1702943 (Refugee)

[2020] AATA 1533

1702943 (Refugee) [2020] AATA 1533 (12 May 2020)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1702943

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   China

MEMBER:Angela Cranston

DATE:12 May 2020

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 12 May 2020 at 12:44am

CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – China – political opinion – candidate in village elections – credibility concerns – inconsistent evidence – claims of harm suffered by family members – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5H, 5J, 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 and Border Protection on 6 February 2017 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 China, applied for the visa on 30 June 2016. The applicant stated the following:

My name is [the applicant] I was born on [date] at Huzhou city, Zhejiang province China. I was born in a peasant family and I have been diligent all the time. Because of my hard-working, I was sent to [Country 1] by our company in May 2005. I have been to [Country 1] three years. This experience not only practised my hard-working spirit but also broadened my horizons. I also gained a lot of knowledge. When I returned to China, I wanted to contribute my talent to serve for villagers. Finally the opportunity comes. In May 2015 our village hold the election of village cadres. I volunteered and recommended myself to be one of the candidates. When I prepared to serve the villagers enthusiastically, the harsh reality awakened me and let me feel so despairing. At that time, I clearly recognised that it would be so hard to be a government officer and serve to people if you do not have power or money. I had come to Australia to seek asylum. I hope Australian government can understand my difficult situation and give me protection.

In May 2015 our village held a village cardres election. I so excited to enrol because I want to use what I learned to give back to my village and serve for the villagers very well. I had high prestige in my village. As long as villagers asked me for help, I would try my best to serve them. Another candidate is called [Mr A] who was [age] years old and approaching retirement age. Even though he has four years experience as the head of village. In my opinion, his thoughts were old and cannot keep up with the pace of the times. He did not know how to use computers and any other modern facilities, but only knew how to get good relationships with important leaders in town government. [Mr A] always treat leaders in town using public funds. He oppress villagers, corrupt and do many bad things for people. Many villagers were really angry but were afraid of telling others. Before the election in order to get more votes, [Mr A] gave bags of rice to the villagers and told them that the people who did not vote for him would bear the consequences by themselves. He sent a person to my home and gave me two bottles of famous wine. He had a good attitude and persuaded me to quit the village cadre election but I did not agree. Many villagers feared his revenge and decided to vote to him.

As a result, [Mr A] was elected as the head of the village. Because I did not accept his bribe and sticked to join the election, he held a grudge against me and made up any kind of reason to collect my money. In my opinion, the election should not win votes through bribery and threats. Therefore, I reported these improper actions to the town and hope important leader of the town can give me justice. However, when I got home and found that I was naive. Because of his good relationship with leaders of the town [Mr A] was told by his friends in town about my reporting. He went to my home angrily and threatened me that if I went to petition again he would let my family and I unable to live in the village anymore. I finally understand that how dark the Chinese government is. For their own interests, the leaders shield each other so nobody can give me justice. I was forced to come to Australia [in] October 2015. I found that Australia is a lawful country where there is freedom of speech and no privileges. Officers serve the public sincerely and there is not the phenomenon of corruption in Chinese government. However, because I miss my family so much, I decided to go back to China. When I was back home, [Mr A] got the message immediately and came to my house threatening me not to petition again. He often let me do volunteer work. I felt so depressed and went to Australia again. Even though I miss my family, I am afraid to go back to China. Cause I do not want to be monitored and threatened every day.

3.    The applicant lodged a further statement that was substantially the same as his first statement.

4.    The delegate refused to grant the visa and the applicant applied for review.

5.    The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 21 April 2020 by telephone to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of a NAATI Level 3 interpreter in the Mandarin and English languages.

6.    The applicant stated he came to Australia in October 2015 on a tourist visa and returned to China after 2 months. He applied for a protection visa in January 2016 but was unsuccessful and again applied in April. The Tribunal put to him that it understood he applied in May 2016. He stated he did not know English and gave it to the lawyer and had reapplied in April or May. 

7.    The applicant stated he had lodged an application for a protection visa before his tourist visa ceased. The Tribunal put to him its understanding was that he applied after, that is his tourist visa ceased [in] April 2016, he tried to apply on 5 May 2016 but was unsuccessful and applied on 30 June 2016. He stated he gave everything to the lawyer because he did not speak English and he did not know the exact time.

