1609928 (Refugee)

[2019] AATA 3917

1609928 (Refugee) [2019] AATA 3917 (24 February 2019)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1609928

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  China

MEMBER:Mara Moustafine

DATE:24 February 2019

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 24 February 2019 at 9:56pm

CATCHWORDS

REFUGEE – protection visa – China – reported malpractice in construction project – dismissed from company – threatened, arrested and detained by police – credibility issues – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5, 5H, 5J, 5K, 5L, 5LA, 36, 65, 428, 499
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2

CASES

Luu & Anor v Renevier (1989) 91 ALR 39
MIEA v Guo & Anor (1997) 191 CLR 559
Prasad v MIEA (1985) 6 FCR 155
Randhawa v MILGEA (1994) 52 FCR 437
Yao-Jing Li v MIMA (1997) 74 FCR 275

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 on 17 June 2016 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The applicant, a [age] year old national of China, arrived in Australia [in] March 2015 on a visitor visa in effect until 7 June 2015. He applied for a protection visa on 4 May 2015.

   Protection visa application

3. According to his Protection visa application, the applicant was born in [Town 1], Chongqing City and completed 12 years education, including a course in [Occupation 1] at technical school. He was employed at [Company 1] (July 1995 to August 2010), then at [Company 2] (August 2010 to October 2014). He is married with two daughters. He left China legally on a passport issued [in] 2013.

4. In a statement attached to his protection visa application, the applicant claimed that:

   a.While working as [Occupation 1] on a project to construct a library for [a] school in May 2012, he discovered that some people were stretching steel bars to reduce their size, which he considered would undermine the quality of building and the safety of students. After he reported this to the chief supervisor, [Mr A], and then the station master, he was told to mind his business, “dismissed by the company” and received a threatening call.

   b.He told them he would definitely report their behaviours to higher bodies, while [Mr A] accused him of defaming him. Several days later police came to his home, looking for evidence of his complaint and arrested and detained him for 7 days. Before releasing him, they forced him to sign a paper admitting that he had defamed [Mr A] and guaranteeing he would never accuse him again.

   c.The applicant then wrote a complaint letter to the Chongqing petitioning bureau but [Mr A] found out about this from someone who worked there. [Mr A] called him and threatened that, if he continued to petition or leave Chongqing, he would have him disappear in a car accident and his family would be in danger. [Mr A] also asked some people to monitor him.

   d.The applicant was unable to find a job with any other [company] as they did not want to offend government officers. This put his family into financial hardship. Therefore he had no choice but to leave China.  His friend suggested he come to Australia and he found an agent to assist him to apply for a business visa.

   e.He fears that if he returns to China, [Mr A] and other people of the quality supervision station will watch him and he will not have any freedom; and [Mr A] will threaten him using his family members.

   f.He does not believe that any authority in China can protect him. When he asked for help from police, their attitude was perfunctory. Worst of all, they took bribes from [Mr A] and did not give him any help.

   g.He does not believe he can relocate to another place in China because [Mr A] watched his whereabouts and threatened him using his family. It is “impractical” for him to relocate in China as he was born in Chongqing and a lot of his relatives still live there.

5. The applicant was invited to attend an interview with the Department on 16 June 2016 but failed to do so and did not advise the Department of any reason for his non-attendance.

6. The delegate refused to grant the visa on 17 June 2016 as he was not satisfied that the applicant was a person in respect of whom Australia had protection obligations under either the refugee or complementary protection criterion.

   Review application

7. On 3 July 2016 the applicant applied for a review of the delegate’s decision, a copy of which he provided to the Tribunal for the purposes of the review and is taken to be on notice of its findings and reasons.

8. On 20 November 2018 a Tribunal officer, who was authorised by the Member, constituted this review and took evidence from the applicant (pursuant to s.428(1)(b)). The record of that evidence has been considered by the Tribunal.

9. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 20 February 2018 to give evidence and present arguments. The applicant was assisted by an interpreter in the Chinese and English languages. Where relevant, the applicant’s evidence to the Tribunal is referred to below.

10. At hearing the applicant submitted a rectangular laminated card (untranslated), which he claimed was a “Certificate of Specialised Operations in the People’s Republic of China” in [Occupation 1], issued to him [in] May 2012 and valid until [May] 2016.

    CRITERIA FOR A PROTECTION VISA

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. 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).

14. 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.  

15. 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.

