1618074 (Refugee)

[2019] AATA 399

1618074 (Refugee) [2019] AATA 399 (11 January 2019)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1618074

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  India

MEMBER:Paul Noonan

DATE:11 January 2019

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 11 January 2019 at 2:32pm

CATCHWORDS

REFUGEE – protection visa – India – property dispute – threats from relative with criminal links – credibility issues – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5AAA, 5H, 5J, 36
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2

CASES

Guo v MIEA (1996) 64 FCR 151
MIEA v Guo (1997) 191 CLR 559
Nagalingam v MILGEA (1992) 38 FCR 191
Prasad v MIEA (1985) 6 FCR 155

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

2. The applicant who claims to be a citizen of India, applied for the visa on 30 October 2015.

3. The applicant attended a hearing on 7 December 2018. The hearing was assisted by an interpreter in the Punjabi language. The applicant was unrepresented at the hearing.

   CRITERIA FOR A PROTECTION VISA

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

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

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

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

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

   Mandatory considerations

9. In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.56, made under s.499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken account of policy guidelines prepared by the Department of Immigration – PAM3 Refugee and humanitarian - Complementary Protection Guidelines and PAM3 Refugee and humanitarian - Refugee Law Guidelines – and relevant country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

10. The issues in this case are whether the applicant has a well-founded fear of being persecuted for one or more of the five reasons set out in s.5J(1) and if not, whether there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of him being removed from Australia to India, there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm.

11. The applicant travelled to Australia on an apparently genuine Indian passport, a copy of which is contained on the Departmental file. The applicant has always represented himself to be an Indian citizen in his dealings with the Department. The Tribunal finds the applicant is an Indian citizen and has assessed the applicant’s claims against India as his country of nationality.

12. In his application for protection, the applicant stated, in summary, that:

    ·The reason he left India was because his father is having a property dispute with his uncle. Further that while he was in India he faced too many threats from local mafia who takes the form of his uncle and cousin.

    ·He sought help while he was within India but stated that the authorities can only protect him while he is in their range and they do not protect poor people.

    ·In relation to what will happen if he returns to India, the applicant stated that he will be killed because he is part of the disputed land.

    ·He did not try to move to another to another part of India because his father does not want to leave his hometown because the house they live in was gifted by his grandfather.

13. The applicant confirmed that he has no other claims in respect to a fear of harm from returning to India.

14. The applicant gave evidence that all of his family including [his siblings], his father and his mother all currently live in his home village in Punjab, India. He also lived his whole life in this village until moving to Australia [in] June 2009.

15. The Tribunal noted that the applicant arrived in Australia on a [student] visa accompanied by his spouse. The Tribunal also noted that the applicant returned to India [in] November 2010. He arrived back in Australia [in] January 2011. He then lodged an application for a [skilled graduate] visa. On 15 June 2011 the applicant’s [student] visa ceased. On 21 April 2012 the applicant’s application for a [skilled graduate] visa was refused. On 19 May 2012 the applicant’s Bridging visa expired and the applicant became an unlawful non-citizen. On 30 October 2015 the applicant applied for a Protection visa. On 27 November 2015 the applicant was granted an associated bridging visa.

16. The applicant submitted that he completed his final year of school successfully in India but has not undertaken any further study. The applicant informed the Tribunal that he left India because his uncle was disputing with his father ownership of agricultural land and a house in town which his father inherited. When asked how this dispute affected him directly the applicant stated that his father had transferred the properties to him [in] December 2010 and [in] August 2015 to him as he was worried about harm to himself and the applicant was residing in Australia. The applicant has submitted documents purported to be evidence of these land transfers. The Tribunal accepted this to be the case.

17. His father has one brother. His grandfather had given 50% of his agricultural land to each son. However as his father had inherited the city house entirely and his uncle believed he should have received all of the agricultural land. His father is [age]. His uncle has since passed away. When asked when this occurred the applicant was not sure. When asked why he does not remember when his uncle passed away the applicant stated it is because he has been in Australia for a very long time so he does not know. He confirmed that his father had told him about the death but he does not remember the details. However he submitted that his uncle’s son is now after the property and he deals in drugs, is a criminal and is dangerous. His name is [Mr A] who is aged somewhere is in his [age]. When asked about his uncle’s history, the applicant stated that his uncle owned and ran a [business] in the city. [Mr A] now also runs this [business] and is [an] investor.

