, 2.9, 2.13, 2.14.
It is likely that the Applicant will face some difficulty in re-establishing himself in Ethiopia as he does not have an existing support network there (although his step-father’s relatives live in Oromia), he will have to secure accommodation, and he will have to find a means of earning an income to support himself.
This Other Consideration (e) weighs heavily in favour of revocation of the Decision under Review.
Findings: Other Considerations
The application of the Other Considerations in the present matter can be summarised as follows:
(a)international non-refoulement obligations: weighs moderately in favour of revocation;
(b)strength nature and duration of ties: weighs moderately in favour of revocation;
(c)impact on Australian business interests: not relevant;
(d)impact on victims: neutral; and
(e)extent of impediments if removed: weighs heavily in favour of revocation.
CONCLUSION
Is there Another Reason to Revoke the Cancellation of the Applicant’s visa?
In considering whether there is another reason to exercise the discretion afforded by s 501CA(4) of the Act to revoke the mandatory visa cancellation decision, I find as follows:
·Primary Consideration A weighs heavily in favour of non-revocation;
·Primary Consideration B weighs slightly in favour of revocation;
·Primary Consideration C weighs heavily in favour of non-revocation; and
·To the extent that Primary Consideration B and Other Considerations (a), (b) and (e) weigh in favour of revoking the mandatory visa cancellation decision, they cannot, even when combined, outweigh Primary Considerations A and C.
The Tribunal is cognisant of the impact it will have on the Applicant and his family if he is returned to Ethiopia. However, the Applicant’s offending is serious and persistent and I am not satisfied that the Applicant accepts that, should he be returned to the wider Australian community, he is ultimately responsible for ensuring that he continues to abstain from drugs and does not re-offend. Accordingly, application of the Direction favours the non-revocation of the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa.
DECISION
Therefore, the Tribunal affirms the Decision under Review.

I certify that the preceding 306 (three hundred and six) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Member Rebecca Bellamy

..........................[SGD]..............................................
Associate
Dated: 28 July 2020
Date of hearing:  19 and 20 May 2020
Applicant:  By video
Counsel for the Applicant:   Mr Barnarby Johnston
Representative for the Respondent:         Mr Jake Kyranis
ANNEXURE A – EXHIBIT REGISTER

EXHIBIT

DESCRIPTION OF EVIDENCE

PARTY

DATE OF DOCUMENT

DATE RECEIVED

G1

Section 501 G-Documents (Pages 1-148)

R

-

19 MAR 20

R1

Respondent’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions (Pages 1-13)

R

17 APR 20

17 APR 20

R2

Respondent’s Tender Bundle (Pages 1-83)

R

-

17 APR 20

A1

Applicant’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions (Pages 1-50)

A

14 MAY 20

14 MAY 20

A2

Letter of Support – Mr Abdul Mohammed of Queensland Somali Youth Council Inc

A

28 APR 20

30 APR 20

A3

Letter of Support – Applicant’s mother

A

23 APR 20

30 APR 20

A4

Statement of Applicant (Pages 2-9)

A

14 MAY 20

14 MAY 20

A5

Statements of Applicant’s family members (Pages 10-21):

-     Applicant’s mother (6 pages)

-     Applicant’s older sister (4 pages)

-     Applicant’s younger sister (2 pages)

A

14 MAY 20

14 MAY 20

A6

Letter from Queensland program of assistance to survivors of torture and trauma (Page 22)

A

13 MAY 20

14 MAY 20

A7

Lives Lived Well letter and brochure (Pages 23-27)

A

13 MAY 20

14 MAY 20

A8

Arthur Gorrie Correctional Centre Certificate of Appreciation (Page 28)

A

-

14 MAY 20

A9

Articles re drug use in prison/detention (Pages 29-42):

-    ABC article: ‘Drug users push prisons to breaking point, and locking them up often wastes time and money, inquiry finds’ (8 July 2019) by Owen Jacques

