1610514 (Refugee)

[2018] AATA 4054

1610514 (Refugee) [2018] AATA 4054 (21 August 2018)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1610514

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Lebanon

MEMBER:Shahyar Roushan

DATE:21 August 2018

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 21 August 2018 at 2:00pm

CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – Protection visa – Lebanon – political opinion – supporter of the Lebanese Forces – religion – Maronite Christian soldier – Lebanese Armed Forces member – threats from militia – physical assault – Hezbollah – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 5(1), 5H, 5J-5LA, 36, 65, 424AA, 438, 499
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2

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

   CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

2. The applicant is [an age]-year-old national of Lebanon. He is a Maronite Catholic and he is married with one [child]. His family currently reside in Keserwan, Lebanon. Most recently, the applicant arrived in Australia [in] December 2015 on a [temporary] visa. He has previously travelled to Australia in 2003, 2005, 2008, 2011 and 2014, staying for approximately three months on each occasion. He applied for a protection visa on 17 February 2016.

   Application for a protection visa

3. According to the information provided in his application for a protection visa, the applicant resided in an apartment he owned in [his home town in] Keserwan. He was employed [in] the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) since [1992]. He described his duties as ‘[deleted]’.

4. In response to questions in relation to his reasons for claiming protection, the applicant stated that ‘perhaps’ he might get ‘hurt (kidnapped, killed)’. He was under threat from local militia that controlled the suburbs surrounding his work base. He sought help from his [superior], however, he was told to stay away from the militia as much as he could and his request for re-assignment in another area was refused. He fears harm from the ‘local street boys’ that belong to the militia ‘because their threat was very clear and direct’. The authorities cannot protect him because there is no effective government in Lebanon.

5. The applicant was interviewed by a delegate of the Minister on 31 May 2016. Where relevant, the applicant’s oral evidence to the delegate is referred to below.

6. The delegate refused the application on 6 June 2016. She did not accept the applicant’s claims due to vague and inconsistent testimony during the interview. The delegate found that the applicant did not have a real chance or a real risk of facing serious or significant harm upon returning to Lebanon.

   Application for review

7. The applicant applied for a review of the delegate’s decision on 12 July 2016.

   The hearing

8. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 26 July 2018 to give evidence and present arguments. The applicant was assisted by an interpreter in Arabic and English languages. Where relevant, the applicant’s evidence to the Tribunal is referred to below.

   The certificate

9. The Department of Immigration’s (the Department) file relating to the applicant’s protection visa application contained a s.438(1)(a) certificate in respect of certain documents on that file. It is appropriate to address the validity of the s.438(1)(a) certificate, which requires that the reason specified in the certificate for why disclosing matters contained in specified folios within the Department’s file would be contrary to the public interest, must be capable of forming ‘the basis for a claim by the Crown in right of the Commonwealth in a judicial proceeding that the matter contained in the document, or the information, should not be disclosed; or the document, the matter contained in the document, or the information was given to the Minister, or to an officer of the Department, in confidence’.

10. The folios subject to the s.438(1)(a) certificate consisted of the Department’s records relating to the applicant’s travels to and out of Australia and an internal Disclosure Decision Checklist. The only reason stated in the s.438(1)(a) certificate was that the information contained in the folios was related ‘to an internal working document and business affairs’. The Tribunal is not satisfied that this reason provides a sufficient basis for public interest immunity. The Tribunal finds the certificate to be invalid and it has proceeded to treat the documents in the usual way as if there was no certificate.

    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. Paragraph 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.

    Mandatory considerations

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.

    CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

17. 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 throughout the process, the unpersuasive nature of some key aspects of his claims and other reasons detailed below. 

18. In his application for a protection visa, the applicant stated that he was under threat from local militia that controlled the suburbs surrounding his work base and he feared harm from the ‘local street boys’ that ‘belong to the militia’.

19. At his protection visa interview, the applicant told the delegate that, after he came to Australia and around early January and February 2016, his wife received threatening phone calls. He said he suspected that the calls were from Hezbollah. Previously, he was threatened by a person named [Mr A] because he was disarming people in the area around his base. The applicant told the delegate that he did not know exactly when he was threatened or which group [Mr A] belonged to, but he was an armed bandit or a hooligan protected by Hezbollah. He later stated that from September 2015, ‘their contact’ with him ‘became serious’. On one occasion in a [venue] there was direct contact and they told him that they were from Hezbollah. When asked why these people wanted to harm him, he said because he protected the area as a soldier and sometimes he disarmed these people. He also stated that he was targeted because he was a Maronite Christian soldier.