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

    Credibility

17. The mere fact that a person claims fear of persecution for a particular reason does not establish either the genuineness of the asserted fear or that it is "well-founded" or that it is for the reason claimed. It remains for the applicant to satisfy the Tribunal that all of the statutory elements are made out: MIEA v Guo & Anor (1997) 191 CLR 559 at 596. Although the concept of onus of proof is not appropriate to administrative inquiries and decision-making (Yao-Jing Li v MIMA (1997) 74 FCR 275 at 288), the relevant facts of the individual case will have to be supplied by the applicant himself or herself, in as much detail as is necessary to enable the examiner to establish the relevant facts. A decision-maker is not required to make the applicant's case for him or her: Prasad v MJEA (1985) 6 FCR 155 at 169-70; Luu & Anor v Renevier (1989) 91 ALR 39 at 45. Nor is the Tribunal required to accept uncritically any and all the allegations made by an applicant: Randhawa v MIEA (1994) 52 FCR 437 at 451.

    CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

18. The issues that arise on review are whether the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the refugee criterion or the complementary protection criterion.

19. The applicant’s key claims can be summarised as follows. After he reported malpractice in quality control by the chief supervisor in a project undertaken by [Company 2], for whom he worked as [Occupation 1], he was dismissed from the company, threatened, arrested and detained by police. After the supervisor discovered that the applicant had complained to the Chongqing petitioning bureau, he threatened that, if the applicant continued to petition or left Chongqing, he would have him disappear in a car accident and harm his family. He also started monitoring the applicant. The applicant fears that if he returns to China he will be watched, have no freedom and face threats against his family.  

20. During the hearing, the Tribunal discussed with the applicant his background, including his education and employment, his reasons for leaving China and why he fears returning there. The applicant confirmed that he had written the information in his protection visa application himself and said his friend had translated it and read it back to him. 

21. The Tribunal did not find the applicant to be a credible and truthful witness and has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed. In reaching this conclusion, the Tribunal has had regard to various inconsistencies in his evidence and other reasons detailed below. 

22. The applicant told the Tribunal that he came to Australia because he wanted to work and live permanently in Australia due to its respect for human rights and good environment.  He made vague claims that he feared returning to China because he had heard from family that [Mr A] had become [a senior office holder] of the county and would “give him some trouble”; that there was no respect for human rights and business and government operated together to deny people protection. However, he confirmed that since November 2012, when [Mr A] had allegedly threatened his life, and up until his departure for Australia, the only harm he had experienced from [Mr A] was harassment by someone he sent to knock on his door from time to time, and that he felt he had no freedom or personal life in China. The Tribunal is not satisfied that this amounts to serious or significant harm. 

23. The applicant notes that the applicant left China legally on a passport issued [in] 2013.  He confirmed that he experienced no difficulty on departure from Shanghai airport.  The Tribunal is therefore satisfied that he was not of interest to the Chinese authorities at the time he left and has no reason to believe that he will be of interest to the authorities on his return.

24. The applicant attributed the delay of two months in applying for his protection visa to the fact that he did not know much about Australia when he first arrived, although his friends later told him he could apply for a protection visa. Significantly, the applicant told the Tribunal that he discussed with his friend the possibility of applying for a spouse visa, notwithstanding that he had a wife and children in China, but that this was quite costly and he did not earn much money when he first arrived. He stated that “essentially” he applied for a protection visa because it was “inexpensive”. Notwithstanding the applicant’s affirmation that the claims of harm as presented in his application were true, as discussed with the applicant at hearing, these considerations raise doubts as to whether his protection claims are genuine.

25. Of critical concern to the Tribunal are the significant inconsistencies between the applicant’s evidence at hearing and in his protection visa application regarding his training and employment as [Occupation 1] in China, which was central to his claims. The applicant told the Tribunal that, after completing high school, he studied [education] at [Institute 1] and that his first job was as [Occupation 2] at [a named school] from 1996 until 1998. He said he then went to work at a [different workplace] in Lanzhou in Gansu province (1998 to 2003) because he wanted to earn more money and it was here that he started to learn [Occupation 1] and that he acquired his certification through work, not formal study. In 2003 the applicant went to with [Company 2] because the pay was better and continued working here until 2014. According to his protection visa application form, however, the applicant studied [Occupation 1] at a technical school between 1993 and 1995, worked at [Company 1] (July 1995 to August 2010), then at [Company 2] (August 2010 to October 2014). When asked about the inconsistencies outlined above, the applicant suggested that there may have been “a difference of language” and that his friend might have put in the wrong dates. The Tribunal does not find this persuasive and notes that the inconsistencies related to more than simply dates. 

