1621533 (Refugee)

[2019] AATA 6788

1621533 (Refugee) [2019] AATA 6788 (17 December 2019)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1621533

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Venezuela

MEMBER:Roslyn Smidt

DATE:17 December 2019

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

DECISION:The Tribunal remits the matter for reconsideration with the following directions:

(i)that the first named applicant satisfies s.36(2)(a) of the Migration Act; and

(ii)that the other applicants satisfy s.36(2)(b)(i) of the Migration Act, on the basis of membership of the same family unit as the first named applicant.

STATEMENT MADE ON 17 DECEMBER 2019 AT 10:58AM

CATCHWORDS

REFUGEE – protection visa – Venezuela – political opinion – anti-government opinions – particular social group – health professionals – anti-Maduro plebiscite – restrictions on health care services – workplace demotion – fear of torture – fear of killing – criminal gangs – state protection – decision under review remitted

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, ss 5(1), 5H, 5J – 5LA, 36, 65
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2

Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other dependant.

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration on 30 November 2016 to refuse to grant the applicants protection visas under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The applicants who are citizens of Venezuela applied for the visas on 3 February 2015.

   CRITERIA FOR A PROTECTION VISA

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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).

6. 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.  

7. 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

8. 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.

   BACKGROUND

9. [Applicant A] is [an age] year old married woman from Los Teques, Miranda State in Venezuela (about 30 ks from Caracas).  She obtained a [degree] in June 1994. She also holds several post-graduate qualifications. She practiced [in the health profession] in several clinics and hospitals prior to coming to Australia.

10. [Applicant B] is [age] years old. He worked as a [occupation deleted] in the past, following which he held casual jobs and worked in the health and safety field.

11. [Applicant C] is [age] years old. [Applicant D] is [age] years old.  They were both minors when the family left Venezuela and

12. The applicants arrived in Australia [in] January 2012. Applicant A had a student visa. Her husband and children were granted dependent visas.

    CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

13. In a written submission provided with her initial application Applicant A said that she and her family had originally planned to return to Venezuela when she completed her studies in Australia. However, the situation deteriorated rapidly after February 2014. Political violence, repression and crime rose sharply after that time and fearing for her safety and the safety of her children she applied for protection in Australia.

    Submissions to the Department

14. In submissions to the Department Applicant A said that she feared that she, her husband and her children would be assaulted, robbed, tortured, wounded or killed by criminals, gang members and the police if they returned to Venezuela. She said that she and her family also feared that they might be killed, tortured or otherwise physically harmed if they disagreed with or spoke against the regime as such treatment was widespread. She spoke about problems which members of her family had experienced in Venezuela, much of which appears to have been criminal in nature. She also spoke about the poverty, violence and malnutrition which have followed the economic collapse of the country brought on, in her view, by failed economic policies.  

15. Applicant A also spoke about specific problems faced by health professionals. She pointed out that doctors were sometimes blamed for lack of care and some had been attacked by patients or relatives of patients. She said that even before she left Venezuela one of the nurses at a clinic where she worked had been killed at her home by patient who was upset at the care he received. She also noted that case of a doctor who fled Venezuela in 2014 after being accused of terrorism in relation to an outbreak of disease which killed eight people in the city of Maracay.

16. When asked, Applicant A said that she had not been involved in any political organisations or activities prior to leaving Venezuela.

    The delegate’s decision

    The delegate accepted that there was widespread criminal violence in Venezuela and that many members of the community, including members of the applicant’s family, had been affected by this. She also accepted that the police were inadequately resourced and trained to respond to these problems. However, she found that the violence was random and did not involve the systematic and discriminatory conduct required for these problems to be characterised as persecution and found Applicant A was not a refugee as defined in section 5H and the criterion set out in paragraph 36(2)(a). She also found that the risk of becoming a victim of this violence was faced by the Venezuelan population generally and applicant A therefore did not meet the complementary criteria in paragraph 36(2B)(c) of the Act.

    Submissions to the Tribunal

17. In written and oral submissions to the Tribunal Applicant A stated that in addition to the general risk of violence and deprivation she would be at risk of harm on return to Venezuela because of her status as a [health professional] and her anti-government political opinions. In essence she said that while she had not belonged any political groups or organisation prior to departing Venezuela she had always opposed the governments lead by Hugo Chavez and Nicholas Maduro and she continued to hold those views. She said that prior to leaving Venezuela she had been demoted when she criticised plans to nationalise medical care and the replacement of local staff with Cuban doctors. She said that armed colectivos had kept watch over the clinic where she worked which she found very intimidating.

18. Applicant A said that since arriving in Australia she had continued to express her anti-government views in a range of ways. For example, she signed an anti-Maduro plebiscite in 2017 and participated in online discussions by opponents of the regime.  

