1616589 (Refugee)

[2019] AATA 5528

1616589 (Refugee) [2019] AATA 5528 (8 August 2019)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1616589

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Fiji

MEMBER:Nathan Goetz

DATE:8 August 2019

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 08 August 2019 at 3:09pm

CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Fiji – imputed political opinion – membership and activity in anti-government organisations – fear of harm from government – no actual harm to applicant before departure or to family since – first came to Australia for work opportunity – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 36, 65
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), 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 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. On 24 May 2016 the applicant applied for a protection visa and this was refused by the delegate on 20 September 2016.

3. On 7 October 2016 the applicant applied to the Tribunal for a review of this decision. He appeared before the Tribunal on 8 August 2019 to give evidence and present arguments. He was assisted by an interpreter in the Fijian and English language.

4. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant is a citizen of Fiji who has not right to enter and reside in a third country and that for the purpose of this assessment, the country o reference in Fiji.

   Migration History

5. The applicant provided the Tribunal with a copy of the delegate decision which contained his migration history. The applicant confirmed this migration history at the Tribunal hearing as follows:

6. [October] 2015: Arrived in Australia on a [Temporary] visa which was valid until [later in] October 2015.

7. [Later in] October 2015: Lodged an application for a protection visa and granted an associated bridging visa.

8. [November] 2015: Application for a protection visa deemed invalid because the applicant did not attend a biometrics appointment.

9. [May] 2016: Lodged an application for a protection visa and granted an associated bridging visa.

   CRITERIA FOR A PROTECTION VISA

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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).

13. 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.  

14. 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

15. 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

    Written protection visa claims

16. The applicant claimed that he was a strong supporter of the two Christian breakaway states of Nadroga-Navosa and Ra in Fiji and claimed that this was being closely monitored by the Fijian Government with the Prime Minister of Fiji warning of severe punishment for sedition. The applicant claimed that he associated himself with Ms Oni Kirwin and that all those who are involved with Ms Kirwin have been warned by the Bainimarama government of the harm that awaits them if they return to Fiji. If he was returned to Fiji, the applicant thought that due to military and police brutality, which involves continuous torture, rape and brutality, with deaths in custody increasing, this would happen to him. He wrote that he did not try and move to another part of the country because Fiji is over militaries and that his safety is at risk. As a citizen of the Fiji Native Government in Exile, which is the breakaway Christian State of Nadroga-Navosa and Ra, he feared that he would be crushed by the Fijian Government because he followed Ms Kirwin and was also a member of the Pacific Indigenous Samaritan Association. He wrote that the police have no power to protect him and that there was no source of protection in Fiji from the police, with all ministries being controlled by the military.

17. In support of his protection visa application, he provided a copy of his Fiji Native Government in Exile card which was to expire [in] January 2019, and three receipts of payments to the Pacific Indigenous Samaritan Association for $[Amount 1] (for membership fee), $[Amount 2] (to fund a trip for Ms Kirwin) and $[Amount 1] (for a donation towards an evidence/support letter) made [in] March 2016, [May] 2016 and [September] 2016 respectively.

18. The applicant also provided at the delegate interview a 38 page submission which was written by Ms Kirwin. The majority of that submission relates to the activities of Ms Kirwain in establishing her organisations in Australia, her support for the Christian breakaway states, and criticism of the Fijian Government. In that submission, it reiterates the claims that the applicant will be harmed if he returns to Fiji because of his involvement with the Fiji Native Government in Exile group, and because of his involvement with the Pacific Indigenous Samaritan Association. The submission cites that the applicant was involved at a protest in Liverpool on 17 October 2015 where he held up a placard that and shouted that Bainimarama was a murderer and a liar and that Bainimarama’s brother, and other government staffers who were at the protest recognised the applicant, and that photos were initially taken of the applicant covertly and then openly to obtain evidence of his wrongdoing. Further in that submission, claims were raised that the applicant would be harmed because of his race (Indigenous Fijian) and religious belief (Christianity).

    FINDINGS AND REASONS

19. The applicant told the Tribunal about his background in Fiji, his family circumstances, his reasons for coming to Australia, and how he came to lodge a protection claims.

20. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.

