1707021 (Refugee)

[2020] AATA 355

1707021 (Refugee) [2020] AATA 355 (14 February 2020)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1707021

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Malaysia

MEMBER:Peter Booth

DATE:14 February 2020

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 14 February 2020 at 9:20am

CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Malaysia – relationship opposed by a Member of Parliament – bare assertion of threat – non-appearance before the Tribunal – effective state protection – Royal Malaysia Police (RMP) – Judiciary in Malaysia – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION  
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5H, 36, 65, 360
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 March 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 Malaysia applied for the visa on 15 November 2016. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the applicant did not meet the criteria in s.36(2)(a) or s.36(2)(aa) of the Act.

3. By letter dated 23 January 2020 the Tribunal wrote to the applicant and invited her to attend the hearing of her application for review. The letter was sent by email on 23 January 2020 to the email address provided by the applicant in his application for review. The letter informed the applicant that his application for review would be heard on 16 January 2020 at 2 pm. He was informed he should attend at the Tribunal’s office at Level 4, 15 William Street, Melbourne in Victoria. The applicant did not attend on the appointed day and time.

4. Pursuant to s.36(2B) of the Act where the applicant is invited pursuant to s.360 to appear before the Tribunal and does not appear before the Tribunal on the day on which, or at the time and place at which, the applicant is scheduled to appear, the Tribunal may make a decision on the review without taking any further action to allow or enable the applicant to appear before it. In the circumstances the Tribunal will make a decision on the applicant’s application for review without taking any further action to allow or enable the applicant to appear before it.

   CRITERIA FOR A PROTECTION VISA

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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).

8. 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.

9. 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

10. 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

11. The issue in this case is whether the applicant meets the criteria set out in either s.36(2)(a) or s.36(2)(aa). For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.

12. The facts are taken from the applicant’s protection visa application.

    Applicant summary

    Application for review

13. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration on 6 March 2017 to refuse to grant the visa applicant a Protection (Class XA) Subclass 866 visa under s.65 of the Act.

14. The visa applicant applied for the visa on 15 November 2016.

    Identity and country of reference

15. The applicant is a [age] year old female, born [date] in Terengganu, Malaysia.

16. The applicant can speak, read and write Malay and English.

17. The applicant states she is of Malay ethnicity and belongs to the Muslim faith.

18. The applicant did not specify a country of citizenship on the visa application however a copy of the applicant’s passport, held upon the Department file, suggests that she is a citizen of Malaysia.[1]

    [1] Passport, Department file [number], f. 24.

19. The applicant states she has never been married.

20. The applicant claims to not have any family members whatsoever and claims to not have any contact with relatives or personal contacts in or outside of Australia. 

21. The applicant has not indicated any current or previous education or employment.

22. In summary, the applicant claims that she fell in love and commenced a relationship with a son of a “ MP “ but the  “MP “disapproved of the relationship and threatened to kill her. 

    Migration history

23. The applicant arrived in Australia [in] August 2016 on a [temporary] visa.

24. The applicant applied for an XA-866 Protection visa on 15 November 2016.

    Claims

    866 Visa application

25. The applicant’s claims for protection are contained in her Protection visa application, dated 14 November 2016 as follows:

    89. Why did you leave that country(s)?

    ‘I was fall in love with one MP son. The MP son also love me but I’m from poor family th MP doesn’t like that. He was try to kill me. He send people to follow me everywhere. The MP people’s always misbehave with me. He tell me he want to kill me if I still contact his son.’

    90. What do you think will happen to you if you return to that country(s)?

    ‘If I go back I will be killed by him’

    91. Did you experience harm in that country(s)?

    ‘I will be killed by him’

    92. Did you seek help within that country(s) after the harm?

    ‘My family and friend scared to help’

    93. Did you move, or try to move, to another part of that country(s) to seek safety?

    ‘I cannot move anywhere in my country because he will find me easyly’ (sic)

    94. Do you think you will be harmed or mistreated if you return to that country(s)?

    ‘If I go back I will be killed’

    95. Do you think the authorities of that country(s) can and will protect you if you go back?

    ‘If I do any report on him he will get more report. He will get angry on me.’

