1600142 (Refugee)

[2016] AATA 3685

1600142 (Refugee) [2016] AATA 3685 (1 April 2016)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1600142

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Malaysia

MEMBER:Amanda Paxton

DATE:1 April 2016

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 01 April 2016 at 3:19pm

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] December 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] February 2015.

3. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 24 March 2016 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Mandarin and English languages. The applicant provided a copy of the delegate’s decision to the Tribunal.

   CRITERIA FOR A PROTECTION VISA

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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).

7. 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.  

8. 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

9. 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

10. The applicant’s claims as presented in his applicant and at the Tribunal hearing can be summarised as follows. 

    ·     The applicant, aged [age] and single, is ethnic Chinese from Malaysia. The applicant has had many jobs, primarily in [occupation] in Selangor and in [country], and in Australia in [two different occupations]. He believes that his life will be threatened because he has upset a very powerful man in Malaysia.

    ·     The applicant claimed that before arrival in Australia he had a girlfriend from an [Ethnicity 1] family. They had been going out together for about 2 years and had plans to marry. His girlfriend had spoken with her parents about their relationship and they had no objections. However, she did not speak with her brother. She then became pregnant. The applicant was happy because he was keen to marry and he thought it gave an excuse to do so and that this would encourage his girlfriend to organise a discussion with her family.

    ·     At a meeting with the family, they told them that his girlfriend was pregnant and that they wanted to get married.  Her parents were calm but her brother [Mr A] was very upset and angry. [Mr A] demanded that his sister have an abortion. When the applicant protested to prevent this from happening, [Mr A] pointed a gun at his head but his girlfriend’s parents stopped [Mr A] from harming the applicant. He left when his girlfriend and his parents asked him to.

    ·     [Mr A] is a powerful figure in the underworld [Ethnicity 1] gang, “[name]” in this province.

    ·     The applicant waited to hear from his girlfriend and after couple of days received a message from her phone asking that he meet her. He was happy but was uncertain because the meeting was at a place where they had never been. He decided to go because he felt his future depended on it. He waited 15 – 20 minutes, and felt something was wrong because normally his girlfriend was on time. He was about to go when he saw 5 - 6 [Ethnicity 1 members] who seemed drunk approach him. He was not comfortable and turned to run away but saw another 5 - 6 [Ethnicity 1] people, also drunk. They pushed him to the wall, held him by his private parts and hit him [with] a bottle. Fortunately police officers were passing and they intervened to help him and the assailants ran away.

    ·     The applicant was not severely injured, remained standing and did not require medical treatment. He got a scar [as] a result of the bottle.

    ·     The applicant believes that the [Ethnicity 1] men were associated with [Mr A]. He did not know them but in his province, which is small, all [Ethnicity 1] men belong to [Mr A] because he is important in the [gang]. They seemed to be mixed up with [Mr A] because they knew he would be at that meeting place.

    ·     When the applicant explained to the police officers what had happened, they responded by asking why he was involved with [Mr A]. They did not want to take any further action.

    ·     The applicant did not go to the police station to make a report. In Malaysia there is a lot of corruption and he knew that they would be against him and that he would not be able to get anyone to help him. The Province is controlled by underworld figures.  

    ·     The applicant went to a politician to get help. He does not remember who it was. The politician suggested that he pay money to [Mr A] to settle the dispute. The applicant did not want to do this because he had no money. He begged the politician to talk to [Mr A] directly and the politician arranged a meeting with [Mr A] but [Mr A] did not attend a meeting.

    ·     The applicant, who has had no further contact with his girlfriend, decided to come to Australia for his protection.

    ·     If he returns to Malaysia, [Mr A] will find out because he is a powerful man in underworld. He will continue to feel insulted that his sister became pregnant and he will remember this for the rest of his life and want revenge. He feels safe in Australia.

    Country of nationality

11. The applicant claims to be a citizen of Malaysia. He entered Australia [in] September 2007 on a three month [visa] using a valid Malaysian passport. The Tribunal is satisfied on the basis of a copy of the bio-data page of his Malaysian passport that he is a citizen of Malaysia and that the applicant’s identity is as claimed. The Tribunal accepts that Malaysia is the country of reference for the purposes of assessing the applicant’s claims under ss. 36(2)(a) and (aa).

    Third country protection

12. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal is also satisfied that, for the purposes of s.36(3) of the Act, the applicant does not have a right to enter and reside in a third country.

    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, it 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):

15. 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.

16. 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.

17. 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).

18. 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.)

19. 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).

    Findings and reasons

20. On the basis of statements provided by the applicant and supported by information on the file, the Tribunal accepts that the applicant is from Malaysia, is [age] years old and arrived in Australia [in] September 2007 as the holder of [a temporary visa].

21. The applicant presented a number of claims at the Tribunal hearing which were vague. The applicant’s responses to Tribunal enquires were frequently hesitant and lacking in spontaneity. He was unable to provide detail about critical aspects of his claims. This led the Tribunal to doubt the veracity of claims. The Tribunal also found some claims were not plausible in the circumstances. On the basis of all the evidence before it, the Tribunal was not satisfied as to the applicant’s general credibility.

22. The Tribunal accepts as plausible that the applicant may have been in a relationship with an [Ethnicity 1] girl and in this respect the applicant appeared genuinely emotional about the relationship. However, the Tribunal does not accept the applicant’s claims in relation to his claimed dealings with his girlfriend’s brother, allegedly a member of [a] gang, because the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a reliable and credible witness for the following reasons.

