1718335 (Refugee)

[2018] AATA 5094

1718335 (Refugee) [2018] AATA 5094 (26 October 2018)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1718335

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Malaysia

MEMBER:Anne Grant

DATE:26 October 2018

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 26 October 2018 at 1:25pm

CATCHWORDS

REFUGEE – protection visa – Malaysia – risk of harm based on threat directed at applicant's father – infant child born in Australia – family harassment – inter-caste marriage – internal relocation – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5, 5H, 5J, 5K, 5L, 5LA, 36, 65, 499

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 on 16 August 2017 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The applicant is an infant child born on [date of birth] to Malaysian parents then (and who remain) in Australia.  He applied for the visa on 20 March 2017.

   CRITERIA FOR A PROTECTION VISA

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

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

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

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

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

   Mandatory considerations

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

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

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

10. I have agreed with the written requests from their representative to combine this application and that of his two siblings, [Child 1] (case 1801403) and [Child 2] (case 1709247) with that of their parents, and the matters were therefore heard and considered together.   A hearing was conducted on 10 July 2018 and the tribunal was assisted by a Tamil interpreter.    A written decision has been provided in the parents’ case. Due to separate cases having been generated for each of the children, separate decisions will be written for each of the children but, due to the common nature of the evidence as it applies to them, the decisions will all refer to and rely on my principal findings in their related parent’s application. In each of the children’s cases, I rely on the applicant’s father’s written submissions and his evidence at hearing that the applicants’ parents intend to care for their children and have no intention of them returning to Malaysia alone.  I have proceeded on the basis that, as infant children, if they were to return to Malaysia it would be in the care of one or both of their parents.

11. This applicant’s written claims for protection were that:

    ·He has no one to care for him in Malaysia;

    ·Because of his age, the applicant is completely dependent on his parents and would not survive in Malaysia alone;

    ·His mother’s family would kill him if he returned to Malaysia.

12. In a written submission made before the hearing on 2 July 2018, the applicant’s representative submitted that: The children’s claims similarly are based on the ground that if they were compelled to return to their country of origin, their father’s life would be in danger and therefore they would be in danger of the consequent effects of the serious harm threatened to their father. 

13. I accept that the applicant, having been born in Australia, has not been to Malaysia.  As discussed above, I rely on the applicant’s father’s evidence and have proceeded on the basis that the applicant’s parents intend to care for the child and had no intention of them returning to Malaysia alone and would be in the care of one or both of his parents.

14. In summary, the applicant’s parents have a fear of being persecuted by the applicant’s maternal extended family and people associated with them due to that family disapproving of their marriage because of differences in their castes.  The applicant’s parents have been subjected to physical assaults and verbal harassment and threats from when they married in 2012 until they left the country in 2015. The last physical assault on the applicant’s father occurred in October 2013.   

15. In relation to the applicant, the evidence from the written claims and sworn evidence of his parents is that critically, they specifically denied that their children were at risk of physical harm or being killed by the maternal grandparents or family if they were to return to Malaysia.  Their evidence was that those people expressed only an interest in the applicant’s father and required him to take the applicant with him and leave his wife.  At no stage was the applicant (who was not born at the time) the subject of any threat of harm.

16. I repeat and rely on the following summarised evidence from my related decision for the applicant’s parents:

    ·Both applicants acknowledged that the principal victim in this situation is the first applicant, who has been targeted repeatedly by the second applicant’s family.  The child [Child 2] was never the subject of any interest by her family, and the second applicant’s family is not aware that they have two other children.  They wanted the first applicant to leave the second, and take the child with him. According to the applicants’ submissions at hearing, they do not consider the children would be targeted or of any interest to the second applicant’s family.  Their sole purpose appears to be separating the primary applicants.

17. Based on the written and verbal evidence of the applicant’s parents, I find that the written claims referred to in paragraph 11 above that the applicant may be harmed or killed by his mother’s family has no basis and I reject it.  I have proceeded on the basis that, if the child were to return to Malaysia, he would do so with one or both of his parents and I also reject the claim that he would have ‘no one to care for him’ in Malaysia. 