    96. Do you think you would be able to relocate within that country(s)?

    ‘I cannot move elsewhere in my country he will find me easily.’

    Evidence and findings of fact

26. The applicant did not appear at the hearing to provide oral testimony in support of her application for review. The applicant had provided no written submissions or evidence in support of her application to the Tribunal. The Department file contains no additional submissions or evidence from the applicant in support of the application for a protection visa. Accordingly the evidence upon which the application is to be assessed is contained solely in the applicant’s written application for a protection visa dated 14 November 2016 and received by the Department on 15 November 2016. The applicant’s answers to the relevant questions are set out above. In summary the applicant claimed that she was in a relationship with the son of an “MP and that the “MP” had threatened to kill her if she continued with the relationship. She also asserted that she could not relocate within the country because “he will find me easyly (sic)” and that if she returned to Malaysia she “will be killed”. The applicant also asserted that she had not reported this threat to the authorities of Malaysia. In that regard she said “if I do any report on him he will get more report. He will get angry on me”. The applicant did not explain in the application the meaning of the acronym or abbreviation “MP” however the Tribunal assumes in the applicant’s favour that this is intended to be a reference to a Member of Parliament of Malaysia.

27. Based upon the applicant’s answers to other questions in the application for a protection visa, the substance of which is also set out above, the Tribunal finds that the applicant:

    a)    is a [age] year old female, born [date] in Terengganu, Malaysia.

    b)    can speak, read and write Malay and English.

    c)    is of Malay ethnicity and belongs to the Muslim faith.

    d)    is a citizen of Malaysia.

    e)    has never been married.

    The country information

28. In accordance with the Ministerial Direction No.84 made pursuant to s.499 of the Act, the Tribunal also had regard to the country information assessments prepared by the DFAT. In particular as follows from DFAT Country Information Malaysia, 13 December 2019 (footnotes omitted):

    a.Royal Malaysia Police (RMP)

    5.5 The RMP is based on the British constabulary model, and employs approximately 115,000 officers and operates 837 police stations across Malaysia. The Inspector General of Police is responsible for the RMP and reports to the Minister for Home Affairs. Local and international sources consider the RMP to be a professional and effective police force, although the quality of its members’ responses varies depending on levels of training, capacity and engagement in corruption. RMP officers receive limited training, particularly on human rights. Suhakam conducts some human rights training and workshops for police and prison officials. Police officers are among the lowest paid members of the Malaysian civil service. The RMP is 80 – 85 per cent Bumiputera. The government undertakes targeted recruitment to increase the number of women, Chinese Malaysians and Indian Malaysians.

    5.6 According to Transparency International, Malaysians perceive the police as one of the most corrupt institutions in the country (see Corruption). The 2005 Royal Commission to Enhance the Operation and Management of the Royal Malaysia Police identified a perception of widespread corruption within the RMP. In response, the government publicly acknowledged the existence of police corruption and implemented reforms including establishing compliance units within RMP. A number of police officers were subsequently tried by criminal and civil courts, with disciplinary actions including suspension, dismissal or demotion.

    5.7 External investigations into allegations of police misconduct are done by the Enforcement Agency Integrity Commission, which monitors enforcement agencies for misconduct but can only make recommendations to the disciplinary authorities of the enforcement agency in question. Low levels of success in criminal prosecution have led to an increase in the number of victims’ families seeking compensation through civil courts.

    5.8 The then-Inspector General of Police announced the establishment of an Integrity and Standards Compliance Department in July 2014 to enhance police integrity and image. It sits within the RMP. Suhakam also receives complaints against the RMP, and has investigated police behaviour. The government is not formally required to consider Suhakam’s reports or recommendations.

