Habtegebriel v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the RRT") which affirmed a decision of a Ministerial delegate not to grant a protection visa. 2 The applicant is an Ethiopian national who arrived in Australia on 13 April 1998. Shortly after arrival he lodged an application for a protection visa on the basis that he was a refugee within the meaning of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees as amended by the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees (the "Convention"). Article 1A(2) of the Convention defines a refugee as any person who: "… owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country …" 3 The applicant is twenty-nine years of age. He is married with one son and his wife and child remain in Ethiopia. He is of a Amhara ethnicity and his language is Amharic. He undertook theological studies at a monastery, south of Addis Ababa, and at the end of nine months he was known as a gospel preacher. He undertook missionary work in Addis Ababa, both before and after his graduation from theological college, preaching in various churches. He carried out further studies and was given a preacher's certificate. 4 In his preaching the applicant said that he condemned the division, disunity, and racial hatred being promoted by the regime in power. The applicant also opposed the Government's intrusion in the Church's administration. He says that the Government is causing the replacement of senior Amhara Church figures. The applicant says that his preachings were monitored and that on one occasion whilst preaching he was interrupted and told that he was making statements that insulted the Government. A special protection force was called to apprehend him. He claims to have been taken to a police station where he remained for two days in a cell. He said that on the third day, he was taken to an office where there were three men in plain clothes who told him that he could continue to preach, but that he must not oppose or insult the Government or he would be in great trouble. He then signed an undertaking under duress. 5 The applicant says that in about August 1993, one of those persons monitoring his behaviour claimed that a sermon of his implied that the Government and the Church were run by Satan. He says that he was taken to a police station and left in a dark room for twenty days, and on the twenty-first day he was taken to a room for interrogation and was told that he would not be allowed to preach any more. He was then sent back to the dark room for a further five days. He eventually found someone to be a guarantor for him and was told that if he ever preached again he would have big problems. He said that he was then banned from entering a churchyard and preaching. 6 In late 1993 or 1994, the applicant claimed that he went to see a religious hermit known as Gebre-Meskel to hear him preach. Authorities interrupted the preaching and arrested a number of participants including the applicant. He says that they were forced into buses and taken to a military training camp. He says that he remained in a hall under detention for six months before being released. The preacher, Gebre-Meskel, is said to have remained in prison at least to the date of the hearing by the RRT. 7 The applicant on returning home found that his son had been removed from the Church school and was not permitted to attend, and that his wife had been fired from her position with a government organisation. The applicant continued to preach in people's houses three times per month. 8 The applicant states that since his arrival in Australia he has received letters from friends indicating there have been people in civilian clothes surveying his home and questioning his parents. He says that the authorities are apparently annoyed that the applicant and his colleagues managed to get out of Ethiopia under the pretence of competing in the Canberra marathon. 9 Two witnesses gave evidence for the applicant before the RRT. One of the witnesses last visited Ethiopia in 1994 for two months and stated that there was much dissatisfaction in Ethiopia with the Patriarch of the Church who was perceived as being an agent of the Government. The other witness gave evidence as to the fine work which the applicant has carried out in Australia with the Amhara community and the Church. The RRT member found that in his position at St Mary's Ethiopian Orthodox Church, it is clear that the applicant is playing an extremely valuable role in the spiritual life of the Ethiopian community in Sydney and that it is unlikely that there are others in Sydney who have the background to replace him.