1512888 (Refugee)

[2016] AATA 3549

1512888 (Refugee) [2016] AATA 3549 (17 March 2016)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1512888

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Malaysia

MEMBER:Stuart Webb

DATE:17 March 2016

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 17 March 2016 at 10:07am

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 [in] August 2015 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] April 2015. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the claims were vague and limited and not made out. The applicant did not attend an interview with the Department. The applicant attended a hearing with the Tribunal on 16 March 2016. An interpreter assisted him at the hearing though the applicant spoke primarily in English.

   CRITERIA FOR A PROTECTION VISA

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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).

6. 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.  

7. 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

8. 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.

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

9. The applicant and his friends had a fight with another group of young men on a football court. 5 days later the applicant saw some of these young men again, who tried to block him in, laughed at him and told him not to travel alone else they would do something bad ‘to us’. A police car was nearby so they moved on, threatening the applicant that they would find him. The applicant fears crime across the country, and Malays have the highest priority in Malaysia. If he went back the Malaysia would break his legs because of the misunderstanding. There is no law and order in Malaysia, there are no human rights.

10. The applicant identified himself as a Sino – native and a Christian. He arrived in Australia [in] January 2014 on a [temporary] visa. He has not left Australia. He applied for the protection visa in April 2015. He provided the same residential address in Malaysia from 1990 to the time he left in January 2014. He completed school and had a job when he departed Malaysia.

    Findings and reasons

    Country of nationality

11. The applicant claims to be a citizen of Malaysia and provided a copy of his passport to the Tribunal. The Tribunal finds that the applicant is a citizen of Malaysia, and that Malaysia is the applicant’s receiving country for the purposes of the refugee and complementary protection assessment.

    Third country protection

12. There is no evidence before me to suggest that the claimant has the right to enter and reside in any safe third country for the purposes of s.36(3) of the Act.

    Credibility

13. The Tribunal is aware of the importance of adopting a reasonable approach in the finding of credibility. In Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and McIllhatton v Guo Wei Rong and Pam Run Juan (1996) 40 ALD 445 the Full Federal Court made comments on determining credibility. The Tribunal notes in particular the cautionary note sounded by Foster J at 482:

    …care must be taken that an over-stringent approach does not result in an unjust exclusion from consideration of the totality of some evidence where a portion of it could reasonably have been accepted.

14. The Tribunal also accepts that ‘if the applicant's account appears credible, he should, unless there are good reasons to the contrary, be given the benefit of the doubt’. (The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees' Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status, Geneva, 1992 at para 196). However, the Handbook also states (at para 203):

    The benefit of the doubt should, however, only be given when all available evidence has been obtained and checked and when the examiner is satisfied as to the applicant's general credibility. The applicant's statements must be coherent and plausible, and must not run counter to generally known facts.

15. When assessing claims made by applicants the Tribunal needs to make findings of fact in relation to those claims. This usually involves an assessment of the credibility of the applicants. When doing so it is important to bear in mind the difficulties often faced by asylum seekers. The benefit of the doubt should be given to asylum seekers who are generally credible but unable to substantiate all of their claims.

16. The Tribunal must bear in mind that if it makes an adverse finding in relation to a material claim made by the applicant but is unable to make that finding with confidence it must proceed to assess the claim on the basis that it might possibly be true (see MIMA v Rajalingam (1999) 93 FCR 220).

17. However, the Tribunal is not required to accept uncritically any or all of the allegations made by an applicant. Further, the Tribunal is not required to have rebutting evidence available to it before it can find that a particular factual assertion by an applicant has not been made out (see Randhawa v MILGEA (1994) 52 FCR 437 at 451 per Beaumont J; Selvadurai v MIEA & Anor (1994) 34 ALD 347 at 348 per Heerey J and Kopalapillai v MIMA (1998) 86 FCR 547.)

18. The Tribunal notes that it is also legitimate to take into account an applicant's delay in lodging an application for a protection visa in assessing the genuineness, or at least the depth, of the applicant's claimed fear of persecution (per Heerey J, Selvadurai v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1994) 34 ALD 347).

19. The Tribunal discussed the applicant’s claims with him at the hearing. The applicant made a significant disclosure to the Tribunal with respect to his claims for protection, his fear of returning to Malaysia and the reasons he came to Australia. At the end of the hearing the applicant stated that he did not need the protection visa anymore, did not have current fears of being harmed, and would be returning to Malaysia in the near future. The applicant stated he needed two months to make arrangements to leave. The Tribunal noted that this was not up to it, but that he could discuss his situation with the Department of Immigration directly regarding making arrangements to depart Australia.

