1515772 (Refugee)

[2017] AATA 1974

1515772 (Refugee) [2017] AATA 1974 (10 October 2017)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1515772

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  China

MEMBER:Nathan Goetz

DATE:10 October 2017

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 10 October 2017 at 10:10am

CATCHWORDS

Refugee – Protection Visa – China – Falun Gong – Religious persecution – Discrimination – Credibility concerns – No reasonable explanation for providing bogus documents – Conflicting evidence

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, ss 5H, 5J, 5K, 5L, 5LA, 36, 65, 91WA, 438, 499
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2

CASES

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 and Border Protection (DIBP) [in] October 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 the People’s Republic of China (PRC), applied for the visa [in] August 2014. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the applicant was not a genuine practitioner of Falun Gong and did not have a well-founded fear of persecution.

CRITERIA FOR A PROTECTION VISA

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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).

4. 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.

5. 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

1. 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 DIBP– 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 (DFAT) expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.

CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

1. The issue in this case is the credibility of the applicant and whether the Tribunal fins the applicant’s claims credible. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.

2. The applicant arrived in Australia [in] April 2014 on a [visa]. She had travelled on a PRC passport in the name of [Name 1] with a date of birth of [Date of Birth 1]. The passport number is [passport number].

3. [In] August 2014, the applicant lodged a protection visa application and was interviewed by a delegate of the Minister [in] October 2015.

4. In the decision of [October] 2015, the delegate refused the grant of a protection visa. This decision was sent to the applicant’s migration agent by registered post with a cover letter dated [in] October 2015. The applicant subsequently applied for a review of that decision.

5. The applicant claims that she is a wife and mother, and her husband and [number of children] remain in the PRC. The applicant claims that she has a well-founded fear of persecution in the PRC due to her involvement with the Falun Gong movement.

6. She claims the following instances of previous instances of persecution demonstrate that she has a well-founded fear of persecution should she return to the PRC:

   ·Firstly, the applicant was sentenced by the [details of court] People’s Court to [Sentence 1] for practicing Falun Gong. She claims to have served that sentence [details of sentence].

   ·Secondly, and following [details of sentence], the applicant was fined [amount of fine] for having a [religious materials] in her home.

   ·Thirdly, since [details of sentence], she has been harassed ‘all the time’.

Material submitted to the department

1. As part of her claims for protection, the applicant submitted the following documents to the department:

   ·PRC passport [passport number] issued [in] 2013 in the name of [Name 1] with a date of birth of [Date of Birth 1]

   ·Letter dated [in] May 2014 from [Ms A] in Chinese with an English translation attesting to the fact that the applicant has been practicing Falun Gong and taking part in various activities ‘all the time’

   ·Completed Part A Form 866A outlining her identity, previous applications with the department, character and family members

   ·Completed Part B Form 866B outlining her identity, travel movements and attaching her claims in a statement of the applicant dated 15 June 2014 in Chinese with an English translation

   ·Judgment dated [date] of the [details of court] People’s Court in Chinese with an English translation sentencing [Name 1] to [Sentence 1] for [Charge 1]

   ·Four photographs of the applicant taken at Falung Gong gatherings.

Departmental interview

1. The applicant attended with a Mandarin interpreter and had an interview with the delegate [in] October 2015. In that interview, the applicant stated the following:

   ·Her passport was genuine, had not been altered in any way, all the information in the passport was true and correct, that she had never been known by a different name, and that everything in her application was true and correct and there were no mistakes that she wished to point out.

   ·She arrived in Australia [in] April 2014 from the PRC and was previously working for a [company] for about 6 months prior to coming to Australia. She knew she needed protection on the day she arrived because she had been persecuted for practicing Falun Gong which she had practiced since 2014. She had been granted a visa to go to [Country 1] in 2013 but did not go because she applied for the wrong visa so she ‘didn’t make it’.