-    SBS article: ‘Detainees in Sydney’s Villawood Immigration Detention Centre are seen smoking what is said to be crystal methamphetamine, along with other drugs’ (13 February 2019) by Jarni Blakkarly

A

-

14 MAY 20

A10

Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Responses to Information Requests - Ethiopia: The Oromo Liberation Front (OLF), including origin, mandate, leadership, structure, legal status, and membership; treatment of members and supports by authorities (2014-2015) (Pages 43- 47)

A

7 MAY 15

14 MAY 20

A11

Articles re Prime Minister Abiy (Pages 48-62):

-     Human Rights Watch: Ethiopia: growing uncertainty marks Abiy’s first year in power (2 April 2019)

-     Human Rights Watch: Ethiopia: Abiy’s first year as Prime Minister, review of arbitrary detention, torture and detention conditions (5 April 2019)

-     Human Rights Watch: Ethiopia’s transition to democracy has hit a rough patch. It needs support from abroad (8 April 2019)

-     France 24: Ethiopia’s Abiy faces outcry over crackdown on rebels (29 February 2020)

A

-

14 MAY 20

A12

Ethiopia Insight article: Amid blackout, western Oromia plunges deeper into chaos and confusion, by Ermias Tasfaye (Pages 63-72)

A

14 FEB 20

14 MAY 20

A13

Articles re Ethiopian elections (Pages 73-86):

-     The Washington Post: Ethiopia’s first shot at real democracy could be derailed before elections are held, by Max Bearak (9 March 2020)

-     World News: Ethiopia sets tentative August date for elections, by David Endeshaw, dated 15 January 2020

-     Voice of America News: Ethiopian opposition, Prime Minister accuse each other of power grab, by Simon Marks (8 May 2020)

-     Reuters: Ethiopia’s Tigray region eyes election in challenge to national unity, by Dawit Endeshaw (6 May 2020)

A

-

14 MAY 20

A14

Articles re Ethiopia’s health care (Pages 87-92):

-     Borgen Magazine: Mental health care in Ethiopia, by Bridget Tobin (15 August 2014)

-     Andolu Agency: Ethiopia’s mentally ill stay in the shadows, by Seleshi Tessema (20 December 2018)

A

-

14 MAY 20

A15

International Crisis Group, Managing Ethiopia’s unsettled transition, Africa Report 269 (Pages 93-143)

A

21 FEB 19

14 MAY 20

A16

Freedom House: Ethiopia, political rights report (Pages 144-152)

A

-

14 MAY 20

A17

Human Rights Watch country information (Pages 153-194)

-     Ethiopia country summary (January 2020)

-     Ethiopia 2019 report

A

-

14 MAY 20

A18

National Mental Health Strategy 2012/13- 2015/6, Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Ministry of Health (Pages 195-250)

A

-

14 MAY 20

A19

1724342 (Refugee) [2018] AATA 4963 (Pages 251-285)

