1712380 (Refugee)

[2017] AATA 3179

1712380 (Refugee) [2017] AATA 3179 (29 November 2017)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1712380

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Malaysia

MEMBER:Lilly Mojsin

DATE:29 November 2017

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 29 November 2017 at 10:28am

CATCHWORDS
Refugee – Protection visa – Malaysia – Federal Circuit Court appeal – Ethnicity – Indian Tamil Malay – Witness to workplace theft – Subject to gangster threats – State protection available – Decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 36, 65
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2

CASES
MIAC v MZYYL (2012) 207 FCR 211

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 26 May 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 a protection visa [PVA] on 28 February 2017.

3. The applicant appealed that decision to this Tribunal on 12 June 2017 attaching a copy of the Department decision to his application.

4. The applicant attended a Tribunal hearing held on 4 October 2017. The applicant was assisted by the services of an interpreter. The applicant acknowledged at the commencement of the hearing that he understood the interpreter and did not, during the hearing, claim that he did not understand the interpreter.

   CRITERIA FOR A PROTECTION VISA

5. See Annexure A.

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

6. The applicant's claims are contained in Department file[number], and evidence given to the Tribunal at a hearing.

7. In his PVA the applicant said that he is [an age] year old, ethnic Indian Tamil Malay citizen from Perak. He states, in his PVA, that he is a Christian Hindu. The applicant worked as [an occupation] in  [Workplace 1]. The applicant witnessed his co-workers stealing items from the [Workplace 1].  The co-workers threatened to kill the applicant if he reported the matter.  The co-workers hired thugs to kill the applicant. He provided no information about his education or employment in Malaysia.

8. At the Tribunal hearing the applicant confirmed that he wrote his own claims and the information contained in his PVA was true and correct.  He said that he arrived in Australia on 5 December 2016 and applied for the visa on 28 February 2017.

9. He finished high school in Perak. He found a job in [a certain area]. He did that for 10 years and after that he worked in [another area] for 3 years. He wanted to get married and so went back to [that area] in which he continued to work. He worked for a boss, that is, a private person who had his own business.

10. Since living in Australia he is [working]. He came as a visitor and found this job.

11. The applicant then said that in Malaysia he and his girlfriend were working in a [Workplace 1] in Perak. Her relatives also worked there. Whilst they were [working], the relatives took a laptop and phone. When the relatives left the room he noticed the relatives had taken the phone and laptop of [other people]. He told them not to take the items. His boss came to know about the theft and called them in for questioning. He told the boss what happened. Then his girlfriend’s relative got hold of some gangsters to attack him, they came looking for him at his house. He found it was dangerous for him to stay there and so he got an opportunity to come to Australia. His girlfriend stayed in Malaysia. Because of this issue there is a rift.  His boss warned the relatives.  

12. This incident happened in October or November 2016. He left his job himself and he moved to another place, Ipoh. It is 20 kilometres away. Nothing happened to him in Ipoh. But they chased him and threatened him. He did not report it to the police. He felt that it was dangerous to do so.

13. It was also put to the applicant that police can take action if someone resorts to violence.  He said that one of the gangsters is well known to the police. He was not bold enough to report to the police. He said that the gangsters did not physically harm him.

14. When asked why he did not move to another part of Malaysia, he said that he did not have that much of details but he got an opportunity to come to Australia as he preferred to come to Australia to avoid problems.

15. It was put to the applicant that he came to Australia for economic purposes to obtain work. He came said he came to avoid the danger.

16. When asked why he cannot return to Malaysia, the applicant said because of this danger the problem will come up again.   

17. The Tribunal discussed independent evidence with the applicant regarding the Malaysian police force. DFAT[1] reports that the Malaysian police are generally considered to be a professional and effective police force. It was put to the applicant that DFAT assesses that while Indian Malaysians generally have a lower socio-economic position than bumiputra or Chinese Malaysians, they generally do not experience discrimination or violence on a day-to-day basis. Police respond to attacks on the Indian community. He agreed.

    [1] DFAT Country Information Report , Malaysia , 19 July 2016

18. Asked if there are any other reason he feared harm other than gangsters over a theft that he did not report he said that it is life threatening. He said he has no access to police as those gangster members have police connections. It was put that he can report to the police if the police do not take action. He said he does not know much detail.

19. The Tribunal asked the applicant if he had any concerns he would be harmed for political or religious reasons if he went back to Malaysia. He said no.