20. The applicant stated that the claim that he had a fight with a gang of ethnic Malays on a football field was false. The applicant stated that an agent he attended wrote this statement without consulting with him. It was not true, he did not have this problem in Malaysia. The Tribunal finds that this claim has been fabricated and the applicant does not face harm for this reason.

21. The Tribunal questioned the applicant about other aspects of his application and claims. The Tribunal noted that the application had significant details regarding the applicant’s personal circumstances, work, family, and residence, which the applicant stated was true. The Tribunal asked how the agent could have received such information. The applicant initially stated he had provided a copy of his passport to the agent. The Tribunal noted that this did include all the information as to work, residence and family background of the applicant. The applicant stated he had provided this to the agent.

22. The Tribunal asked if the claims as stated that the human rights situation in Malaysia was a problem for the applicant was correct, given his previous claim had been fabricated. The applicant stated it was. The Tribunal asked what he meant by it. The applicant stated he had heard that some policemen received money from gambling organisations. Little people like him were more prosecuted and bullied. The Tribunal asked if the applicant had ever had any interaction with the authorities. The applicant stated he had never had any trouble with the police, or had gone to them to report any problems. The Tribunal asked why this caused him concern for human rights or law and order. The applicant stated he had not had any interaction with the police. The Tribunal stated that it appeared that the applicant had not personally had any human rights or law and order problems in Malaysia. The applicant agreed with this statement. The Tribunal considers that the evidence of the applicant regarding human rights breaches and law and order concerns do not demonstrate any chance or risk of harm. The applicant’s claims about police corruption discuss payments from gambling organisations, not something relevant to the applicant’s circumstances. He has not elaborated on any human rights issues that have caused him any concern in Malaysia, or would do so in the future. The Tribunal finds that the applicant does not have a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm for these reasons.

23. The applicant stated he had a different reason for leaving Malaysia. He had come to Australia to make money. The applicant stated that he earned only 800 Ringgit a month in Malaysia, while in Australia he could earn much more.

24. The applicant also claimed that he had a disagreement with a man in Malaysia. However the evidence of the applicant regarding this disagreement changed repeatedly at the hearing, leading the Tribunal to determine that it is without credibility.

25. The applicant stated that he borrowed [an amount] Ringgit from a man in Malaysia, a verbal agreement. He stated that he did not have to pay any interest. However he was around 6 months late in paying the money back, and the man asked for interest payments. The applicant stated he argued with the man and refused to pay interest, this was not the agreement. The Tribunal asked how much interest was being demanded. The applicant stated [the same amount] Ringgit. The Tribunal expressed its concern that the amount was the same as the principal amount owed. The applicant stated this was the amount but he refused to pay it. The applicant stated that the argument was verbal, not physical. He was not threatened and did not go to the police. He stated he could not go to the police now because he had no evidence of this transaction.

26. The applicant stated as soon as he had the argument he decided to leave Malaysia. The Tribunal asked the applicant when the argument took place. The applicant stated that it was days before he left Malaysia for Australia. The Tribunal asked the applicant about his arrangements for leaving Malaysia, including his visa and ticket. The applicant stated he had done this quickly, got together [the required amount] and was able to leave. The Tribunal asked if the applicant had got his visa in January 2014. The applicant stated he had done so.

27. The applicant stated that sometime in 2014 he had received information on his Facebook account that this man had said he would kill the applicant when he returned to Malaysia. The Tribunal asked to see the Facebook threat. The applicant stated he had deleted the account. The Tribunal asked why he had deleted this account given he was in Australia when he received this threat. The applicant stated he got rid of it, it was already gone.

28. The applicant then stated that he had been paying this man from Australia. The Tribunal noted the contradiction in his evidence, that he had previously stated he would not be paying interest. The applicant stated he had been remitting money from Australia. He did not know how much he had remitted, but that the last time he had paid was 2014. He had not had contact with this man since sometime in 2014.

29. The Tribunal put information to the applicant pursuant to the provisions of s424AA of the Act. The Tribunal noted that a movement record was available for the applicant, including the information that he had applied for his visa to come to Australia in Malaysia [in] October 2013, and that he had travelled to Australia [in] January 2014. The Tribunal noted that this contradicted his claim that he had had the argument in January 2014, got his visa and ticket at that time and left immediately. He had in fact got his visa over two months prior to his arrival in Australia. It also demonstrated that the applicant had lived in Malaysia for over two months prior to coming to Australia, which contradicted his claim that he fled immediately to avoid being harmed.

30. The applicant provided the following responses to this information. He stated that he had got the visa, and then had to save money for the ticket. He then stated he had lived in hiding during this time.

