1615237 (Refugee)

[2019] AATA 6363

1615237 (Refugee) [2019] AATA 6363 (19 August 2019)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1615237

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  India

MEMBER:Sheridan Lee

DATE:19 August 2019

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 19 August 2019 at 12:38pm

CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – India – political opinion – Congress party – fears harm from Bharatiya Janata Party members – inconsistent evidence – credibility issues – no real chance of serious harm – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5, 36, 65
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2

CASES
Kopalapillai v MIMA (1998) 86 FCR 547
MIEA v Guo & Anor (1997) 191 CLR 559
Nagalingam v MILGEA (1992) 38 FCR 191
Prasad v MIEA (1985) 6 FCR 155
Randhawa v MILGEA (1994) 52 FCR 437

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

2. The applicant is a [Indian] male from Ferozepur, Punjab. He applied for the visa on 30 May 2016. The delegate did not accept that the applicant’s claims were genuine and refused to grant the visa.

3. The Tribunal viewed a copy of the applicant’s Indian passport and I accept that the applicant is a citizen of India and will assess his claims against India as the country of reference for the purposes of s.5H(1)(a) and receiving country for Complementary Protection purposes.

CRITERIA FOR A PROTECTION VISA

1. The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s.36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations). An applicant for the visa must meet one of the alternative criteria in s.36(2)(a), (aa), (b), or (c). That is, he or she is either a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion, or on other ‘complementary protection’ grounds, or is a member of the same family unit as such a person and that person holds a protection visa of the same class.

2. Section 36(2)(a) provides that a criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee.

3. A person is a refugee if, in the case of a person who has a nationality, they are outside the country of their nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to avail themself of the protection of that country: s.5H(1)(a). In the case of a person without a nationality, they are a refugee if they are outside the country of their former habitual residence and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to return to that country: s.5H(1)(b).

4. Under s.5J(1), a person has a well-founded fear of persecution if they fear being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, there is a real chance they would be persecuted for one or more of those reasons, and the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of the relevant country. Additional requirements relating to a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ and circumstances in which a  person will be taken not to have such a fear are set out in ss.5J(2)-(6) and ss.5K-LA, which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.  

5. If a person is found not to meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a), he or she may nevertheless meet the criteria for the grant of the visa if he or she is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that he or she will suffer significant harm: s.36(2)(aa) (‘the complementary protection criterion’). The meaning of significant harm, and the circumstances in which a person will be taken not to face a real risk of significant harm, are set out in ss.36(2A) and (2B), which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.

Mandatory considerations

1. In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.56, made under s.499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken account of policy guidelines prepared by the 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

Claims for protection

1. The applicant seeks to invoke Australia’s protection obligations so he does not have to return to India, where he claims to fear harm from the Shiromani Akali Dal or the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) on the basis of his political activity.

2. The applicant first arrived in Australia [in] February 2016 on a [temporary] visa. He applied for a protection visa on 27 May 2016 after his [temporary] visa expired. Along with the application for protection form, the applicant submitted a written statement dated 23 May 2016 outlining the following:

   ·He identifies as Sikh and as a young man in India he wore a turban and kept a beard.

   ·When he was [a certain age], the applicant was an active member of the Congress party, notably receiving an award for his hard work.

   ·The applicant and other members of the Sikh community were tortured by members of the Shiromani Akali Dal in an attempt to pressure them into leaving the Congress party and joining their party.

   ·During the 2006 elections, the applicant was [with] other congress party members when members of the Akali Dal members interfered, beating the applicant and others, taking them in their car and throwing them onto the road from the car. The applicant sought help from the police, who did not assist.

   ·Members of the Shiromani Akali Dal came to the applicant’s house, and asked whether he would join them and leave the Congress party. The applicant refused and they attacked him and his friend. The applicant’s friend ran away, but the applicant was hospitalised for several days.

   ·The Shiromani Akali Dal brought police to the applicant’s house to torture him. The police beat him, so his parents sent him to a relative’s house. After several days, the applicant found they were torturing his family and he was hospitalised for a [while].

   ·On another occasion, the applicant was attacked in the middle of the road by people who wanted to kill him, but somehow someone was able to take him to hospital and contact his family.

   ·Two congress members who were also Sikh were killed in an ‘accident’ but the applicant believes it was Akali Dal.

   ·The applicant’s parents decided to send him abroad and his friends still call to tell him not to return to India.

   ·Although the applicant’s parents have moved to a different city, people are still torturing them and calling every day to ask about the applicant.

   ·The applicant first moved to [Country 1]. After three years he returned home, but the situation was the same so he decided to come to Australia.

   ·The applicant’s parents have disowned him and he is very depressed.

   ·The applicant believes that if he returns to India he would be killed.

Application for merits review

1. The applicant applied for merits review on 20 September 2016. No further evidence was submitted with the application.

2. On 16 September 2018, the applicant sent a short email to the Tribunal outlining that:

   …I got a chance once to have a chat with my parents, I was so afraid to hear their condition as they still living under the threat of those politicians, they directly warned my parent to kill me if I will try to in India. My parents have advised me to stay out of this mess, they told me they are happy for me to live alive any part of the world rather than getting killed in India by those powerful politicians [sic]. 

3. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal to give evidence and present arguments on 1 May 2019. At the hearing, the applicant gave evidence that he lived and grew up in the [District 1] of Ferozepur. He moved to [Country 1] in March 2013, where he lived and worked for three years before returning to India in January 2016.

4. The applicant’s parents continue to live in [District 1] and he has [a number of siblings] that have married and live in other areas within Punjab.

5. The applicant expressed a fear that he will die if he returns to India. He outlined that in 2011 or 2012, there was a BJP Government. Some party members came to his home to tell him that he had to change the political party he supported.

6. The applicant alleged that his father was working [at] a [location]. There was a robbery at the [location] while his father wasn’t working and someone put his father’s name forward in the investigation. The family approached [Member] of Parliament, [Mr A], from the BJP. Mr [A] advised the applicant that if he changed parties and paid 5 lack rupees, he would take his father’s name out from the case.

7. On election day, the applicant went to vote and saw Mr [A]. The applicant told Mr [A] that if Congress got in, he would put Mr [A] under investigation because he knew who brought the false claims. Mr [A] allegedly responded with ‘fine, we will see’. Following the incident, the applicant’s neighbour told him that he spoke very wrong to the MP.

8. After the BJP won, Mr [A] didn’t say anything to the applicant, but the applicant described four occasions on which people visited his house to threaten him during 2011 and 2012. The first incident involved three or four people attending his house while he was at work and asking his mother where he was. The applicant does not know who the visitors were.

9. The applicant alleges that his friends and neighbours witnessed the event and told him what they saw when he returned from work. [Mr B] was asked where the applicant lived, [Mr C] said he saw people come over and he thought they wanted to fight. Mr [C] asked why they were looking for the applicant and was told they had something special for him.

10. The applicant went on to claim that five or six days later, five guys came to the house in the early morning. Three of the visitors came inside and two remained outside. They punched the applicant three times and left. The applicant’s mother was also at home and told him they were not the same people that had visited earlier. Two or three weeks later, the applicant’s Dad lost his job.

11. The third incident was when two guys came on a [vehicle] with a knife and held it up to the applicant and told him to change his party or move state.

12. The final incident was when three people came to the house on [a vehicle] and attacked the applicant with a carpaan (long knife). The injury to the applicant’s [body] required [specific treatment]. The assailants did not say anything to the applicant, but the applicant said he told them his Dad had already lost his job and apologised. The applicant couldn’t remember the month during which any of the incidents occurred.

13. In addition to the visits to the applicant’s home, he gave evidence that his [sibling], mother and four of his friends would receive phone calls during which the caller would make threats to kill the applicant.

14. The applicant alleged that his father was angry with him for saying something to the MP. One day, on his way home from his new [job], someone hit his father and [injured him]. The applicant’s mother was sad and six or seven months later his family asked him to leave. The applicant’s father spoke to an agent who said he could make some fake education certificates so the applicant could get a visa. The applicant said he was worried, but his father told him lots of people create false documents and it was better than remaining to die.

15. The agent made the false documents and the applicant got an employment pass for [Country 1]. The applicant worked [in] [Country 1] for three years. In 2016, the applicant wished to return to India over the summer holiday. He flew to the South, but his [sibling] told him not to come to Punjab. He stayed in Chennai for [a number of] days then travelled to New Delhi by train. Despite his [sibling’s] warning, the applicant then travelled to his home town. He gave evidence that his mother brought chapatti and his father questioned why he came.

16. While the applicant was home, he saw some friends for drinks. His friend told him that [Mr A] had been calling to his neighbours and asking about him. When the applicant spoke with his mum about this, she asked him to leave. The applicant’s father advised that Mr [A] knew he was from [Country 1] now, so told the applicant he should go to Australia. The applicant’s parents paid for his ticket and asked him to work and send money for the marriage of [his sibling]. Three of his [siblings] were married and [this sibling] was the final one.

17. The applicant gave evidence that he came to Australia in 2016. He tried to go back to [Country 1] or India but his father prohibited it. The applicant sent money home and his family asked him to stay in Australia. He gave evidence that his first work visa was refused, however he was then sponsored to work at the [Employer 1] and now works for [Employer 2] in [City 1].

18. The applicant gave evidence that he saw in the news that [Mr A] was killed [and] he thought it was funny. He called his friend [to] say he was happy about the news. However, someone went to his parents’ home and told them they would kill the applicant in that [way]. His mother was mad with him for calling someone about the news.

19. At the hearing, the applicant presented without a turban or beard. Given the evidence regarding the applicant’s religion and appearance in his written statement, I asked the applicant if he was no longer an adherent to the Sikh religion. The applicant advised that he comes from a Hindu family, not Sikh. I asked why he would include that information in his statement and in response he explained that at school, they listed his name as [applicant surname], which is a Sikh name. However, his original name was actually [different]. He put Sikh on the application because his name is [applicant full name], but he is from a Hindu family.