    REASONS AND FINDINGS

20. On the basis of his Malaysian passport, I accept that the applicant is a national of Malaysia and not national or citizen of any other country. I accept that he does not have a right to enter and reside in any country other than Malaysia. Therefore I find that the applicant is not excluded from Australia's protection by subsection 36(3) of the Act. I also find that Malaysia is the applicant’s “receiving country” for the purposes of s.36(2)(aa).

21. I accept that the applicant in an ethnic Christian Hindu Tamil Indian. I accept that the applicant reported a theft by his former girlfriend’s relatives when they were working in a [Workplace 1] together [and] that he reported the theft to his boss. As a consequence his former girlfriend’s relatives hired gangsters who came looking for him at his house. He moved to Ipoh where they found him, they chased him and threatened him but they did not physically harm him. He did not report the incident to the police. 

22. The applicant fears harm from gangsters because he reported his former girlfriend’s relatives to their boss for theft. He does not claim that he fears harm for his ethnicity, his religion or his political opinion.

23. When considering whether the applicant belongs to a ‘particular social group’ such as victims of persons threatened by gangsters or his former girlfriend’s relatives who seek to harm him I must assess if they are a ‘particular social group’ as defined in s.5L of the Act. The characteristic or element which unites the group cannot normally be a common fear of persecution. I do not accept that gangsters or his former girlfriend’s relatives are a particular social group because it is the common fear of persecution that unites the persons belonging to such groups.

24. The applicant was chased and threatened by gangsters because of what he had done ie report his former girlfriend’s relatives to their boss for theft. I find that the essential and significant reason for the harm feared by the applicant is not for his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.

25. I do not accept that being chased and threatened amounts to serious harm as explained in S.5J(5).  It does not involve a threat to the applicant’s life or liberty, or significant physical harassment of the applicant, or significant physical ill-treatment of the applicant or significant economic hardship that threatens the applicant’s capacity to subsist or a denial of access to basic services, where the denial threatens the applicant's capacity to subsist or a denial of capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind, where the denial threatens the person's capacity to subsist.

26. I am satisfied that the applicant was not persecuted for reasons of his race, religion, nationality, membership of particular social group or political opinion in Malaysia.  I am satisfied that he did not flee Malaysia fearing harm but came to Australia for economic reasons, in order to work.

27. I am required to consider if the applicant, an ethnic Christian Hindu Tamil Indian, would be persecuted or would suffer significant harm in the future if he were to return to Malaysia. The applicant does not suggest that he would return to work in the [Workplace 1] with his former girlfriend or her relatives.

28. July 2016 DFAT Report on Malaysia indicates the following.

    Indian Malaysians

    3.11 Indian Malaysians constitute the third largest ethnic group in Malaysia. There are no laws or constitutional provisions that directly discriminate against Indian Malaysians.

    3.12 Indian Malaysians predominantly live in major urban centres, including Kuala Lumpur, Penang, Negeri Sembilan, Selangor and Perak on Peninsular Malaysia. Most Indian Malaysians form part of the working classes but according to 2010 official figures they also represent a high proportion of professionals (15.5 per cent) including 38 per cent of the entire medical workforce. Access to primary and secondary education is high, with 524 state-based Tamil-language schools across Malaysia. However, access to state-based tertiary education remains low with approximately six per cent of student places at public universities offered to Indian applicants. The predominant use of the Malay language can be a major barrier to Indian employment in the civil service. However, in 2015 an Indian Malaysian was appointed as Chief of Police in Kuala Lumpur, the first non-Malay to hold this position.

    3.13 While some belong to the upper-middle class, many Indian Malaysians remain poor, in contrast to increased prosperity in the Malay and Chinese communities. Gangs comprised of Indians make up the majority of street-level criminal gangs and Indian Malaysians comprise a disproportionately high number of incarcerated persons, with some figures suggesting they represent up to 48 per cent of the prison population.

    3.14 Indian Malaysians freely participate in political life. The Malaysian Indian Congress is part of the ruling BN coalition but does not necessarily receive support from the bulk of the Malaysian Indian community, with many voting for the opposition in the 2013 elections.

    There are several members of parliament of ethnic Indian origin and three serving ministers within the current government as well as the current President of the Senate, appointed in April 2016.