18. The Tribunal questioned the applicant about harm suffered as a result of actions taken by his uncle. The applicant submitted that his father was pushed from his bike by his uncle some time ago. He doesn’t remember when. His father dislocated his shoulder in the fall. He remembered the incident was discussed in the village but it was not reported to the authorities. Otherwise the applicant could not recall any other actual incidence of physical harm perpetrated against his father by his uncle. However he submitted that his uncle had threatened his father on a daily basis. When the Tribunal questioned the likeliness of this as his uncle ran a [business] in the city the applicant submitted that his uncle never went to the [business] and had other people run his business. The applicant confirmed that he had not personally suffered any harm from his uncle of [Mr A]. The pressure from [Mr A] only really started in 2008 when land prices rose significantly. The Tribunal noted that he had previously informed the Department that the pressure had started in 2015. The applicant agreed that the land was worth a significant amount of money. Before 2015 he now submitted that his uncle was only asking for the land and not making overt threats. He then stated that he personally began to receive threats when the property was transferred to him. He believes [Mr A] still poses a threat to him. He confirmed [Mr A]’s criminal links is the mafia referred to in his claim.

19. When asked if his family has report threats from [Mr A] the applicant stated that this had not occurred as [Mr A] has links with politicians and police. When asked how [Mr A] has this influence the applicant stated this was because police and politicians [are clients of his business]. Further [Mr A] is known to turn up at his father’s house when drunk and make threats and tell him to bring the applicant back to India. He also occasionally calls the applicant in Australia and tells him to come back to India.

20. When asked why his father would transfer property to the applicant rather than relying upon his will the applicant was unable to explain why other than to reiterate his father felt the property was safer in his name because he resides overseas. He agreed his father has a will but he himself does not. When asked what happens to the property if he passes the applicant was unable to provide an answer. When asked why he came to Australia the applicant stated that that he came to study and because it is a good country. When asked why he delayed for so long in applying for a protection visa the applicant stated he came here with his wife, with whom he is now estranged, and everything was good. He agreed he returned to India and stated that he had no fear of harm at that time and was not harmed when in India. After his relationship with his wife broke down he was thinking of going back to India. However his father advised him not to due to the threat posed by his uncle.

21. When asked if he could live in another area of India such as a big city the applicant stated he could not as they will find him. When asked whom he meant the applicant confirmed he refers to [Mr A]. When asked how he would find him the applicant stated that [Mr A] has decided he can do anything and he’ll find him. When asked again how [Mr A] would find him the applicant suggested his parents would visit him and [Mr A] would find out from other village people of this. He suggested there would be no way to stop his parents from visiting him. The applicant informed the Tribunal that he works as [an occupation] in Australia. In India he used to work in a [specified workplace]. He confirmed that he has no other claims for protection. He finished by stating that he cannot go back to India as there is freedom in Australia and he does not want to go back to India.

    Credibility

22. The Tribunal acknowledges the importance of adopting a reasonable approach when making findings of credibility.[1]  However the mere fact that a person claims fear of persecution for a particular reason does not establish either the genuineness of the asserted fear, that it is ‘well-founded’ or that it is for the reason claimed.  Rather it remains for the applicant to satisfy the Tribunal that all of the statutory elements are made out. 

    [1] Guo v MIEA (1996) 64 FCR 151, per Foster J at 194 (Full Federal Court)

23. Section 5AAA of the Act makes clear that it is the applicant’s responsibility to specify all particulars of a claim to be a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations and to provide sufficient evidence to establish the claim. The Tribunal does not have any responsibility or obligation to specify, or assist the applicant in specifying, any particulars of his claims.

24. A decision-maker is not required to accept uncritically any and all of the allegations made by an applicant.[2] 

    [2] MIEA v Guo (1997) 191 CLR 559 at 596; Nagalingam v MILGEA (1992) 38 FCR 191 and Prasad v MIEA (1985) 6 FCR 155 at 169–70

25. The Tribunal has considerable doubts in respect to the applicant’s claim that he fears harm from his uncle and cousin. There are significant levels of vagueness and plausibility concerns in his evidence which the Tribunal discussed with him.

26. The Tribunal accepted that the applicant’s father and his now deceased brother were in a land dispute brought about by the terms of their father’s will. The Tribunal also accepted that his father has transferred some land to the applicant. The Tribunal accepted that the applicant’s father and his brother may well have had an altercation in the past which caused harm to his father being that his father was pushed off his bike by the applicant’s uncle. However the Tribunal noted that the applicant was unable to recall when this claimed event had occurred. Further any such incidence of harm did not involve the applicant.

