1512820 (Refugee)

[2016] AATA 3817

1512820 (Refugee) [2016] AATA 3817 (3 May 2016)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1512820

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Malaysia

MEMBER:Chris Thwaites

DATE:3 May 2016

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

Statement made on 03 May 2016 at 4:48pm

Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other dependant.

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The applicant, who claims to be a citizen of Malaysia, applied for the visa [in] February 2015.

3. [In] August 2015 the delegate refused to grant the visa.

4. On 18 September 2015 the applicant applied to the Tribunal for review of that decision.

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

5. The Tribunal has before it the Department’s file relating to the applicant’s protection visa application and the Tribunal’s file relating to the review application. The Tribunal has also taken into consideration the delegate’s decision record provided to the Tribunal by the applicant.

6. The applicant’s written reasons for claiming protection are contained in his visa application forms. In summary the applicant claims that in Malaysia he used to work with his best friend in an organisation where some Malay Muslims also worked. One particular Malay Muslim, [Mr A], always said bad things about other religions including the applicant’s religion. While the applicant and his friend tried to control their emotions a fight occurred which led to further teasing, and after being teased all day, the applicant and his friend lost their patience and responded by telling [Mr A] that although he said bad things about their religion, he should look at his own religion, as it was famous as a religion of terrorists and forcefully converted people. The applicant states he and his friend said much of what was in their hearts, but they did not know that [Mr A] was recording them.

7. The applicant states he thinks that [Mr A] and his Islamic gangsters are waiting to kill the applicant if he returns to his country, as they are extremist people. The applicant indicates that he experienced harm in his country and states that in June 2012 these Islamic extremists came to the office and started beating him and his friend. People in the office called the police however the extremists escaped. The incident was reported to the police but when they were trying to tell the police what happened [Mr A] played the recording to the police. Instead of starting a case against the extremists, the police warned the applicant and his friend and threatened them with imprisonment for their comments against Islam.

8. The applicant and his friend therefore moved to [Town 1], where one week later their house was attacked by the extremists who broke their stuff. The applicant and his friend were not in the house at the time. When they returned their housemate asked them to leave the house fast as their lives were at risk. They left the house and came to Australia in September 2012.

9. The applicant indicates that he thinks he will be harmed or mistreated if he returns to his country and states he will be harmed by [Mr A] and his extremist gangsters who will give them big harm, they can kill them. The applicant indicates he does not think the authorities in Malaysia will protect him if he goes back, and states the authorities cannot protect them because they just help strong and Malay people. The applicant indicates he does not think he will be able to relocate in Malaysia because he has tried to shift to another place, but that was of no use.

10. The delegate’s decision record, a copy of which was provided to the Tribunal by the applicant, indicates the Department sent a letter to the applicant advising that it may make a decision on the application based on the evidence before it, and if the applicant wish to request an interview to discuss his application he should do so within seven days of receiving the letter. The delegate’s decision record indicates the applicant did not contact the Department to request an interview, and therefore the delegate made the decision on the information before her.

11. The delegate’s decision record indicates that after considering all the information before her, the delegate was not satisfied the applicant’s claims of fearing harm in Malaysia were credible. The delegate noted the applicant’s claims of harm were vague and critically lacking in detail and that the applicant had provided no evidence to support his claims.

12. The delegate noted that publicly available information indicated the distance between the location of the applicant’s work place where he was beaten by extremists, and [Town 1] was 28.6 km. The delegate concluded that if the applicant had a genuine fear of harm he would have sought to put a greater distance between himself and the people intending to harm him. The delegate found the applicant had sought to embellish his claims and did not have a genuine fear of harm in his home country.

13. The delegate did not find it credible that the applicant was ever harmed, or that he was in an argument or that he made any comments about Islam. The delegate concluded that if the applicant had, and if there was recorded evidence to prove that he had insulted the State religion Islam or Muslims in general, then according to country information, he would not been just warned. The delegate did not accept the applicant or his friend made any comments against Muslim’s and/or Islam, and the delegate did not accept that they were physically attacked or forced to relocate or that they travel to Australia to save their lives. The delegate found the applicant had embellished his claims in order to create a profile that may be regarded as being of adverse interest to Malaysian Muslims and/or the Malaysian authorities.