8.    The applicant confirmed that his English statement had been interpreted back to him in Chinese and was correct. 

9.    The applicant stated he was elected village leader of [his village], that his vote was higher than the current leader but he was not allowed to take the position and they tried to persecute him.

1. The applicant said he came to Australia because of democracy. When asked if anything else had happened to him, he stated they sent people to damage his family, that is his child was not given the hukou stamp that would allow him to go to school. When asked if there was anything else, he stated he was not allowed to leave the village and was not allowed to work. He also stated that was all that had happened to him.

2. When asked why he could not return to China the applicant stated they would not allow him to leave because they were afraid he might lodge a complaint about the village leader elections which they did not allow. He also stated he had wanted to lodge a petition but they did not allow him to go out. When it was put to him that in his protection visa application he had said he won the election which seemed to be different to not being allowed to participate in the election, he stated he was elected but they did not allow him to take the position and his votes were more than the other party.

3. The Tribunal put to him that was not in his protection visa application which said someone else won. The applicant stated his votes were more but the other party was allowed to take the position and he wanted to lodge a complaint but was not allowed.

4. When again asked if there were any consequences beyond what he had said, he stated he could not make a living. When asked if anything else happened to his family, he stated that if he lodged an application, they threatened they would not do good things to his family. The Tribunal put to him that he told the Department that they injured his father and he was in hospital. He stated he had written that in the documents. When asked why he had not revealed that to the Tribunal, he stated the Tribunal had asked him to talk in a simple way and he had already submitted it in his documents.  

5. The Tribunal put to the applicant that what he said at hearing appeared to be different to his written statement and he had told the Department his father was put in hospital but he did not say that unprompted at hearing.  He stated the Tribunal should know the meaning of ‘threaten my family’ which he had said. The Tribunal put to him that threaten means may do something not that they had put his father in hospital. He stated if they had done something that was threatening. The Tribunal put to him that in his statement he had said another person was elected and they threatened that if he petitioned again they would hurt his family which appeared different from what he said at hearing which was that he was unable to complain. He stated there was a communication problem. The Tribunal put to him that he told the Tribunal he knew what was in his statement because it had been read back to him and was correct. He stated the process of submitting the documents was simple and his lawyer did not tell him about all of the documents. He also stated Chinese culture was different from Western culture and maybe the Tribunal did not understand. When asked for specifics about what he thought the Tribunal did not understand, he stated he had said his family was ‘threatened’ which in Chinese culture was the same as ‘beaten’.  

6. Following the hearing, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant as follows:

   Your movement records

   Movement records indicate that you first arrived in Australia [in] October 2015 and departed Australia [in] December 2015. You then arrived in Australia [in] January 2016. Your tourist visa ceased [in] April 2016. You signed a protection visa on 4 May 2016 which you unsuccessfully tried to lodge on 5 May 2016. You lodged a protection visa application on 30 June 2016.

   This is relevant because the Tribunal may not accept that you lodged an application while your tourist visa was valid. If the Tribunal finds this, then subject to your comments, it would find you delayed in applying for your protection visa until after you were unlawful.

   Your interview on 10 January 2017
   At the interview with the Department on 10 January 2017, where you said you understood the interpreter, you stated the following:
   “When the visa was approved it’s about the time they injured my dad and he was in hospital for the bone fracture and also they threatened my son so I have to take care of my dad and wait until he recovered a bit and also get proper arrangement for my son and then I can leave China as soon as possible. At that time they were still concerned I would go up higher to appeal to other authorities.”

   This is relevant because the Tribunal may find you did not state that they had injured your father at hearing until after it was put to you by the Tribunal. If the Tribunal finds this it may not find you credible and, subject to your comments, would affirm the decision under review.

7. The Tribunal did not receive a response.

CRITERIA FOR A PROTECTION VISA

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

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

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

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

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

Mandatory considerations

1. In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.84, made under s.499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken account of the ‘Refugee Law Guidelines’ and ‘Complementary Protection Guidelines’ prepared by the Department of Home Affairs, and 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

Preliminary issue

1. While the Tribunal notes that it spoke to the applicant by telephone, the Tribunal’s observations were that the hearing flowed in an unobstructed manner and the applicant was given ample opportunity to submit all the evidence that he wanted the Tribunal to consider.  It also wrote to the applicant pursuant to section 424A after the hearing.  The Tribunal considers that in these circumstances, it has given the applicant a fair opportunity before, during and after the hearing to provide all the evidence and arguments that he wanted the Tribunal to consider.