   ·She was sentenced to [Sentence 1] for [Charge 1] because she was practicing Falun Gong. The applicant stated that she practiced Falun Gong for her health and that the first exercise of Falung Gong should be repeated eight times, as should the third exercise. The applicant stated that she was fearful that the PRC government would punish her if she returned to the PRC, but she conceded that she was able to leave the PRC [in] April 2014 on her passport without any difficulty.

2. The delegate challenged the applicant about some of the answers given by the applicant at the interview in light of the material which had been filed.

3. The delegate noted that in the protection application the applicant had declared that she travelled to [Country 1] and was there between [date] and [date], which was in conflict with her statement to the delegate. The delegate also noted that [Sentence 1] occurred during this travel time. The applicant stated that she did not travel to [Country 1] and the migration agent must have made a mistake putting that information on the form.

4. The delegate also challenged the truthfulness of the claim that the applicant was a practitioner of Falun Gong, noting that the applicant’s response that the first and third exercise of Falun Gong should be repeated eight times demonstrated that the applicant did not seem to know anything about Falun Gong. When questioned about where the Falun is carried or located, the applicant said she did not know.

5. The applicant was subsequently refused a protection visa and applied for review to the Tribunal.

Material submitted to the Tribunal

1. As part of the review hearing, the applicant submitted the following documents:

   ·A document in Chinese that the interpreter translated orally for the tribunal to read as a ‘[type of document] Document’ stating that the applicant [details of Sentence 1] (Marked by the Tribunal as S1)

   ·A document in Chinese that the interpreter translated orally for the tribunal as a letter from [Ms B] stating that applicant is a practitioner of Falun Gong (Marked by the Tribunal as S2)

Independent information considered by the Tribunal

1. I have had regard to independent information by the DFAT Country Report and Thematic Report for the PRC of 3 March 2015 when assessing these claims. Relevantly, these reports advise that:

   ·The PRC considers that Falun Gong should be eliminated as an ‘evil cult’

   ·Falun Gong practitioners face widespread official and societal discrimination

   ·Falun Gong practitioners who are sentenced to criminal punishment most commonly receive verdicts of three years imprisonment or less

   ·Falung Gong practitioners who are committed to their faith and who were already known to authorities or who had overtly engaged in behavior considered to be politically sensitive would likely find it very difficult to obtain a passport to leave China

2. I have also had regard to the 7th translated English Edition of the Falun Gong by Li Hongzhi which discusses the teachings and practices of that movement.

Additional information received by the Tribunal

1. Subsequent to the applicant lodging her application for a review of the delegate’s decision, the Tribunal was provided with information subject of a certificate under section 438 of the Migration Act 1958. This information had been provided in confidence.

Tribunal hearing

1. On 3 October 2017, the applicant, together with a Mandarin interpreter, attended her review hearing. The applicant took an oath to tell the truth. The applicant told the Tribunal that she had never held a passport other than the one that was produced to the department and the Tribunal, that she was not known by any other name, she had not been to any other country and that she had never been to Australia before her arrival in 2014.

2. The Tribunal then decided to disclose to the applicant the contents of the s.438 certificate. I decided that such disclosure was appropriate because it went to the credibility of the applicant and her truthfulness as a witness. The material had been provided by Border Force and alleged that the applicant had entered Australia in 2006 on a [visa] on a passport with the name [Name 2] and date of birth of [Date of Birth 2]. She had applied for a [visa] which was refused by the department. I was able to find out that the applicant had applied for review of the decision to the Tribunal (Case 1515772) but that the review was out of time and the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear the review. Border Force advised in the material that the applicant had departed Australia in 2011.

3. The applicant was invited to respond to or comment on this information. She then admitted that she had in fact travelled to Australia in 2006 on the name different name and a different passport. She admitted that her actual name is [Name 2] and date of birth of [Date of Birth 2] and not the name that she was currently using. She said that she did not disclose the previous travel to Australia because it was not relevant and she no longer had that passport. She then changed her answer to say that she did tell her migration agent when she lodged the forms about her travel in 2006. When queried by me why she travelled using a different name and passport, she said she needed to do so because she was being persecuted in China and needed to escape. She admitted that her current passport was a bogus document.