14. The delegate assessed a number of country information reports, noting the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade County Information Report on Malaysia (DFAT report) assessment that Buddhists and Hindus are normally able to practice their religion without interference and do not faced discrimination on a day-to-day basis in Malaysia. While the delegate accepted that Islam was the State religion of Malaysia, she noted that freedom of religion is guaranteed under the Constitution and that while some restrictions are placed on the propagation of other religions, the delegate found that Buddhists are able to practice their religion in Malaysia.

15. The delegate also noted that the applicant claims that police protection was not available to him. The delegate referred to a number of country information reports including the DFAT report which indicated that credible and international sources consider the Royal Malaysia Police to be a professional and effective police force. The delegate did not find that the authorities across the whole of Malaysia would fail to provide the applicant with protection, and noted there was no evidence before the delegate that the applicant would be unable to obtain assistance from the authorities if required.

16. The delegate also concluded that the applicant’s failure to attend an interview cast doubt on the credibility of his claims and the genuineness of his claim to fear harm in Malaysia. The delegate also noted that the applicant had been in Australia since [September] 2012, and did not seek protection until [February] 2015. The delegate concluded that the applicant’s delay in seeking protection raised further concerns about the genuineness of his fears of harm and the credibility of his claims for protection. Therefore the delegate found the applicant’s claims not genuine or credible.

17. The delegate was not satisfied the applicant had a real chance of being persecuted for one or more of the reasons mentioned in s.5J(1)(a), and the delegate was not satisfied the applicant’s fear was well founded. The delegate was not satisfied there was a real chance of persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in s.5J(1)(a), and concluded that the applicant was not a refugee as defined by the Act, and therefore the applicant was not a person in respect of whom Australia had protection obligations as outlined in s.36(2)(a). The delegate was also not satisfied there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed to Malaysia, there was a real risk he will suffer significant harm. Therefore the delegate was not satisfied the applicant was a person in respect of whom Australia had protection obligations as outlined in s.36(2)(aa) of the Act, and therefore refused to grant the applicant a protection visa.

18. As noted above, on 18 September 2015 the applicant applied to the Tribunal for review of that decision.

19. On 22 March 2016 the Tribunal wrote to the applicant advising that it had considered all the material before it relating to the application but it was unable to make a favourable decision on that information alone. The Tribunal invited the applicant to give oral evidence and present arguments at a hearing on 2 May 2016. The applicant was advised that if he did not attend the hearing and a postponement was not granted, the Tribunal may make a decision without further notice. No response was received. On 22 and 29 April 2016 the Tribunal sent the applicant an automated SMS hearing reminder. The applicant did not appear before the Tribunal on the day and at the time and place of the scheduled hearing. In these circumstances, and pursuant to s.426A of the Act, the Tribunal has decided to make its decision on the review without taking any further action to enable the applicant to appear before it.

    CRITERIA FOR A PROTECTION VISA

20. The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s.36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations). An applicant for the visa must meet one of the alternative criteria in s.36(2)(a), (aa), (b), or (c). That is, he or she is either a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion, or on other ‘complementary protection’ grounds, or is a member of the same family unit as such a person and that person holds a protection visa of the same class.

21. Section 36(2)(a) provides that a criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee.

22. A person is a refugee if, in the case of a person who has a nationality, they are outside the country of their nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to avail themself of the protection of that country: s.5H(1)(a). In the case of a person without a nationality, they are a refugee if they are outside the country of their former habitual residence and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to return to that country: s.5H(1)(b).

23. Under s.5J(1), a person has a well-founded fear of persecution if they fear being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, there is a real chance they would be persecuted for one or more of those reasons, and the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of the relevant country. Additional requirements relating to a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ and circumstances in which a  person will be taken not to have such a fear are set out in ss.5J(2)-(6) and ss.5K-LA, which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.  

24. If a person is found not to meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a), he or she may nevertheless meet the criteria for the grant of the visa if he or she is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that he or she will suffer significant harm: s.36(2)(aa) (‘the complementary protection criterion’). The meaning of significant harm, and the circumstances in which a person will be taken not to face a real risk of significant harm, are set out in ss.36(2A) and (2B), which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.

    Mandatory considerations

25. In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.56, made under s.499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken account of policy guidelines prepared by the Department of Immigration – PAM3 Refugee and humanitarian - Complementary Protection Guidelines and PAM3 Refugee and humanitarian - Refugee Law Guidelines – and relevant country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.