    …

    b.Judiciary

    5.13 The Federal Court is the highest judicial authority in Malaysia, followed by the Court of Appeal, High Courts at state level, and subordinate courts. Syariah courts operate at state level with jurisdiction over Muslims in personal matters. The subordinate civil courts hear the majority of Malaysia’s criminal, civil and family law matters for non-Muslims. A Judicial Appointments Commission makes judicial appointments, subject to the Prime Minister’s final approval. Eighty-two per cent of members of the Federal Court are Malay Muslims. Judges receive relatively low salaries, limited training, and many are new graduates.

    5.14 Sources report issues of judicial independence, arbitrary verdicts, selective prosecution, delays to court-ordered relief for civil plaintiffs, and preferential treatment of some litigants and lawyers persist in Malaysia. The ability of individuals to seek legal redress through Malaysian courts is variable. Sources advise that defendants generally have adequate time to prepare a defence, particularly those with the financial means to engage private counsel. Government legal aid resources are limited and generally of poor quality. Although strict rules of evidence apply in court, defence counsel reportedly does not consistently receive state-held evidence. According to a leading human rights NGO, a Court of Appeal judge claimed a senior judge had reprimanded him after writing a dissenting statement in 2018. The slow movement of cases through the under-resourced court system can lead to lengthy pre-trial detention periods: in mid-2017, 29.8 per cent of the total prison population comprised pre-trial detainees (see Detention and Prison).

    …

    5.17 DFAT assesses that while courts have issued contentious verdicts, particularly in instances involving high-profile politicians and human rights defenders, most cases in Malaysian civil courts comply with the rule of law and legal procedure.

29. The country information informs the Tribunal as follows. The Malaysian authorities – including the RMP – are effective in maintaining law and order. Secondly the judiciary complies with the rule of law and legal procedure. Next, there is also no indication in the country information as identified above that the applicant would not receive assistance, if requested, from the RMP in respect to any threat, actual or perceived, from another person whether that person is a member of Parliament or not. Lastly, there is nothing in the country information to suggest that the Malaysian authorities would be unable or unwilling to protect the applicant in their particular circumstances.

    Conclusions

30. The applicant chose not to appear at the hearing of her application for review and did not provide any evidence in support of her assertions in the application document in which she sought a protection visa. Accordingly the applicant’s assertions of a threat by an unidentified person were not made on oath nor has the Tribunal had an opportunity to test them. The applicant provided no detail of the bare assertion of a threat by an unidentified person. The Tribunal does not accept the applicant’s claims.

31. Having regard to the evidence the Tribunal makes the following findings:

    (a)  the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant fears being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion;

    (b)  the Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a real chance that, if the applicant is returned to Malaysia, the applicant would be persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion;

    (c)  the Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a real chance of persecution that relates to all areas of Malaysia;

    (d)  the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution;

    (e)  the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a refugee in accordance with s.5H(1) of the Act; and

    (f)  the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations pursuant to s.36(2)(a) of the Act.

    Complementary protection criteria assessment – s.36(2)(aa)

32. 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 has considered whether there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Malaysia, there is a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm.

33. The mere fact that an applicant claims to face a real risk of significant harm does not establish that such a risk exists, or if that harm feared amounts to ‘significant harm’. It remains for the applicant to satisfy the Tribunal that all the statutory elements are made out. Although the concept of onus of proof is not appropriate to administrative enquiries and decision-making, the relevant facts of the individual case must be provided by the applicant.

34. While the Tribunal is required to adopt a reasonable approach to such matters, the Tribunal is not required to make the applicant’s case out for the applicant. Neither is the Tribunal required to accept uncritically any and all of the allegations made by the applicant. In respect of the Tribunal’s assessment in regard to complementary protection, the Tribunal adopts the findings stated above in relation to the refugee criterion assessment.

35. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(aa).

36. 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

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

    Peter Booth
    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.

    …

    36    Protection visas – criteria provided for by this Act

    …

    (2)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.

    …