4. The applicant maintained that she did not travel to [Country 1] as stated in her forms and repeated her explanations that she had given the delegate, namely this information must have been put down by the migration agent by mistake.

5. The applicant stated to the Tribunal that she had been practicing Falun Gong in China since 2000. She initially joined the movement for exercise. She stated that the PRC is against the movement and persecutes its followers. She stated that she had been [Sentence1] as outlined in her claim. Her daily practice in Australia involves her going to a park near her house where she does Falun Gong exercises. She does that in Australia because she can enjoy the freedom this country offers her. She stated that the essential beliefs of Falun Gong are truth, kindness and forbearance and that its practice strengthens the body. She told the Tribunal that there are five exercises in Falun Gong and when questioned about how many times the first and third exercises have to be repeated, she told the Tribunal that each of those exercises needed to be repeated nine times.

Bogus documents and credibility concerns

1. s.91WA(1)(a) directs that the Minister must refuse to grant a protection visa to an applicant for a protection visa if the applicant provides a bogus document as evidence of the applicant’s identity, nationality or citizenship. This provision applies to applications which had not yet finally been determined when the provision commenced on 18 April 2015.[1] In this case, the applicant admitted to the Tribunal that the passport she produced to the delegate and the Tribunal was not issued in her correct name and date of birth. A bogus document is defined in s.5(1) of the Act. Here, the applicant has travelled to Australia in 2011 on a passport which contained a name and date of birth that is not hers. I find that this passport is a bogus document because it is not the name and date of birth of the applicant. It is, as defined by s.5(1)(c) of the Act, a document that was obtained because of a false or misleading statement, namely the applicant has obtained this passport using a false name and date of birth.

   [1] Item 15(3) of Schedule 1 to the Migration Amendment (Protection and Other Measurers) Act 2015 stated that s.91WA applies to protection visa applications not finally determined at the time the provision commenced. This application had not been finally determined as at 18 April 2015.

2. S.91WA(2) states that the requirement to refuse to grant a protection visa when a bogus document has been provided does not apply if there has been a reasonable explanation for providing the bogus document and the applicant provides documentary evidence or his or her identity, nationality or citizenship.

3. I am satisfied that the applicant provided the documentary evidence of her real identity when she provided the department her genuine passport with her correct name and date of birth with her [visa] application in 2011, and this was confirmed by her oral evidence. However, I am not satisfied that she has a reasonable explanation for providing the bogus document.

4. The applicant explained that she travelled on a different passport to escape persecution in the PRC. While a person may obtain a bogus document to hide their real identity so they can flee a country without alerting authorities, the fact that this applicant did not disclose that she had done this to the department in her initial application, the delegate at the interview, nor the Tribunal until confronted with the information provided by Border Force is, in my judgment, evidence that she deliberately tried to hide her actual identity in hope that her claim would be successful. Further, the fact that the document titled “Judgment of [details of court] People’s Court” submitted by the applicant is in the same name as the passport on which she travelled to Australia in 2014 undermines her claim that she needed a new identity to escape persecution. If she needed a new identity to leave the PRC without coming to the attention of the authorities, this identity would not be the same identity which saw her [details of Sentence 1] by the PRC. Further, the applicant’s evidence that she was able to leave the PRC in 2014 without any interference by authorities, on a passport issued in the same name as the name under which she was sentenced to [Sentence 1] for practicing Falun Gong, is unlikely given the country information.  Had the applicant been a genuine follower of Falun Gong who had been [details of Sentence 1] for involvement with that movement, she would have found it difficult to leave the PRC.