    FINDINGS AND REASONS

    Nationality

26. On the basis of the copy of the applicant’s Malaysian passport provided to the Department the Tribunal finds that the applicant is a citizen of Malaysia. There is nothing in the evidence before the Tribunal to suggest that the applicant has a right to enter and reside in any country other than Malaysia. Therefore the Tribunal finds that the applicant is not excluded from Australia’s protection by subsection 36(3) of the Act.  As the Tribunal has found that the applicant is a national of Malaysia, the Tribunal also finds that Malaysia is the applicant’s “receiving country” for the purposes of s.36(2)(aa).

    Refugee criterion s.36(2)(a)

27. The mere fact that a person claims fear of persecution for a particular reason does not establish either the genuineness of the asserted fear or that it is ‘well-founded’ or that it is for the reason claimed. Similarly, that an applicant claims to face a real risk of significant harm does not establish that such a risk exists, or that the harm feared amounts to ‘significant harm’. It remains for the applicant to satisfy the Tribunal that all of the statutory elements are made out. Although the concept of onus of proof is not appropriate to administrative inquiries and decision-making, the relevant facts of the individual case will have to be supplied by the applicant himself or herself, in as much detail as is necessary to enable the examiner to establish the relevant facts. A decision-maker is not required to make the applicant's case for him or her. Nor is the Tribunal required to accept uncritically any and all the allegations made by an applicant. (MIEA v Guo (1997) 191 CLR 559 at 596, Nagalingam v MILGEA (1992) 38 FCR 191, Prasad v MIEA (1985) 6 FCR 155 at 169-70.)

28. In this particular case, the applicant’s claims are unsubstantiated and without further detail amount to mere assertions. If the applicant had attended the hearing, the Tribunal would have had the opportunity to discuss the applicant’s claims with him in more detail and test their veracity. The Tribunal would have asked the applicant for further details about his employment in Malaysia, and particularly about the bad things [Mr A] said about his religion and his reaction to those comments.  The Tribunal would have asked the applicant for more detail about the incident in which he claims to have been recorded and about the reaction to his statements about Islam. The Tribunal would have asked the applicant what happened immediately after that conversation, and what happened in June 2012 when people came to the office and started beating him and his friend. The Tribunal would have asked the applicant for more detail about how the police became involved, and their reaction to the recording. The Tribunal would also have asked the applicant about how he left his workplace at that time, and why and when he decided to move away. The Tribunal would have asked the applicant why he moved to [Town 1]. The Tribunal would have asked the applicant how he was traced to his new location and for more detail about what happened during the housebreaking, and why the applicant decided to leave Malaysia and travel to Australia. The Tribunal would have asked the applicant about why he fears he will be harmed or killed by [Mr A] and his extremist gangsters, and why the authorities in Malaysia will not protect him. The Tribunal would also have asked the applicant if he had any other fears about returning to Malaysia.

29. The letter inviting the applicant to the hearing put the applicant on notice that the Tribunal had considered all the material before it and was unable to make a favourable decision on that information alone. The applicant was advised that if he did not attend the hearing and a postponement was not granted, the Tribunal may make a decision on his case without further notice. The applicant did not appear before the Tribunal on the day and at the time and place at which he was scheduled to appear, and no request for a postponement was made or granted.

30. The evidence before the Tribunal is not sufficiently detailed for it to be satisfied about the applicant’s claims. On the evidence before it the Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant worked with his best friend in an organisation where a Malay Muslim named [Mr A] always said bad things about other religions including the applicant’s religion, which led to a fight and further teasing and the applicant and his friend losing their patience and making offensive or derogatory comments about Islam and/or Muslims. The Tribunal is not satisfied these comments were made, or that they were recorded. The Tribunal is not satisfied that in June 2012 Islamic extremists beat the applicant or his friend, or that the police were called and were played a recording and instead of starting a case against the extremist, the police warned the applicant and his friend and threatened them with imprisonment for their comments against Islam. The Tribunal does not accept the applicant and his friend moved to [Town 1] for this reason, or that while there their house was attacked by extremists who broke their stuff, or that their housemate advised them to leave the house fast as their lives were at risk. On the evidence before it the Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant left Malaysia for the reasons he has claimed. The Tribunal is not satisfied there is a real chance the applicant will be harmed or killed by [Mr A] and his extremist gangsters, or the police, or Malaysian authorities, if he returns to Malaysia, now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.

31. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there is any basis for the applicant to fear harm in Malaysia. The Tribunal is not satisfied there is a real chance the applicant will face serious harm, or harm of any kind, for the reasons he has claimed, either now or in the reasonably foreseeable future, if he returns to Malaysia. The Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, and therefore the Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant is a refugee as defined by the Act, and therefore the applicant does not satisfy the criterion set out in s.36(2)(a).

    Complementary protection

32. As the Tribunal has found that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a) of the Act, the Tribunal has considered whether he may nevertheless meet the criteria for the grant of a protection visa pursuant to the complementary protection criteria.

33. The applicant has failed to provide sufficient detail or supporting evidence regarding the claims made in his visa application form, and the applicant did not attend a hearing at which the Tribunal would have sought further details about his claims for protection.

1. As noted above, on the evidence before it, the Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant worked with his best friend in an organisation where a Malay Muslim named [Mr A] always said bad things about other religions including the applicant’s religion, which led to a fight and further teasing and the applicant and his friend losing their patience and making offensive or derogatory comments about Islam and/or Muslims. The Tribunal is not satisfied these comments were made, or that they were recorded. The Tribunal is not satisfied that in June 2012 Islamic extremists beat the applicant or his friend, or that the police were called and were played a recording and instead of starting a case against the extremist, the police warned the applicant and his friend and threatened them with imprisonment for their comments against Islam. The Tribunal does not accept the applicant and his friend moved to [Town 1] for this reason, or that while there their house was attacked by extremists who broke their stuff, or that their housemate advised them to leave the house fast as their lives were at risk. On the evidence before it the Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant left Malaysia for the reasons he has claimed. The Tribunal is not satisfied there is a real risk the applicant will be harmed or killed by [Mr A] and his extremist gangsters, or the police, or Malaysian authorities, if returned to Malaysia.

2. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal is not satisfied there is a real risk the applicant will be arbitrarily deprived of his life; or the death penalty will be carried out on him; or that he will be subject to torture, or cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or subject to degrading treatment or punishment, if returned to Malaysia.

3. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Malaysia, there is a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm.  Therefore the applicant does not satisfy the criteria under s.36(2)(aa).

   CONCLUSION

4. For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(a) or s.36(2)(aa).

5. There is no suggestion that the applicant satisfies s.36(2) on the basis of being a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfies s.36(2)(a) or (aa) and who holds a protection visa. Accordingly, the applicant does not satisfy the criterion in s.36(2).

   DECISION

6. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

   Chris Thwaites
   Member  3 May 2016

   
   

   ATTACHMENT  -  Extract from Migration Act 1958

   5 (1) Interpretation
   …
   cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment means an act or omission by which:

   (a)severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person; or

   (b)pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person so long as, in all the circumstances, the act or omission could reasonably be regarded as cruel or inhuman in nature;

   but does not include an act or omission:

   (c)that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or

   (d)arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.

   …
   degrading treatment or punishment means an act or omission that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation which is unreasonable, but does not include an act or omission:

   (a)that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or

   (b)that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.

   …
   torture means an act or omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person:

   (a)for the purpose of obtaining from the person or from a third person information or a confession; or

   (b)for the purpose of punishing the person for an act which that person or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed; or

   (c)for the purpose of intimidating or coercing the person or a third person; or

   (d)for a purpose related to a purpose mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c); or

   (e)for any reason based on discrimination that is inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant;

   but does not include an act or omission arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.

   …
   receiving country,  in relation to a non-citizen, means:

   (a)a country of which the non-citizen is a national, to be determined solely by reference to the law of the relevant country; or

   (b)if the non-citizen has no country of nationality—a country of his or her former habitual residence, regardless of whether it would be possible to return the non-citizen to the country.

   …

   5J Meaning of well-founded fear of persecution

   (1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person has a well-founded fear of persecution if:

   (a)     the person fears being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion; and

   (b)     there is a real chance that, if the person returned to the receiving country, the person would be persecuted for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (a); and

   (c)     the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of a receiving country.