23. At the hearing, the applicant stated that he spoke with a politician to seek help after he was attacked. When asked for details about the politician, the applicant had no response for a long period. He then stated that he did not recall the name of the politician or any other details about him other than he was Chinese Malaysian and that the politician had gone now. In view of the applicant’s claims that he had extensive discussions with this politician in which he had begged the politician to meet with [Mr A] and the politician had arranged a meeting with [Mr A] , the Tribunal would expect that he could recall the name and some details of the politician. The Tribunal formed the view that there was no actual factual basis to this claim. This led the Tribunal to doubt the applicant’s general credibility.  

24. The Tribunal considered the applicant’s account of his attack by 10 – 12 drunk [Ethnicity 1] men and found it implausible for the following reasons:

    ·     The applicant stated that he was held down by his private parts and hit [with] a bottle but that he was not seriously injured, was still standing when the police came and required no treatment. Given the claimed seriousness of the attack by 10 – 12 people from which the applicant also stated he has sustained a [scar], the Tribunal considers his account to be implausible. 

    ·     The applicant stated that he did not make a report to the police about the attack, although they had attended the scene and intervened to assist him, and he therefore had not evidence of the incident. The applicant stated that they did not want to take action against people related to [a] gang. He further stated that in Malaysia there is a lot of corruption and he knew that the police would be against him and that he would not be able to get anyone to help him. In consideration of this claim, the Tribunal has taken into account of country information, put to the applicant at the hearing, that credible sources and international sources believe the Royal Malaysian Police (RMP) is considered a professional and effective police force.[1] In view of this assessment, the Tribunal does not accept that given his claim that police officers witnessed the event in which the applicant claimed he was seriously assault, that the police would not make a formal report. The Tribunal would also expect the applicant to pursue the matter with the police if he feared for his safety. On this basis the Tribunal considers the applicant’s claims in this respect to be implausible.  

    ·     At the hearing, the Tribunal sought comment from the applicant about country information available widely in Malaysian press concerning police efforts to tackle the [gang] in Malaysia over past years and the numerous arrests of [gang] members.[2] [3] [4]   In response, the applicant stated that he had no information or comment about the [gang], but that in Malaysia politics is not worth trusting and the government asks the papers to publish information about police activity. The Tribunal considers that had the applicant held fear from a member of the [gang], he would have some knowledge about the gang.

    [1] DFAT Country Report Malaysia, 3 December 2014

    [2] [Information deleted].

25. In considering the applicant’s general credibility, the Tribunal has considered that he did not raise any claim to need protection from [Mr A] and the [gang] until February 2015, more than seven years after his arrival in Australia. When the Tribunal indicated that it considered that if the applicant had concerns about his need for protection, he would have put these forward at the earliest possible time, the applicant stated that he did not raise this matter earlier because he did not know he could apply for protection. In response to the Tribunal suggestion that it was not believable that he would remain in Australia, despite being unlawful, for such a long period, without making enquires about his visa options if he was concerned about his safety on return, he stated that he did not talk with friends about his concerns because they were private. He stated that he had no contact with the department until he applied for protection. He stated that he was illiterate and although he knew that remaining in Australia without a visa is illegal, he did not think about how to make himself lawful. In consideration of these explanations, the Tribunal notes that the applicant stated at the hearing that he had written and completed the protection application himself with the help of Google translation. The Tribunal also notes that the applicant has claimed to have completed high School. On this basis, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant is illiterate. The Tribunal also notes that the applicant is a mature and experienced man who has held responsible employment in a number of fields in rural and urban areas. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant was unable to make enquiries about his visa options. The Tribunal considers that if the applicant had feared harm from the [Mr A] and [gang] members, he would have sought information about options as soon as possible. The Tribunal would expect that he put forward these claims at an earlier time. These considerations cause the Tribunal to have further doubt as to the credibility of the applicant’s claims to be in need of protection.

26. For all of the above reasons, the Tribunal, having considered all of the evidence of the applicant in its totality, is not satisfied that the applicant is a credible or reliable witness and the Tribunal rejects the claims the applicant has made to face harm in Malaysia. The Tribunal does not accept the applicant’s claim that in 2007 he had a dispute with [Mr A], a powerful figure in the local [gang], because his girlfriend, [Mr A]’s sister, became pregnant. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant was assaulted by 10 – 12 [gang] members for this reason. The Tribunal does not accept that police officers intervened in the assault but would not help the applicant further. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant sought the assistance of a politician to mediate with [Mr A], the powerful [gang] member. The Tribunal does not accept that [Mr A] or anyone else has threatened him or that his life is in danger from [Mr A] if he returns to Malaysia now or in the foreseeable future. The Tribunal does not accept that [Mr A] will find out that he has returned to Malaysia because he is a powerful man or that the applicant will be killed or harmed because his ex-girlfriend became pregnant and her [Mr A] was insulted. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal finds that the applicant does not face a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm from anyone now or in the foreseeable future.

1. The applicant makes the claim that the Malaysian police are corrupt and will not protect him. As the Tribunal finds that the applicant does not face a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm from [Mr A], a member of [a] gang, or anyone else, the Tribunal finds that the applicant will not require the protection of the authorities in Malaysia for this reason and has therefore not considered claimed difficulties in obtaining state protection because the police are corrupt.

2. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecutions for reasons of his race, religion, nationality, political opinion or member ship of a particularly social group pursuant to s.5J(1) of the Act.

3. Further, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being returned to Malaysia, there is a real risk he will suffer significant harm from a powerful member of the [gang] now or in the foreseeable future.

   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).

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.

   Amanda Paxton
   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.

   …

   
   

3 [Information deleted].

4 [Information deleted].