5. The applicant has given conflicting answers about when she started practicing Falung Gong. She told the delegate that she started practicing Falung Gong in 2014 (which would have occurred after [Sentence 1] for being a member of Falun Gong), but then changed her answer to 2006 when asked by the delegate why she claimed in her application she started practicing in 2006. At the Tribunal, the applicant told me that she had been practicing Falun Gong in 2000. When challenged about the conflicting information she had given about when she started Falun Gong, the applicant stated that she did not practice continually. She would start then stop, though she formally started practicing in 2000. This was in conflict with the answers given to the delegate. The applicant also gave evidence to the Tribunal that the first and third exercises of Falun Gong needed to be repeated nine times each. This was in conflict with the evidence she gave to the delegate, who asked the same question, and the applicant said that it was eight times each. As stated in the 7th translated English Edition of the Falun Gong by Li Hongzhi, the first exercise needs to be repeated three times, and the third exercise needs to be repeated nine times.

Findings

1. For the reasons outlined, I find that the passport in the name of [Name 1], born [Date of Birth 1], is a bogus document. The applicant’s real name is [Name 2] who was born [Date of Birth 2]. The applicant’s explanation for providing this bogus document is not a reasonable explanation. She was able to leave the PRC on the same identity under which she had allegedly been [details of Sentence 1]. If she needed to obtain a bogus passport to leave the PRC, it would not have been in the same name under which she had [details of Sentence 1]. If genuine, the applicant would have declared this information as part of her application willingly. The language expressed in s.91WA is mandatory. The applicant must not be given a protection visa.

1. Separate from the prohibition, and for the sake of completeness, I find that the applicant is not a credible witness and the Tribunal can give no weight to her claims for the following reasons:

   ·She did not disclose her previous travel, identification and passport to the department or the delegate. She did not disclose this information to the Tribunal until confronted with this information. I find that this failure to disclose this information was an attempt by the applicant to prevent the department and the Tribunal from looking at her previous application and to hide information from the Tribunal which may have been adverse to her current application.

   ·She declared in her application that she travelled to [Country 1] in 2013 during [Sentence 1], which is plainly impossible. Her evidence that the information must have been provided by her migration agent in error must be rejected. I do not accept that the applicant’s migration agent would complete an application for protection without instructions from the applicant. I do not find that the applicant [details of Sentence 1] by the PRC. I also find that it is likely that the applicant, having left Australia in 2011, set about obtaining new a new identity and documentation to increase her chance for protection in Australia on her return here in 2014.

   ·She did not know the number of times each exercise of Falun Gong needed to be repeated, which would be expected of a practitioner of that movement. I do not find that the applicant is a genuine Falun Gong Practitioner.

2. Given my findings about the applicant’s credibility and her claims, I find that the applicant does not have a well-founded fear of persecution based on her practicing of Falun Gong. She is not a genuine practitioner of Falun Gong and does not have a well-founded fear of persecution.

3. I also find that the applicant is not entitled to complementary protection in Australia. She is not a genuine practitioner of Falun Gong and there are no substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk that she will suffer significant harm if she was to be returned to the PRC.

Decision

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

   Nathan Goetz

   
   

   Member

ATTACHMENT  -  Extract from Migration Act 1958

5 (1) Interpretation
…
bogus document, in relation to a person, means a document that the Minister reasonably suspects is a document that:

(a)purports to have been, but was not, issued in respect of the person; or

(b)is counterfeit or has been altered by a person who does not have authority to do so; or

(c)was obtained because of a false or misleading statement, whether or not made knowingly

…
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.

…

91WAProviding bogus documents or destroying identity documents

1. The Minister must refuse to grant a protection visa to an applicant for a protection visa if:

   (a)   the applicant provides a bogus document as evidence of the applicant’s identity, nationality or citizenship; or

   (i)has destroyed or disposed of documentary evidence of the applicant’s identity, nationality or citizenship; or

   (ii)has caused such documentary evidence to be destroyed or disposed of.

2. Subsection (1) does not apply if the Minister is satisfied that the applicant:

   (a)   has a reasonable explanation for providing the bogus document or for the destruction or disposal of the documentary evidence; and

   (b)   either:

   (i)provides documentary evidence of his or her identity, nationality or citizenship; or

   (ii)has taken reasonable steps to provide such evidence.

3. For the purposes of this section, a person provides a document if the person provides, gives or presents the document or causes the document to be provided, given or presented.