26. As discussed with the applicant at hearing, these inconsistencies raise serious doubts about his credibility, especially in the absence of any supporting evidence about his work as a [Occupation 1]. Although the applicant offered to ask his wife to send him a copy of a certificate stating that he worked for [Company 2], the Tribunal told him this would not overcome its concerns about the inconsistencies between his written and oral evidence regarding his qualifications and employment. It pointed out that he had signed an undertaking in his form that the information he provided was complete, correct and up to date in every detail. However the details were inconsistent with his evidence at hearing, for which he had also given an affirmation of truth.

27. The Tribunal is also concerned that, while the applicant stated in his written statement that he was “dismissed by the company” after reporting irregularities soon after the project began in May 2012, in his application form he indicated that he worked for the [Company 2] until October 2014. Further, he initially told the Tribunal at hearing that he worked for the company until the end of 2014 but later said variously that he left the construction site in November 2012 and that he stopped working for the company at the end of June 2012. When queried about these inconsistencies, he claimed that the company asked him to “have a rest (unpaid) at home”, then asked him to quit his job in 2014 because the leaders did not want trouble with the government. The Tribunal does not find this an adequate explanation of the inconsistencies.

28. The Tribunal has had regard to the laminated certificate card (paragraph 10), which the applicant submitted at hearing as evidence of his qualification as [Occupation 1]. The Tribunal notes that the card is watermarked with the English letters “SAWS”, which is unusual for a document issued by a Chinese authority and the website identified on its [face] does not appear to connect to any site. In view of this and the inconsistencies in the applicant’s evidence regarding how and when he acquired his qualifications, as well as the prevalence of document fraud in China[1], the Tribunal does not attach weight to this document.

    [1] DFAT, DFAT Country Report: People’s Republic of China, 21 December 2017 

29. In light of the multiple concerns discussed above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant has given a truthful account of his experiences in China or that any of his evidence can be relied upon. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant worked as [Occupation 1] for [Company 2] on any project, including the construction of a library for [a] school in May 2012; nor that he reported irregularities or malpractice in quality control to the chief supervisor, the station master or to higher bodies, including the Chongqing petitioning bureau. The Tribunal does not accept that he was dismissed by the company, threatened, arrested and detained by police or forced to sign any admission or guarantees regarding [Mr A]; nor that [Mr A] threatened to have the applicant disappear in a car accident or harm his family or asked people to monitor him. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant was unable to find work in construction as a result of any problems with [Mr A], nor that this left him no choice but to leave China. Rather, it is the Tribunal’s view that the applicant fabricated his claims in order to achieve a migration outcome. It follows that the Tribunal is not satisfied that, if the applicant returns to China now or in the reasonably foreseeable future, he will be watched by [Mr A] or his associates, nor lose his freedom and face threats against his family or any other “trouble” from [Mr A], as claimed, or face serious or significant harm for this or for any other reason. 

30. For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that, if the applicant were to return to China now or in the reasonably foreseeable future, there is a real chance that he will be harmed for any of the other reasons set out in s.5J(1)(a) of the Act. The Tribunal finds that the applicant does not have a well-founded fear of persecution in China.

31. 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) of the Act. The Tribunal is not satisfied there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to China, there is a real risk that he will be subjected to any form of harm that would be the result of an act or omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on the applicant for the reasons specified in paragraphs (a)-(e) of the definition of torture in s.5(1) of the Act. The Tribunal is not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk that the applicant will suffer harm that would involve the infliction of severe pain or suffering, either physical or mental, that is intentionally inflicted on a person or harm that would involve pain or suffering, intentionally inflicted, by an act or omission that could reasonably be regarded as cruel or inhuman in nature, such as to meet the definition of cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment in s.5(1). Nor is it satisfied that it has substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk that he will suffer such harm as to meet the definition of degrading treatment or punishment in s.5(1) which refers to an act or omission that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation which is unreasonable. The Tribunal is not satisfied that it has substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk that the applicant will suffer arbitrary deprivation of his life or the death penalty. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(aa).

    CONCLUSIONS

1. 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).

2. 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).

3. 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

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

   Mara Moustafine
   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.

   …