31. The Tribunal expressed its significant concern as to the change of evidence of the applicant. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had altered his evidence significantly regarding the timeline of events, from having the disagreement in January and travelling immediately, to the actual delayed departure. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had not claimed to have been in hiding at any time during the previous discussion about his difficulties in Malaysia, and had introduced this new claim at the hearing. It was in contradiction with his claim he left Malaysia immediately, and there also appeared to be no reason for him to go into hiding, given he had not been threatened and only had, as he claimed, an argument with a man about a small amount of money.

32. The Tribunal expressed significant concern regarding the credibility of the applicant’s evidence, including his admission that the written claim was false, his new claim for protection that had not been made previously, his change of evidence regarding interest payments, and his change of evidence regarding when incidents occurred, and his new claim that he had been in hiding. The Tribunal stated that it was difficult to accept the applicant’s new claim given all these issues with his claims.

33. The applicant conceded he had come to Australia to work, but that he did borrow money in the past. The applicant stated he would return to Malaysia and sort things out, and advised the Tribunal that he did not need the protection visa anymore.

34. The Tribunal has considered this claim of the applicant. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant owes money to a man in Malaysia or has been threatened because of it. The Tribunal notes that the applicant’s application has a significant amount of information that could only have been provided by the applicant. No mention of this loan was made. The Tribunal does not accept that the agent would ask for information about the applicant’s personal circumstances then not ask him about his claims for protection, and would thus make up a false story. The Tribunal considers that had the applicant feared harm for this reason he would have advised his agent. He did not do so because he did not fear harm for this reason.

35. The Tribunal notes the inconsistencies in the applicant’s evidence as provided at the hearing. The applicant first stated he would not pay interest, and then altered his evidence to say he was paying from Australia. He did not provide any information about any such payments. The applicant then provided contradictory evidence regarding when he had a dispute with this man. The Tribunal pointed out contrary evidence regarding his circumstances, the applicant then changed his story, and added new information that he had not divulged previously. The Tribunal does not accept the applicant’s explanation for why his evidence changed, it does not accept that the applicant went and got his visa, then went and saved money for 2 further months to pay for the ticket. The Tribunal further does not accept that the applicant was in hiding for two months, at a time he was also supposedly getting money to pay for his trip. The Tribunal considers that the applicant fabricated this evidence when a significant discrepancy was noted to him, and that he made up this evidence at the hearing.

36. The Tribunal further notes that the applicant did not keep the evidence of any threats made against him. The applicant claimed he deleted the Facebook profile he had received the threat on. The applicant stated he was in Australia at the time he received the threat and when he deleted the Facebook profile. The applicant did not explain why he deleted this evidence of a threat against him while living in Australia. The Tribunal considers the applicant’s deletion of this Facebook page, and any information it may have contained, to be strange behaviour for someone who then sought to make a claim for protection, based on that threat. The Tribunal considers that the applicant has fabricated this element of his claim. The Tribunal considers, based on its significant concern regarding this credibility of the applicant, and that the applicant had no need to delete such evidence, should it have existed, that this threat never occurred, and that the applicant never had to delete a Facebook profile because of any threat being made to him.

1. The Tribunal has significant credibility concerns regarding the applicant’s claim that he has been threatened for not paying interest on a loan in Malaysia. The applicant did not make this claim in his application, but provided a claim that he now admits was a lie. He otherwise did provide information that was correct in his application. The applicant provided contradictory evidence regarding this new claim at the hearing. He claimed not to have paid any interest, then said he had come to Australia to earn money to pay interest. The applicant provided contrary evidence as to when he had an argument with the money he borrowed money from, stating it was in January 2014 just prior to his coming to Australia. When the Tribunal provided contrary evidence of this, the applicant changed his story as to when the argument occurred, and added new, false information regarding being in hiding. The applicant also claimed to have deleted the very evidence of the threat to him, a circumstances the Tribunal has not accepted.

2. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant may have borrowed money in the past. The Tribunal considers that the applicant has repaid the money he borrowed while residing in Malaysia, and does not owe any further money, principal or interest, to any person. The Tribunal considers that the applicant came to Australia to earn money, providing a greater sum than the 800/month he was earning at a [business]. The Tribunal considers that this is the reason the applicant came to Australia, and not because of any argument with any person. The Tribunal considers the claim that he has been threatened over a repayment of a loan to be without credibility, and it did not occur. The Tribunal finds that the applicant does not have a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm for this reason.

3. The Tribunal further notes that the applicant has stated at the hearing that he does not need the protection visa anymore, and would be returning to Malaysia. The Tribunal considers that these remarks demonstrate that the applicant does not fear that he will be harmed in Malaysia on return.

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).

5. Having concluded that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a), the Tribunal has considered the alternative criterion in s.36(2)(aa). The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(aa).

6. 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

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

   Stuart Webb
   Member

   
   

   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.

   …