20. I questioned the applicant about whether he attended hospital for treatment of his injuries, and he gave evidence that he never went to hospital.

21. I asked the applicant if he completed the application for protection form and statement himself, and he confirmed that he did.

Consideration of claims

1. I did not find the applicant to be a credible witness and I do not accept that he was ever threatened or harmed by members of the Shiromani Akali Dal, BJP, people associated with either political party, the police or members of the general community for any reason. Further, I do not accept that there are any individuals or groups that would be motivated to locate or harm the applicant if he returned to India. The applicant’s evidence significantly changed between his written account of events and his oral evidence and he was unable to give a reasonable explanation for the discrepancies. In addition, there was no corroborating evidence to support either account of events.

2. In the statement included with his application for protection, the applicant alleged that he was an active member of the Congress party, [helping] at elections and receiving an award for his involvement. At the hearing, I asked the applicant to tell my about the Congress party, to which he responded that he doesn’t know anything about them, he just voted for them. He then confirmed that he had no formal role in the party.

3. The applicant’s original claim was that he was targeted by the Shiromani Akali Dal as a result of his political activities with the Congress party, in attempt to have him switch allegiances. His statement described an attack that required the applicant to be hospitalised. At the hearing, the applicant gave evidence that he was targeted by individuals associated with the BJP because he questioned an MP regarding his knowledge of an investigation into a theft at his father’s work. He described a number of threatening incidents, but confirmed that he was never hospitalised.

4. The applicant’s application outlined his involvement with the Sikh community and its relationship to his political activities. However at the hearing, he advised that he is from a Hindu family. Further, the application outlined that his parents were required to move as a result of threats they were receiving, but at the hearing the applicant gave evidence that they continue to live in his home town.

5. I raised concerns with the applicant about the differences between his written and oral evidence at the hearing. In response, the applicant gave evidence that when he submitted the application he was new to the process, he didn’t know how to apply or how much detail to include. He alleged that he only included the critical information. I do not find this to be a convincing explanation. While I accept that when completing a form a decision might be made as to what information should be included, this does not explain the fundamental inconsistencies of fact.

6. I note that the applicant’s written statement outlined that his parents have disowned him and he is depressed. I do not accept that the applicant’s parents have disowned him. At the hearing, the applicant gave evidence that his parents arranged for his travel to [Country 1] and paid for his flight to Australia. In addition, the applicant sends money to his family. This is not indicative behaviour of an estranged relationship. Other than the brief statement, no further concerns about depression were raised by the applicant. Without any expert opinion, I cannot make a finding that the applicant has depression, anxiety or any other medical condition.

7. In assessing the applicant’s credibility, I note that the mere fact that a person claims fear of persecution for a particular reason does not establish the genuineness of the asserted fear, that the fear is “well-founded” or that it is for the reason claimed.  A fear of persecution is not “well-founded” if it is merely assumed or if it is mere speculation.

8. Although the concept of onus of proof is not appropriate to administrative inquiries and decision-making, the relevant facts of the individual case will have to be supplied by the applicant, 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 them. Nor is the Tribunal required to accept uncritically any and all the allegations made by an applicant. (MIEA v Guo & Anor (1997) 191 CLR 559 at 596, Nagalingam v MILGEA (1992) 38 FCR 191, Prasad v MIEA (1985) 6 FCR 155 at 169 70.)

9. In determining whether an applicant is entitled to protection in Australia the Tribunal must first make findings of fact on the claims he or she has made. This may involve an assessment of the applicant's credibility and, in doing so, I am aware of the need and importance of being sensitive to the difficulties asylum seekers often face. Accordingly, I note that the benefit of the doubt should be given to asylum seekers who are generally credible, but unable to substantiate all of their claims.

1. On the other hand, the Tribunal is not required to accept uncritically any or all allegations made by an applicant. In addition, 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 established. Nor is the Tribunal obliged to accept claims that are inconsistent with the independent evidence regarding the situation in the applicant's country of nationality (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).

2. Considering all of the evidence cumulatively and having regard to the applicant’s narrative as a whole, I do not find the applicant to be credible.

Chance of harm if returned to India

1. The applicant fears that if he returns to India he would be tortured and/or killed. As outlined above, I do not accept that the applicant has been threatened or physically harmed in the past, or that he would be if returned to India. I find that the applicant does not face a real chance of serious harm, now and into the reasonably foreseeable future, for any reason if he were returned to India. I therefore find that the applicant is not a refugee within the meaning of s.5H and does not fall within Australia’s protection obligations under s.36(2)(a).

2. For the same reasons that I found there is no real chance of serious harm, I find that the real risk element of the test in s.36(2)(aa) has not been met.[1] I find that there are no substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to India there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm: s.36(2)(aa).

   [1] as per the judgment in MIAC vSZQRB [2013] FCAFC 33.

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

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

Sheridan Lee
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.

…