20. The applicant’s evidence to the Tribunal, however, was not consistent with the claims he had put forward to the Department. The applicant told the Tribunal that he started receiving threats from a group that belonged to Hezbollah in 2013. These threats were directed at him from senior Hezbollah party figures in [a named town]. He did not know these people personally, but he physically clashed with them on two occasions. He stated that in 2013 he was patrolling the area when he picked up two young armed men and took them to his base. They were later released following intervention from Hezbollah. About six or seven months before he came to Australia, he encountered these young people and their group as he and two of his colleagues stopped at a [shop] to buy [products]. A physical altercation ensued and he was assaulted. When asked why he was targeted, he said because he is a Christian and a supporter of the Lebanese Forces. He is now a member of the Lebanese Forces, having joined in Australia. The applicant stated that he started receiving threatening phone calls twice a month to his home about six months before he came to Australia and these threatening phone calls have continued ever since.

21. As it was put to the applicant under s.424AA, he introduced a number of new significant claims at the hearing which he had previously failed to disclose in his oral evidence to the delegate or in his application for a protection visa. At the hearing, the applicant claimed for the first time that he was a supporter of the Lebanese Forces in Lebanon and he was targeted for that reason. In response, he stated he could not remember if he had mentioned this claim during the interview. He then stated that, at that time, his resignation from the army had not been finalised and there was a possibility that he would return to Lebanon. When it was put to him that he had told the delegate that his resignation had been approved [in] April 2016, he said he could not remember why he had not mentioned this claim. The Tribunal did not find these explanations satisfactory or persuasive. The Tribunal is of the view that, if the applicant was a supporter of the Lebanese Forces and this was the reason why he was targeted as claimed, he would not have neglected to mention these claims in his protection visa application or at the interview.

22. The Tribunal also put to the applicant under s.424AA that his evidence to the Tribunal in relation to the threats he claims to have received was inconsistent with his evidence to the Department. Specifically, the applicant told the delegate that his ‘direct contact’ with those threatening him became serious between September 2015 and his departure from Lebanon in December 2015. This direct contact was a reference to an encounter at a local [venue]. The applicant did not claim that he was involved in any altercations or that he was harmed. In his evidence to the Tribunal, however, the applicant said he was involved in ‘fights’ with armed men associated with Hezbollah on two occasions and that, on one occasion about six months before he came to Australia, he was assaulted by a large group of young men at a [shop]. In his response, the applicant stated that he could not remember the exact time of the incidents, but there were more than one incident. The applicant then introduced further new claims by stating that, about six weeks before he departed Lebanon, he had a confrontation involving a [man], who was [Mr A’s] ‘boss’, and many other young men. When asked why he had not raised this claim earlier, he said he had only mentioned one or two ‘important’ incidents. When the Tribunal reminded him that earlier in the course of the hearing he had specifically stated that he was involved in two incidents only, he said he had only mentioned the ‘big’ incidents. The Tribunal did not find these explanations to satisfactorily address the inconsistencies, shifts and changes in the applicant’s evidence throughout the process. The applicant’s evidence casts serious doubt on the credibility and the reliability of his claims.

23. The Tribunal also put to the applicant under s.424AA his evidence to the delegate that the telephone threats to his home started soon after he came to Australia. This information was inconsistent with his evidence to the Tribunal that the phone threats began six months before he departed Lebanon. In response, the applicant stated that he had received telephone threats both before and after he came to Australia, but the threats had increased following his departure from Lebanon. The Tribunal found this explanation unpersuasive. At the interview, the applicant told the delegate that ‘they’ had threatened his wife on the phone. They had contacted his wife because they knew he was in Australia and the phone calls were frequent. The delegate asked him if the telephone threats were received after he came to Australia and he replied ‘yes’. The inconsistencies in the applicant’s evidence cast serious doubt on the truth of his evidence.