27. When asked when his uncle passed away the applicant was unable to recall when this occurred and was very vague in his recollection of this event. In respect to such a significant event in respect to a close family member, whom was the subject, until his passing, of the applicant’s claimed fear of harm, the Tribunal would expect the applicant to know exactly when he had passed. To be so vague in his recollection of such a significant event causes the Tribunal to doubt the applicant’s credibility in respect to his claimed fear of harm in respect to his uncle and in turn in respect to his son [Mr A].

28. The Tribunal considered the applicant’s evidence that [Mr A], being his uncle’s son, is a criminal with links to the mafia, who seeks to harm the applicant, to be lacking in reasonable plausibility and lacking in credibility. The applicant’s entire family resides in their home town with [Mr A] also residing nearby. The applicant’s family are entirely unharmed and without any threat of harm directed towards them from [Mr A]. The Tribunal considered that the applicant’s evidence that [Mr A] undertakes the occasional drunken and disordered harassment of the applicant’s family is not reflective of a significant threat posed by a mafia like figure capable of serious harm as asserted by the applicant. This contradictory evidence further leads the Tribunal to doubt the applicant’s credibility in respect to the claimed threat of harm from [Mr A]. The Tribunal did not accept the applicant receives calls from [Mr A] threatening him or asking him to come back to India. It is not credible that [Mr A] has the applicant’s contact details in Australia given his and his families claimed actions taken due to the threat posed by [Mr A]. The applicant submitted that the lack of serious harm to his family was because he has title to the disputed land. The Tribunal considered this would not dissuade a criminal with links to the mafia determined to extort land of apparent significant value from posing a threat to the applicant’s family and causing serious harm to them. Further the Tribunal found the applicant’s evidence that [Mr A] had influence over police and politicians because they [are clients of his business] to be lacking in reasonable plausibility and lacking in credibility. The applicant provided no further explanation as to why [Mr A] would exert such significant influence such that complaints by his apparently well-resourced family would go unheard and un-actioned by police. The Tribunal did not accept the applicant’s evidence that his family had reported threats of harm to police or were dissuaded from doing so because of [Mr A]’s influence over police and politicians. The Tribunal was also unpersuaded by the applicant’s evidence that his uncle used to wait beside the road and threaten his father every day in preference to tending to his business. The Tribunal concluded, on the basis of its deliberations on this evidence that neither the applicant, nor his family, have made any police reports or complaints in respect to any threats of harm from [Mr A] or his father and this was also indicative that in actuality no such threats have been made. In addition, despite claiming to be the holder of significant wealth on behalf of his father, ostensibly for the purpose of shielding his father from potential harm, and despite claiming threats of harm due to that holding, the applicant has made no move to construct a will. The Tribunal considered the absence of such basic legal protection and the apparent unequal distribution of family wealth, despite the existence of his father and siblings, of the apparently highly valuable asset to further undermine the applicant’s credibility in respect to a well-founded fear of harm from [Mr A].

29. These factors, as set out earlier in these reasons, led the Tribunal to consider that in fact no threats of harm have been made by [Mr A] towards the applicant since the death of his uncle.

    Conclusions on credibility

30. On the basis of the above considerations the Tribunal did not accept that the applicant has received threats of harm from his uncle’s son [Mr A]. Further, should the applicant return to India, the lack of any serious harm to the applicant’s family over some years while residing close to [Mr A], and following on from the death of his uncle, satisfied the Tribunal that [Mr A] would not be motivated to pursue the land by seeking to harm the applicant now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.

31. In summary the Tribunal has rejected the applicant’s claim that he fears harm from [Mr A] as having no credibility. In the absence of any other claim advanced as to why the applicant may face harm upon return to India, the Tribunal found that the applicant has no real chance of being harmed by anyone for any reason, now or in the reasonably foreseeable future. It follows that the Tribunal does not accept the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution for any reason claimed if he returns to India.

    Complementary protection

1. In considering whether the applicant meets the complementary protection criterion under s.36(2)(aa), the Tribunal has considered whether it has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm. In this case, the Tribunal has found that the applicant is a national of India and the Tribunal therefore finds that India is the ‘receiving country’ for the purposes of s.5(1) of the Act.

2. As detailed above, the Tribunal has not accepted the applicant’s claim that he fears harm from [Mr A] and finds that there is no real risk that he will be harmed by now [Mr A] being the son of his now deceased uncle. It follows that the Tribunal does not accept that there is a real risk the applicant will suffer significant harm from any person or for any of the reasons set out above or for any other reason evident on the claims or material as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of him being removed from Australia to India.

   CONCLUSIONS

3. 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).

4. Having concluded that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a), the Tribunal has considered the alternative criterion in s.36(2)(aa). The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(aa).

5. 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 criteria in s.36(2).

   DECISION

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

   Paul Noonan
   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.

   …