21. The applicant explained that he came to Australia not because he was fleeing persecution in Fiji, but for work opportunity. He has a lengthy employment history in Fiji, save for a period of 12 months where he was unemployed, and came to Australia to engage in cultural activities for Fiji Day and to do some work. It was his understanding that he would come out to Australia and his employers (who had organised for the applicant and others to come to Australia to participate in Fiji Day and undertake [a job task]) would apply to extend his visa for three or six months once he was in Australia. In regards to the invalid protection visa application, this was lodged without his knowledge by his employers. The Tribunal is satisfied that this is the case having regard to what the applicant said to the delegate and the fact that the signature on the invalid application does not match the applicant’s signature on his valid protection visa application. It is clear to the Tribunal that the applicant’s employers sought to lodge a protection visa as a means of allowing the applicant, and others, to remain in Australia and continue working, rather than lodging another visa to secure this outcome. After a period of time [in a workplace], the applicant decided to leave because of the work conditions, including poor pay. He found another [workplace] but was only there for about a month. He left that second job in around January/February 2016 for similar reasons and was unsure of his visa status, but had been told by his previous employer that if he left that job, everything, including his visa to remain in Australia, would cease.

22. The applicant told the Tribunal he made contact with [a relative] who lived in Sydney and his [relative] agreed to put him up while he looked for work there. From approximately February to May 2016 he was without employment, but managed to obtain a labour job in May/April 2016 which lasted until August 2016. From there, he managed to obtain employment in another labour job which is based in Canberra and where the applicant remains employed to this day earning approximately $[Amount 3] per week. He sends his wife and children in Fiji approximately $[Amount 4] to $[Amount 5] per week which supplements his wife’s work in her local village where she sells [products] and his mother’s income from running a [shop]. His [number] children (aged between [age] and [age]) are all in school and live in the family home [on Viti Levu].

23. The applicant told the Tribunal that he did not fear harm in Fiji on account on his being an Indigenous Fijian, or because of his religious belief (He is a member of [a named Church]) but feared harm because of his membership of the Fiji Native Government in Exile and the Pacific Indigenous Samaritan Association. The Tribunal accepts the applicant’s explanation that the claims related to his race and his religion were included in Ms Kirwin’s submission without his knowledge and accepts that he did not read the submission. Further related to the submission, the Tribunal accepts that the applicant was not involved in protest in Liverpool, as the applicant disavowed that he had done any such activity and had only attended meetings with Ms Kirwin’s organisations where he was required to make monetary donations. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant has not tried to be evasive or dishonest with the Tribunal, and the claims and facts put forward in Ms Kirwin’s submission related to his status as an Indigenous Fijian or a Christian, are not matters that the applicant seeks, or ever sought to rely upon, as a basis of claiming protection in Australia.

24. Telling the Tribunal about his movements from his [job] and relocation to Sydney, the applicant advised the Tribunal that he joined Ms Kirwin’s groups in Sydney shortly after his arrival there. He had been told about this group from a friend who he knew from Fiji and was currently in Australia, although the applicant also added that this group was well known in the Fijian community in Sydney. The applicant told the Tribunal that the reason he went to Ms Kirwin’s group was because he wanted a visa to remain in Australia. He was not concerned about whether that visa would be for a long time or a short duration. He wanted to regularise his status and get an opportunity to help his family through working in Australia. The applicant told the Tribunal that he did not return to Fiji because when he considered the situation back at home, with his children in school, he saw an opportunity to earn money in Australia and help with their education. He noted that he has been working consistently for two years in Australia and that there are opportunities for him in Australia, and was hopeful that his wife and children would be able to come to Australia which has a better quality of life and better wages than Fiji.

25. Regarding his involvement in Ms Kirwin’s groups in Australia, he noted that it was connected to the Christian breakaway states in Fiji. His involvement with the groups in Australia was limited to attending meetings where he would provide donations to help finance the Fijian breakaway states. His involvement included attending meetings each Thursday where he and others in the group would be updated about the situation in Fiji. He noted that sometimes there were other gatherings or discussions, but the applicant was not involved in those. The last meeting he attended was either in the beginning or the middle of 2017, and this was a long time before he relocated to Canberra where he has his current [job]. The applicant told the Tribunal that he stopped going to the group because he began to feel that he was only being used to raise money and finance Ms Kirwin’s travel. When asked by the Tribunal whether he joined Ms Kirwin’s group because he was supportive of her group’s objectives, or whether he just wanted to regularise his migration status, the applicant told the Tribunal frankly that the political reason was ‘very little’ and the main reason was to get assistance with his migration status. The applicant noted that life in Fiji was difficult in regard to the standard of living, and when he came to Australia, he saw an opportunity to legalise his status, disliked what he saw as the corruption in the Fijian government, and hoped that if the problems in Fiji were eradicated, he would be able to return home. He said that he first realised that he could not return to Fiji was when he was filing in his protection visa form, and Ms Kirwin told him that there would be a time when he would no longer be able to return home. The applicant told the Tribunal that the protection visa form was filed out on the first day that he met Ms Kirwin.