A

21 SEP 18

14 MAY 20

EXHIBIT	DESCRIPTION OF EVIDENCE	PARTY	DATE OF DOCUMENT	DATE RECEIVED
G1	Section 501 G-Documents (Pages 1-148)	R	-	19 MAR 20
R1	Respondent’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions (Pages 1-13)	R	17 APR 20	17 APR 20
R2	Respondent’s Tender Bundle (Pages 1-83)	R	-	17 APR 20
A1	Applicant’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions (Pages 1-50)	A	14 MAY 20	14 MAY 20
A2	Letter of Support – Mr Abdul Mohammed of Queensland Somali Youth Council Inc	A	28 APR 20	30 APR 20
A3	Letter of Support – Applicant’s mother	A	23 APR 20	30 APR 20
A4	Statement of Applicant (Pages 2-9)	A	14 MAY 20	14 MAY 20
A5	Statements of Applicant’s family members (Pages 10-21): - Applicant’s mother (6 pages) - Applicant’s older sister (4 pages) - Applicant’s younger sister (2 pages)	A	14 MAY 20	14 MAY 20
A6	Letter from Queensland program of assistance to survivors of torture and trauma (Page 22)	A	13 MAY 20	14 MAY 20
A7	Lives Lived Well letter and brochure (Pages 23-27)	A	13 MAY 20	14 MAY 20
A8	Arthur Gorrie Correctional Centre Certificate of Appreciation (Page 28)	A	-	14 MAY 20
A9	Articles re drug use in prison/detention (Pages 29-42): - ABC article: ‘Drug users push prisons to breaking point, and locking them up often wastes time and money, inquiry finds’ (8 July 2019) by Owen Jacques - SBS article: ‘Detainees in Sydney’s Villawood Immigration Detention Centre are seen smoking what is said to be crystal methamphetamine, along with other drugs’ (13 February 2019) by Jarni Blakkarly	A	-	14 MAY 20
A10	Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Responses to Information Requests - Ethiopia: The Oromo Liberation Front (OLF), including origin, mandate, leadership, structure, legal status, and membership; treatment of members and supports by authorities (2014-2015) (Pages 43- 47)	A	7 MAY 15	14 MAY 20
A11	Articles re Prime Minister Abiy (Pages 48-62): - Human Rights Watch: Ethiopia: growing uncertainty marks Abiy’s first year in power (2 April 2019) - Human Rights Watch: Ethiopia: Abiy’s first year as Prime Minister, review of arbitrary detention, torture and detention conditions (5 April 2019) - Human Rights Watch: Ethiopia’s transition to democracy has hit a rough patch. It needs support from abroad (8 April 2019) - France 24: Ethiopia’s Abiy faces outcry over crackdown on rebels (29 February 2020)	A	-	14 MAY 20
A12	Ethiopia Insight article: Amid blackout, western Oromia plunges deeper into chaos and confusion, by Ermias Tasfaye (Pages 63-72)	A	14 FEB 20	14 MAY 20
A13	Articles re Ethiopian elections (Pages 73-86): - The Washington Post: Ethiopia’s first shot at real democracy could be derailed before elections are held, by Max Bearak (9 March 2020) - World News: Ethiopia sets tentative August date for elections, by David Endeshaw, dated 15 January 2020 - Voice of America News: Ethiopian opposition, Prime Minister accuse each other of power grab, by Simon Marks (8 May 2020) - Reuters: Ethiopia’s Tigray region eyes election in challenge to national unity, by Dawit Endeshaw (6 May 2020)	A	-	14 MAY 20
A14	Articles re Ethiopia’s health care (Pages 87-92): - Borgen Magazine: Mental health care in Ethiopia, by Bridget Tobin (15 August 2014) - Andolu Agency: Ethiopia’s mentally ill stay in the shadows, by Seleshi Tessema (20 December 2018)	A	-	14 MAY 20
A15	International Crisis Group, Managing Ethiopia’s unsettled transition, Africa Report 269 (Pages 93-143)	A	21 FEB 19	14 MAY 20
A16	Freedom House: Ethiopia, political rights report (Pages 144-152)	A	-	14 MAY 20
A17	Human Rights Watch country information (Pages 153-194) - Ethiopia country summary (January 2020) - Ethiopia 2019 report	A	-	14 MAY 20
A18	National Mental Health Strategy 2012/13- 2015/6, Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Ministry of Health (Pages 195-250)	A	-	14 MAY 20
A19	1724342 (Refugee) [2018] AATA 4963 (Pages 251-285)	A	21 SEP 18	14 MAY 20

“(7A) For the purposes of the character test, if a person has been sentenced to 2 or more terms of imprisonment to be served concurrently (whether in whole or in part), the whole of each term is to be counted in working out the total of the terms. Example: A person is sentenced to 2 terms of 3 months imprisonment for 2 offences, to be served concurrently. For the purposes of the character test, the total of those terms is 6 months.”