A., an Ethiopian national of Oromo ethnicity, requested international protection in Norway in 2015. The Utlendingsdirektoratet (UDI) rejected the request on 20 September 2016. The rejection decision was subsequently upheld by the Immigration Appeals Board (Utlendingsnemnda, UNE) and by the Oslo District Court, with a decision dated 20 December 2024. A appealed the judgment to the Borgarting Court of Appeal (hereafter, the court), arguing that he was at risk of persecution due to his political opinion or membership in a particular social group. 
The Court of Appeal annulled UNE’s decision.  
 
First, the court assessed A’s specific situation. The court upheld the district court's observation that the applicant had alleged inconsistent reasons for his request, first stating in the initial form that he participated in a demonstration against the Ethiopian authorities in 2014, and only bringing up during the asylum interview that he had been tortured and imprisoned by the security service in 2012. The court noted that the applicant’s family was politically involved, his father being a member of the Oromo Congress Party who was accused of being a member of the Oromo Liberation Front (OLF), arrested and subsequently killed in 2010, while an arrest warrant was issued for his mother and his brother was also arrested twice. Concerning the applicant, the court further noted that he was a treasurer in a language and culture club that participated in a demonstration directed by the OLF. However, the club was not directly instructed by OLF. As a treasurer, he was not the leader of the group; the alleged demonstration had broad popular support, and although A had a megaphone, he did not have a leading position. 
 
Then the court noted that a statement of the Scandinavian branch of OLF confirmed that A supported OLF and that his support meant that he would risk losing his life if returned to Ethiopia in 2022. The court further noted that he continued to be involved in the reconfigured OLF-OLA (as it now included a political-military body named “Oromo Liberation Army”), in Norway as part of a seven-person committee. The court found that the applicant’s responsibilities as the internal controller for OLF-OLA groups in Norway, contributed to ensuring that money collected in Norway to support the OLF-OLA would be destined to the purpose for which it was collected, and collaborated with the head of OLF-OLA groups in relation to annual quarterly reports. Relying on testimony from the leaders of the Oromo diaspora communities in Europe and OLF-OLA Norway, the court accepted that OLF-OLA Norway sent collected funds to OLA in Ethiopia. 
 
The court concluded that A had been politically engaged in support of the Oromo people in Ethiopia before he left. Although he did not have a visible position, the applicant continued his involvement in Norway, as internal controller and as a member of the committee for OLF-OLA Norway, overseeing the money collected and sent to OLA in Ethiopia. 

Regarding the risk assessment, the court upheld UNE’s reasoning that it could not be assumed that a person would be in the spotlight of the authorities solely based on participation in demonstrations in 2014, and/or his family's historical connection to OLF. Thus, the applicant could not be said to have a well-founded fear of persecution due to membership in a particular social group or political opinion, based on events that occurred in Ethiopia before he arrived in Norway in isolation.      
 
The court then noted that the key question was whether A’s activities after his arrival in Norway, seen in the context of his history in Ethiopia, could give rise to a well-founded fear of persecution sur place. In this respect, the court agreed with UNE's assessment that A did not appear to be a high-profile activist or political leader and that his activity in the Norwegian branch of OLF-OLA, where he contributed as an internal controller, appeared somewhat modest. 
 
However,  the court of appeal departed from UNE’s assessment of the country of origin information (COI) and, taking into account both the information relied upon by UNE and updated reports, concluded that there would be a risk that the activity A had carried out in Norway, and in particular his contribution to OLA’s finances, could lead to persecution upon return to Ethiopia. The court referred to UNHCR's “Position on returns to Ethiopia” from March 2022, which was still maintained in 2024, the Landinfo’s thematic note “Ethiopia Armed conflict and political opposition in Oromia” (February 24, 2023), the Danish COI report “Ethiopia – Security situation in Amhara, Oromia and Tigray regions and return”,(October 22, 2024), and Professor Terje Østebø's report “Maintaining Control through Lawlessness: The Security and Human Rights Situation in Oromia, Ethiopia” (January 2025). The court also relied on the submissions to the court by a Landinfo caseworker at UDI and Mr. Østebø’s expert statement to the court. 
 
In his statement, the Landinfo caseworker remarked to the court that OLA is in armed conflict with Ethiopian authorities and is classified as a terrorist organization by the Ethiopian parliament. He submitted that, if it is known and confirmed that a person is collecting money for OLA from abroad, which will then presumably be used for weapons, among other things, there is reasonable reason to believe that the authorities will monitor this and keep the person under surveillance, or possibly arrest the person, upon return to Ethiopia. 
 
Østebø’s statement to court indicated that he believed that Landinfo's thematic note from February 2023, which is based on data collected in the autumn of 2022, did not capture the latest developments and it was no longer only high-profile activists and leaders of political parties who were only at risk of persecution, submitting that even less central connections to OLA would entail a risk of persecution from the authorities. 
 
As to whether the Ethiopian authorities were aware of the applicant’s activity, the court assumed that they conduct some surveillance of the diaspora abroad, and it could not be ignored that they were likely aware of A's involvement with OLF-OLA in Norway, giving rise to a real risk that authorities would take action against him upon his return to Ethiopia. 
 
Regarding the actions that Ethiopian authorities may take against him, the Court of Appeal relied on Landinfo's thematic note and Østebø's report stating that persons associated with OLA may be subject to executions, arrest or imprisonment, and less severe measures such as warnings or surveillance.  Based on Østebø’s report, the court concluded that the risk of persecution due to affiliation with OLA applied throughout Oromia, even in areas where there is no active armed conflict. 
 
Based on that, the Court of Appeal found that there would be a real risk that A would be subjected to persecution upon return due to his role in the committee of the Norwegian branch of OLF-OLA, including his contribution to collecting and sending money to OLA in Ethiopia. Those activities entailed a real and active connection to OLA that could result in arrest and imprisonment from federal, regional, and local authorities in Ethiopia, also outside areas of active armed conflict. Furthermore, given the nature of A’s activity, the Court of Appeal found it probable that A could be imprisoned for more than a short duration, and that he would risk being subjected to violence and/or torture and procedural fairness violations. According to the court, these possible reactions are to be regarded as “persecution” pursuant to Section 29 of the Immigration Act, and accordingly quashed UNE’s negative decision.