Substantive issue

1. The issue in this case is whether the applicant has a well-founded fear of being persecuted for one or more of the five reasons set out in the Refugee definition in China and, if not, whether there are substantial grounds for believing that as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of his being removed from Australia to China, there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm.

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

3. The applicant has stated in his statement provided with his protection visa application that he enrolled as a candidate in his village elections, that another candidate, [Mr A] asked him to quit the competition which he refused to do, that [Mr A] won the election and had a grudge against the applicant, that the applicant reported [Mr A] to town heads and that as a result, [Mr A] came to his house and threatened that if the applicant reported him again, he would no longer be welcomed in the village. He also stated that he came to Australia [in] October 2015 and returned to China but when he got home, was again threatened.

4. However, at hearing the applicant stated that he himself won the election but was not allowed to take the position, that as a result, his child was not given the hukou stamp and he himself was not allowed to work or leave the village and that he could not return to China because they were afraid he might lodge a complaint.

5. The Tribunal finds the applicant’s evidence in relation to who won the election, and whether he had already lodged a complaint has changed with each telling. These details are not insignificant. In addition, the applicant’s evidence in relation to what has happened to his family as a result of his involvement in the election has changed, that is he stated at hearing that they threatened his family but he told the Department they had injured his father who had been hospitalised. Again, these details are not insignificant. When this was put to him at hearing, the applicant stated that the Tribunal had only asked him to talk in a simple way and he had already submitted it in his documents however the Tribunal finds that if as a result of the applicant’s involvement in an election his father had been injured and hospitalised, then the Tribunal expects that he would have consistently stated that. While the applicant has also stated that Chinese culture is different from Western culture and ‘threatened’ means the same as ‘beaten’, the applicant only suggested this as an explanation after the Tribunal put to him that he told the Department that his father had been injured and hospitalised, details the Tribunal does not accept he would have not consistently disclosed if in fact they had occurred.  While the applicant also stated at hearing that his lawyer did not tell him about all of the documents, he stated at the beginning of the hearing that his statement had been interpreted back to him and was correct.

6. In sum, the Tribunal has found that it is not satisfied the applicant has been telling the truth about what has happened to him in China. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant was a candidate for his village election, or that he won. Neither does the Tribunal accept that he nor his family were threatened, nor that his child was denied the hukou, nor that he petitioned against [Mr A] nor that he fears him, nor that he was not allowed to work or leave the village, nor that he was forced to come to Australia or came to Australia because of democracy. Although the Tribunal accepts the applicant wants to remain in Australia, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant holds opinions such that he has a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, or because of his membership of a particular social group or political opinion if he returns to China in the foreseeable future.

7. 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).

8. 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).

9. The Tribunal has rejected the applicant's claims of past harm. Although the Tribunal accepts the applicant wants to remain in Australia, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant has suffered any past harm or holds opinions such that there is a real risk of significant harm. Neither is the Tribunal satisfied that the death penalty will be carried out, or that he will be arbitrarily deprived of his life, or will be subjected to torture, cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment or degrading treatment or punishment.

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).

2. There is no suggestion that the applicant satisfies s.36(2) on the basis of being a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfies s.36(2)(a) or (aa) and who holds a protection visa. Accordingly, the applicant does not satisfy the criterion in s.36(2).

DECISION

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

Angela Cranston
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.

…

5H    Meaning of refugee

1. For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person in Australia, the person is a refugee if the person is:

   (a)     in a case where the person has a nationality – is outside the country of his or her nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country; or

   (b)     in a case where the person does not have a nationality – is outside the country of his or her former habitual residence and owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to return to it.

   Note:     For the meaning of well-founded fear of persecution, see section 5J.

…

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 the 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.

…

1. Protection visas – criteria provided for by this Act

…

1. A criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is:

   (a)     a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee; or

   (aa)  a non-citizen in Australia (other than a non-citizen mentioned in paragraph (a)) 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 the non-citizen being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that the non-citizen will suffer significant harm; or

   (b)     a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:

   (i)is mentioned in paragraph (a); and

   (ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant; or

   (c)     a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:

   (i)is mentioned in paragraph (aa); and

   (ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant.

(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.

…