   Note:    For membership of a particular social group, see sections 5K and 5L.

   (2)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country.

   Note:    For effective protection measures, see section 5LA.

   (3)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if the person could take reasonable steps to modify his or her behaviour so as to avoid a real chance of persecution in a receiving country, other than a modification that would:

   (a)     conflict with a characteristic that is fundamental to the person’s identity or conscience; or

   (b)     conceal an innate or immutable characteristic of the person; or

   (c)     without limiting paragraph (a) or (b), require the person to do any of the following:

   (i)alter his or her religious beliefs, including by renouncing a religious conversion, or conceal his or her true religious beliefs, or cease to be involved in them practice of his or her faith;

   (ii)conceal his or her true race, ethnicity, nationality or country of origin;

   (iii)alter his or her political beliefs or conceal his or her true political beliefs;

   (iv)conceal a physical, psychological or intellectual disability;

   (v)enter into or remain in a marriage to which that person is opposed, or accept the forced marriage of a child;

   (vi)alter his or her sexual orientation or gender identity or conceal his or her true sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.

   (4)If a person fears persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a):

   (a)     that reason must be the essential and significant reason, or those reasons must be the essential and significant reasons, for the persecution; and

   (b)     the persecution must involve serious harm to the person; and

   (c)     the persecution must involve systematic and discriminatory conduct.

   (5)Without limiting what is serious harm for the purposes of paragraph (4)(b), the following are instances of serious harm for the purposes of that paragraph:

   (a)     a threat to the person’s life or liberty;

   (b)     significant physical harassment of the person;

   (c)     significant physical ill‑treatment of the person;

   (d)     significant economic hardship that threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;

   (e)     denial of access to basic services, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;

   (f)    denial of capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist.

   (6)In determining whether the person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a), any conduct engaged in by the person in Australia is to be disregarded unless the person satisfies the Minister that the person engaged in the conduct otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening the person’s claim to be a refugee.

   5K  Membership of a particular social group consisting of family

   For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person (the first person), in determining whether the first person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for the reason of membership of a particular social group that consists of the first person’s family:

   (a)     disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced, where the reason for the fear or persecution is not a reason mentioned in paragraph 5J(1)(a); and

   (b)     disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that:

   (i)the first person has ever experienced; or

   (ii)any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced;

   where it is reasonable to conclude that the fear or persecution would not exist if it were assumed that the fear or persecution mentioned in paragraph (a) had never existed.

   Note: Section 5G may be relevant for determining family relationships for the purposes of this section.

   5L  Membership of a particular social group other than family

   For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person is to be treated as a member of a particular social group (other than the person’s family) if:

   (a)     a characteristic is shared by each member of the group; and

   (b)     the person shares, or is perceived as sharing, the characteristic; and

   (c)     any of the following apply:

   (i)the characteristic is an innate or immutable characteristic;

   (ii)the characteristic is so fundamental to a member’s identity or conscience, the member should not be forced to renounce it;

   (iii)the characteristic distinguishes the group from society; and

   (d)     the characteristic is not a fear of persecution.

   5LA  Effective protection measures

   (1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country if:

   (a)     protection against persecution could be provided to the person by:

   (i)the relevant State; or

   (ii)a party or organisation, including an international organisation, that controls the relevant State or a substantial part of the territory of the relevant State; and

   (b)     the relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (a) is willing and able to offer such protection.

   (2)A relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) is taken to be able to offer protection against persecution to a person if:

   (a)     the person can access the protection; and

   (b)     the protection is durable; and

   (c)     in the case of protection provided by the relevant State—the protection consists of an appropriate criminal law, a reasonably effective police force and an impartial judicial system.

   ..

   36Protection visas – criteria provided for by this Act

   …

   (2A)A non‑citizen will suffer significant harm if:

   (a)     the non‑citizen will be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life; or

   (b)    the death penalty will be carried out on the non‑citizen; or

   (c)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to torture; or

   (d)    the non‑citizen will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or

   (e)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment.

   (2B)However, there is taken not to be a real risk that a non‑citizen will suffer significant harm in a country if the Minister is satisfied that:

   (a)     it would be reasonable for the non‑citizen to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or

   (b)    the non‑citizen could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or

   (c)     the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the non‑citizen personally.

   …