26. The Tribunal found the applicant to be frank in the evidence he gave to the Tribunal. While the applicant claims that he had a ‘little’ political reason for joining Ms Kirwin’s group, the Tribunal is not satisfied that this is the case, other than to accept that the applicant, by attending meetings with Ms Kirwin’s group, was interested in the general political/social/economic situation in his home country as an expatriate. The Tribunal is satisfied from the applicant’s evidence about his motivations for joining Ms Kirwin’s group, and the chronology of how he came to be involved with Ms Kirwin’s group, that he did so to regularise his migration status and be permitted to remain in Australia so he could explore economic opportunities with a view to improving his family’s financial circumstances in Fiji, and not because he had a genuine political opinion consistent with the purported objectives of Ms Kirwin’s groups.

27. The Tribunal has had regard to country information about the Pacific Indigenous Samaritan Association as contained in the 27 September 2017 Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade Country Report on Fiji. This report notes that the Pacific Indigenous Samaritan Association does not have reported presence in Fiji and is based in Australia. Fijian applicants for protection visas have raised association with this organisation as the basis for refugee status. However, DFAT is not aware of any interest in Fiji regarding persons associated with this organisation, with the exception of Ms Kirwin, who is reportedly banned from entering Fiji due to her attempts to form a so-called Christian State in Ra and Nadroga and supporting some persons now in custody (at 3.51). In the same report, DFAT assesses that individuals associated with Ms Kirwin’s organisations are at a low risk or harassment and arrest or detention by the government solely for being a member or supporter. Individuals who organise and take actions to create Christian separate states within Fiji are at a moderate to high risk of harassment and arrest by the authorities (at 3.56). The Tribunal raised this country information with the applicant who indicated that he did not disagree with it.

28. In the case of this applicant, the Tribunal is satisfied that he is not a person who could be described as organising or taking action to create Christian separatists states within Fiji. He was a member of an organisation based in Australia from 2016 to 2017 and had no profile in Australia or in Fiji. While the Tribunal accepts that he has donated some money to that organisation in the past, and it is possible that this money has been used to support Ms Kirwin’s activities in promoting separate Christian states in Fiji, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant, on returning to Fiji, would be associated with Ms Kirwin’s organisations in Australia. The Tribunal is further satisfied that the applicant does not have a genuine political belief that separate Christian states should be established in Fiji, nor is the Tribunal satisfied that the applicant, if returned to Fiji, would engage in any activity to support the establishment of such states. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant joined Ms Kirwin’s organisation only as a means of regularising his migration status in Australia, and if returned to Fiji, would not engage in any political activity which could be described as supportive of Ms Kirwin.

29. The Tribunal has considered whether the applicant faces a real chance of serious harm on account of his involvement with Ms Kirwin’s organisation in Australia, now or in the foreseeable future, if he is to return to Fiji. The Tribunal is satisfied that there is no real chance of this applicant facing serious harm because of his involvement which was restricted to attending meetings and making some donations, which has now ceased. When considering the previously mentioned country information, and the fact that there is nothing persuasive to suggest that the Fijian authorities are aware of the applicant’s past involvement with Ms Kirwin’s group in Australia, and the fact that the applicant joined Ms Kirwin’s group only as a means of regularising his migration status in Australia, the Tribunal is satisfied that there is no real chance of this applicant facing serious harm in Fiji, nor or in the foreseeable future.

    CONCLUSION

    Refugee

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).

   Complementary protection

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). This requires the Tribunal to be satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Fiji, the applicant faces a real risk of significant harm. The Tribunal is not satisfied that if the applicant were to return to Fiji, he would be arbitrarily deprived of life, be subject to the death penalty, or be subject to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, or torture. He has had limited involvement with organisations in Australia that have no reported presence in Fiji, was only a member between 2016 to 2017, and has no profile associated with those organisations. Further, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant joined Ms Kirwain’s organisations solely to regularise his migration status and that he would not pursue any political activity in Fiji that was consistent with Ms Kiwin’s political platform of creating separatist Christian states in Fiji. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(aa).

   Member of the same family unit

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.

   Nathan Goetz
   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.

   …