24. Finally, the applicant introduced new evidence at the Tribunal hearing concerning his actions and whereabouts in the six months prior to his departure from Lebanon. Earlier in the course of the hearing, the applicant was questioned in some detail in relation to his residential addresses in Lebanon. Consistently with the information provided in his application for a protection visa, he stated that he resided at a single address. Later in the hearing, he was asked why, despite the frequency of the threats before his departure from Lebanon, he was never harmed during the periods he was at home in Keserwan. In response, the applicant claimed for the first time that for a period of five months before he came to Australia, he was effectively in hiding and staying with his siblings. When it was put to him that he had never previously mentioned this claim, he said he was not always hiding. He was just careful. He slept at his siblings’ house four times and stayed with friends five times. He did not do it on a regular basis. The shifts and changes in the applicant’s evidence raise concerns in relation to the reliability and truthfulness of the applicant’s evidence.

25. For all the above reasons, the Tribunal finds the applicant not to be a credible, truthful and reliable witness. His evidence shows a propensity to tailor evidence in a manner which achieves his own purpose. The Tribunal finds that the applicant has fabricated and concocted his claims to achieve an immigration outcome. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant was ever threatened or harmed by the ‘local boys’, hooligans, bandits or any individual in the area where he was stationed as a member of the LAF. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant was ever threatened or harmed by Hezbollah, anyone associated with Hezbollah or any other militia group in Lebanon. The Tribunal does not accept that he was ever physically assaulted or received verbal or telephone threats by anyone before he departed Lebanon. The Tribunal does not accept that telephone threats were made to his landline at home after his departure from Lebanon or that these threats have continued unabated. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant was a supporter of the Lebanese Forces in Lebanon or that he was targeted or threatened for that reason.

26. The applicant told the Tribunal that he has joined the Lebanese Forces in Australia. However, he did not present any evidence in support of this claim. Even if the Tribunal were to accept that the applicant has joined the Lebanese Forces in Australia, having regard to the adverse view the Tribunal has formed in relation to the applicant’s credibility, the Tribunal does not accept that he is a genuine supporter of the Lebanese Forces or that he would seek to associate with the group or express views in support of the group if he were to return to Lebanon.

27. As discussed with the applicant at the hearing, the Tribunal has found no evidence, let alone persuasive evidence, in any of the sources consulted, including DFAT’s most recent county information report in relation to Lebanon, to indicate that former LAF personnel, regardless of their confession or the nature of the duties previously performed, have been targeted for harm by anyone, including Hezbollah or any militia groups. The Tribunal has also found no information in any of the sources consulted, including successive DFAT reports, recent news articles and reports from international human rights organisations, such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, to suggest that Maronites in Lebanon have been subjected to serious or significant harm by Muslims generally, Hezbollah, extremist groups or anyone else. The Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a real chance or a real risk that the applicant will face serious harm or significant harm in Lebanon for the reason of, or arising from, his former membership of the LAF, his religion or a combination of both in Lebanon.

28. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant was ever harmed in any way for the reasons he has provided. The Tribunal does not accept that there is a real chance or a real risk that he will face serious or significant harm at the hands of ‘local boys’, ‘hooligans’, ‘bandits’, Hezbollah, any individual associated with the group or any other group or individual as a former member of the LAF, as a Maronite Catholic, any political opinion that may be imputed to him or a combination of any of these reasons.

29. The Tribunal appreciates that the applicant is concerned about general violence, political conflict and tension in Lebanon. However, there is no persuasive evidence before the Tribunal to suggest that the tensions, lack of general security and any instability the applicant may be concerned about is faced by him personally. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the general security situation in Lebanon would expose the applicant to a real chance of persecution.

30. Under s.36(2B)(c) of the Act there is taken not to be a real risk that an applicant will suffer significant harm if the Tribunal is satisfied that the real risk is one faced by the population generally and is not faced by the applicant personally. The Tribunal is satisfied that the tensions, lack of general security and the instability the applicant fears are faced by the population generally and not by him personally. The Tribunal finds that there is no real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm in Lebanon as a result of lack of general security and instability.

1. After considering all of the applicant’s claims, both individually and cumulatively, the Tribunal finds that there is no real chance that the applicant will face serious harm in Lebanon for the reason of his race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership of any particular social group apparent on the face of the evidence. The Tribunal finds that the applicant does not have a well-founded fear of being persecuted. Therefore, the applicant does not satisfy the criterion set out in 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 there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Lebanon, 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). 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 intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering or pain or suffering, either physical or mental, 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, therefore, 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.

   Shahyar Roushan
   Senior 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.

   …