19. Applicant A said that she continued to object to the government’s policies and practices in the health care sector. She said that [health professionals] were required to discriminate between patients. For example, only people who hold certain ID cards can receive certain types and levels of care. She said that she strongly opposed these practices and indicated that she would not comply with these requirements. She said that friends and colleagues had told her of numerous attacks on [health professionals] by colectivos, frustrated patients and their relatives. She said that she would continue to oppose the current government if she returned to Venezuela and she feared that she would be harmed because of this. She also feared that if she returned to her work as [a health professional] she could be harmed one of her patients blamed her for inadequate care.

20. In support of her application Applicant A provided a letter [a named professional organisation] dated [in] August 2017 which speaks about the many problems faced by the health sector in Venezuela including lack of security for staff who often face aggression who are sometimes wounded or killed by frustrated patients. It also states that members of the [professional organisation] have organised protests and public statements complaining about these problems and as result the leaders of the organisation have been attacked, imprisoned or tortured. The applicant also provided a number of articles regarding problems faced by [health professionals] and the involvement of members of the medical profession in protests against the government.

21. At the hearing I observed that Applicant A did not appear to have raised these issues in her previous submissions. She that she had not understood the nature of the information she needed to provide when she prepared her initial application and as a result she had spoken about the general situation rather than her personal circumstances.   This issue was also addressed in the written submission provided prior to the hearing. Applicant A said that her previous representative had advised her that the general situation in Venezuela was such that she would be eligible for protection and did not explain the need to meet the specific requirements set out in Australia law and as a result she had failed to provide a significant amount of relevant information.

22. Applicant B spoke about his opposition to the current regime and problems he had faced prior to leaving Venezuela, mostly as a result of criminal acts. He said that [he had a similar surname to] a prominent opposition leader and he feared he would be at risk of harm because of this.

23. Applicant C spoke about her opposition to the current regime and the violence she had observed in the streets prior to leaving Venezuela witnessed during demonstrations prior to her She said that she feared that she might be killed or kidnapped if she returned to Venezuela.

24. Applicant D also spoke about his opposition to the government and his fear that he would be victim of the current violence or criminal activity.

    THE CURRENT SITUATION IN VENEZUELA

25. It is clear that the current situation Venezuela is extremely difficult and that many people are at risk of harm because of this. In some cases these problems relate to the general economic collapse, lack of resources and services and the rising crime rate. However, it is also clear that many people are at risk of harm because of their political opinions or perceived political opinions.

26. The US Department of State Country Report on Human Rights 2018 states that human rights issues included extrajudicial killings by security force including colectivos (government-sponsored armed groups); torture by security forces;; trafficking in persons; and the worst forms of child labor, which the government made minimal efforts to eliminate

27. According to advice from the US Department of State Country report on Human Rights Abuses for 2018 the government restricted free expression and political participation in elections and used violence to repress peaceful demonstrations. The most significant human rights issues include extrajudicial killings by security forces including government-sponsored Colectivos, torture by security forces, harsh and life-threatening prison conditions, and imprisonment of political activists. Corruption and impunity are pervasive among all security forces and in other national and state government offices, including at the highest levels

28. A situation report issued by the Department of Home Affairs on 8 April 2019 cites information from a range of UN, government and non-government sources which paint a similar picture. For example, a December 2017 report from the Inter-American Commission On Human Rights (IACHR) state that there is ‘a pattern of very serious violations of the human rights of persons who demonstrate or publicly espouse positions at variance with those of the Executive’. It states that an estimated 133 were killed, 4000 were injured and more than 5000 were arbitrarily detained during protests in December 2017. While it appears that many detainees were released after a relatively short period, the report states that some detainees were subjected to ‘torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment’ or sexual violence. The report also states that human rights violations have included  harassment, persecution via the media, disqualification from public office and from political activity, violation of immunity, interference in public functions, unlawful raids on private property, and acquiescence in violent acts ‘against members of the opposition and, in general, against anyone voicing dissent’; also ‘stigmatizing pronouncements’, ‘unwarranted criminal suits, arbitrary arrests, and even impairment of the rights to life and personal safety’.

29. More recent reports citied by the DHA report include a January 2019 report from the Venezuelan Program for Education-Action in Human Rights which states that "35 people murdered in the context of the protests" since 21 January and accused the police special forces unit (FAES) of carrying out eight "extra-judicial executions" following the protests. Another NGO, Foro Penal, said 850 people, among them 77 children, had been arrested. On 29 January U.N. human rights spokesman Rupert Colville said at least 40 people are believed to have been killed in Venezuela's recent violence, including 26 shot by pro-government forces, five killed in house raids and 11 during looting. He said more than 850 people were detained between 21 and 26 January, including children as young as 12. According to a newspaper report,696 people were detained across the country 23 January 2019, the highest daily number of detentions in 20 years. Residents of one poor Caracas neighbourhood, Petare, said police and national guardsmen swarmed Petare’s streets on 23 January night, summarily executing suspected agitators: “people say they killed people in their own homes who had no criminal records.”