29. The Royal Malaysian Police (RMP) report to the federal Minister for Home Affairs and is responsible for law enforcement nationwide[2].  DFAT[3] reports that the Malaysian police are generally considered to be a professional and effective police force.  According to DFAT Malaysia 2016, Police Integrity and Accountability

    The Royal Malaysia Police [RMP] employs approximately 102,000 officers and operates 837 police stations across Malaysia. The Inspector General of Police is responsible for the RMP and reports to the Home Affairs Minister. Credible local and international sources consider the RMP to be a professional and effective police force. However, the quality of the RMP’s responses varies depending on levels of training, capacity or engagement in corruption.

    The Royal Commission to Enhance the Operation and Management of the RMP in 2005 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 the RMP. Police officers were subject to trial by criminal and civil courts and disciplinary action was taken against officers found guilty, including suspension, dismissal or demotion.

    [2]

    [3] DFAT Country Information Report , Malaysia , 19 July 2016

30. The applicant did not report being threatened with harm by the gangsters employed by his former girlfriend’s relatives because the applicant believed that one of the gangsters is well known to the police.

31. I accept that corruption and bribery exist in the police force. The United States Department of State Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for Malaysia indicates that Malaysia has a working criminal law and legal system and the provision of a reasonably effective and impartial police and justice system. English common law is the basis for the secular legal system. The constitution states that all persons are equal before the law and entitled to equal protection of the law. There is no country information before me that indicates that the State would be complicit in the sense that it encourages, condones or tolerates the claimed harm feared. The country information referred to in relation to the Malaysian authorities indicates that the Malaysian authorities would not withhold protection to ethnic Christian Tamil Indians.

32. I have considered DFAT Malaysia Report, noted above, and as the applicant has never sought to work in the civil service or gain entry to tertiary level education, I do not accept that the applicant faces a real chance of persecution involving serious harm were he to return to Malaysia in the reasonably foreseeable future, as an ethnic Christian Tamil Indian or because he belongs to a minority group in Malaysia.

33. The Malaysian police force is perceived to be 'professional and effective', and Malaysia has a functioning rule of law with active and ongoing efforts by law enforcement to pursue gangs.

34. I am satisfied, as discussed above, that the Malaysian authorities have in place effective protection measures.  Malaysia is willing and able to offer such protection. I am satisfied that the applicant can access protection, the protection is durable and there is an appropriate criminal law, a reasonably effective police force and an impartial judicial system in Malaysia.

35. I have considered the applicant's claims and evidence individually and cumulatively. I am satisfied that the Malaysian state will not withhold protection from ethnic Christian Tamil Indian who is pursued by gangsters because he has reported a theft to the police. I find that the applicant does not have a real chance that, if returned to Malaysia, he would suffer persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph 5J(1)(a). I find that the applicant does not have a well-founded fear of persecution for these reasons.

36. I have considered whether the applicant meets the complementary protection criterion under s.36(2)(aa).

37. As stated above, I reject the applicant’s claim he has suffered persecution or any harm in Malaysia, as an ethnic Christian Hindu Tamil Indian.  Therefore I find remote the chance that the applicant will suffer significant harm on return to Malaysia as an ethnic Christian Hindu Tamil Indian.

38. Under s.36(2B)(b), there is taken not to be a real risk of significant harm if 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'. This requires consideration as to whether the protection available would remove the real risk of significant harm: MIAC v MZYYL (2012) 207 FCR 211. I have found earlier that state protection would be available to the applicant.

39. The independent evidence, discussed above indicates that there is an effective legal system for detection, prosecution and punishment in Malaysia and these systems meet international standards. There is no independent evidence before me to suggest that the government does not take effective measures against gangsters who seek to harm residents of Malaysia or ethnic Christian Tamil Hindus.  I am of the view that were it the situation it would be known to independent sources such as DFAT, US State Department reports on Human Rights Practices and Amnesty International. I am satisfied that the protection available by Malaysia removes the real risk of significant harm and that protection is available and real. I am satisfied that protection against significant harm can be provided to the applicant by the Malaysian State and that the Malaysian State is willing and able to offer such protection.

40. I am not satisfied that 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 ie that there is a real risk that he will be arbitrarily deprived of his life, that the death penalty will be carried out on him, that he will be subjected to torture, that he will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment or that he will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment. Accordingly, I find that the applicant does not satisfy the requirements of s.36(2)(aa) of the Act.

41. 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).

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

43. 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.

44. Accordingly, the applicant does not satisfy the criterion in s.36(2).

    DECISION

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

    Lilly Mojsin
    Member

    
    

    ANNEXURE A

    CRITERIA FOR A PROTECTION VISA

46. 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.

47. 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.

48. 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).

49. 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.  

1. 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

2. 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.

   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.

   …