30. The seriousness of the current situation in Venezuela is highlighted guidelines from UNHCR issued in 2019[1] which urges states to ensure that Venezuelan nationals are not deported or forced to return to Venezuela in accordance with international refugee and humanitarian law. According to the guidelines UNHCR considers that for a number of profiles, international protection considerations are likely to arise under the 1951 Convention/1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees. The guidelines do not set out categories of people likely be entitled to this form of protection. However they go on to say that UNHCR  considers that the majority of Venezuelan nationals are in need of international protection under the criteria contained in the Cartagena Declaration on the basis of threats to their lives, security or freedom resulting from the events that are currently seriously disturbing public order in Venezuela and that persons originating from Venezuela who seek protection in the European Union and who are found not to be refugees under the 1951 Convention may qualify for subsidiary protection under relevant EU provisions if there are substantial grounds for believing that they would face a real risk of serious harm in Venezuela.  While Australia is not party to the Cartagena Declaration or a member of the European Union these very strong statements which provide clear evidence of that the situation in Venezuela is dire and places many if not most Venezuelans in need of some form of protection.

    [1] Guidance Note on International Protection Considerations of Venezuelans issued in May 2019

    CONSIDERATION OF THE APPLICANT’S CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

31. I accept that they are fearful of returning to Venezuela in part because of the problems relating to crime and generalise violence. It is clear that they, like most Venezuelans are likely to be significantly and adversely impacted by these problems. This alone may not give rise to claim for protection in Australia.

32. I accept that Applicant A was poorly advised by her first representative. The lengthy submissions provided to the Department by or on her behalf deal almost exclusively with the general situation and problems relating to the economic collapse and the high rate of crime and fail to provide details of her anti-government views.  In these circumstances and in light of the convincing nature of her evidence at the hearing I am prepared to give the benefit of the doubt in relation to matters that were not previously raised.

33. I accept that all of the applicants are strongly opposed to the current government of Venezuela and find that in Applicant A’s case her fears of serious harm for reasons of political opinion are well-founded.

34. Applicant A and her family left Venezuela in 2012. Prior to that she was not directly involved in any overtly political groups or activities. However, she spoke against government policies in her work place and as a result she was demoted. Since her arrival in Australia the situation in Venezuela has deteriorated. During that time she has remained in contact with colleagues in [her health] profession in Venezuela and continued to express her views on the situation in her homeland. In my view this alone would not be sufficient to place her at risk of serious or significant harm if she returned to Venezuela. However, I accept that she would continue to speak out about the deficiencies in medical services, government policies in relation to health care and government interference in what she believes should be medical decisions made by doctors or other health care professionals if she returned to her homeland. I also accept that she would involve herself in protest activities organised by the [named professional organisation]. In light of the country information set out above regarding the situation of those viewed as opponents of the government I am satisfied that there is a real chance that these activities would result in Applicant A being harassed, intimidated, arrested or suffer significant physical harassment and ill-treatment within the reasonably foreseeable future if she returned to Venezuela. I am therefore satisfied that her fear of persecution for reasons of political opinion is well-founded. Furthermore, as Applicant A’s fears relate to harm by the government of Venezuela or its agents or supporters I am satisfied that she would be unable to access state protection or avoid harm by relocating with the country.

1. As noted above, I accept that Applicants B, C and D oppose the current regime in Venezuela. However, none of them have spoken out publicly or participated anti-government activities in Venezuela or Australia and on the evidence currently before me I am not satisfied that there is a real chance that they would face serious harm on return to Venezuela for reasons of political opinion within the reasonably foreseeable future and therefore I am not satisfied that any of them has a well-founded fear of persecution in Venezuela for any of the reasons set out in s.5J(1). And while I accept that they may face problems as result of general violence and crime in Venezuela, the evidence suggests that this is a risk faced by the population generally rather that one faced by the applicants personally. Therefore on the evidence currently before me I am not satisfied that there are 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 any of them would suffer significant harm.

2. Applicant B is Applicant A’s spouse. Applicants C and D are her children. They are students. They live with their parents and depend on them for financial and psychological support. I am therefore satisfied that they are members of the same family unit as Applicant A.

   CONCLUSION

3. For the reasons given above the Tribunal is satisfied that Applicant A is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations and satisfies the criterion set out in s.36(2)(a).

4. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the remaining applicants are persons in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations for the purposes of s.36(2)(a) or (aa). However, the Tribunal is satisfied that Applicants B, C and D are members of the same family unit as Applicant A for the purposes of s.36(2)(b)(i). As such, the fate of their applications depends on the outcome of the first named applicant’s application. It follows that the other applicants will be entitled to a protection visa provided the criterion in s.36(2)(b)(ii) and the remaining criteria for the visa are met.

   DECISION

5. The Tribunal remits the matter for reconsideration with the following directions:

   (i) that the first named applicant satisfies s.36(2)(a) of the Migration Act; and

   (ii)that the other applicants satisfy s.36(2)(b)(i) of the Migration Act, on the basis of membership of the same family unit as the first named applicant.

   Roslyn Smidt
   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.

   …