18. I find that the evidence before me does not establish that the applicant is personally at risk of any harm (being assaulted or killed) if he were to be returned to Malaysia, from his maternal extended family or from corrupted police or any persons associated with that family.  In his parents’ case, I found that they faced a real chance of serious harm in their home area of Kuala Lumpur and Selangor from his mother’s family or people associated with them, but not outside those areas.  If I proceed on the basis that familial harassment and the threat of violence to his parents can be considered to include the applicant as a member of that household, I make the same findings in this case.  That is, I find that, by extension of his being in the home with his parents, there is a real chance that the applicant may face serious harm (being present during an attack on his parents, in the presence of threats and abuse being made by phone) if the family was to return and live in the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur and the State of Selangor.   

19. I also refer to and rely on my findings in case number 1605150 as follows:

    ·After considering the evidence before me as a whole, I find that the real chance of harm [to the applicant’s parents] is localised in Kuala Lumpur, and the area where the applicant’s father was known to historically work, including the State of Selangor.  I find that there is insufficient evidence for me to be satisfied that the real chance of persecution they fear persists throughout Malaysia.  I consider that the applicants could relocate to other States apart from the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur and the State of Selangor in Malaysia and that the chance that they would or could be found and harassed by their persecutors there would be remote.  I find that the real chance of persecution does not relate to all areas of the country. 

20. I find that the real chance of persecution does not relate to all areas of Malaysia as required by s.5J(c) and does not persist outside of Kuala Lumpur and Selangor. The applicant does not satisfy the criterion set out in s.36(2)(a) for a protection visa.

    Complementary protection

21. According to s.36(2)(aa), a criterion for a protection visa is that the person 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.

22. I find, based on the written and verbal information and evidence before me, that there are no grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Malaysia,  that there is a real risk that he would suffer significant harm directly.  However, if I consider him as a member of the family in the same home  with his parents, I again rely on and refer to my findings and discussion in relation to their complementary protection claims in case 1605150:

    ·I have found that there is a real chance of the applicants facing serious harm if they were to return to their home area, which I have identified as the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur and the State of Selangor.  For the same reasons as discussed above, I am satisfied that there is a real risk (in the sense that it is a higher than remote risk) of the applicants suffering significant harm (in the form of continuous harassment and threats of serious physical assault amounting to cruel or inhuman treatment or degrading treatment or punishment by the second applicant’s family or people associated with them) if they were to return to Kuala Lumpur or Selangor.

    ·However, s.36(2B) provides that there is taken not to be a real risk that a person will suffer significant harm in a country if satisfied that it would be reasonable for the person to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the person will suffer significant harm.  For the same reasons as discussed above, I consider that there is not a real risk that the applicants will suffer significant harm, from the second applicant’s family, their associates or corrupt local police if they were to return to Malaysia and relocate outside of Selangor or Kuala Lumpur.  I have also found that the risk of the applicants being located and/or harmed by the extended family of the second applicant, by corrupt police or by the Tamil community outside Kuala Lumpur or Selangor is remote.

    ·I note the following information from DFAT’s most recent report on Malaysia, (19 April 2018) as discussed at hearing:

    INTERNAL RELOCATION

    5.18 Malaysia’s Constitution provides for freedom of internal movement, but the eastern states of Sabah and Sarawak have autonomy over their own immigration. Non-Sabah or Sarawak residents, whether Malaysian citizens or foreigners, must present national identity cards (or passports for foreigners) to gain entry and can visit for a maximum period of three months. The federal government can overrule immigration decisions made by Sabah or Sarawak in limited circumstances, including for national security reasons.

    5.19 Sabah and Sarawak both issue working visas to non-residents (including other Malaysians), but these can be difficult to obtain. Both states limit purchase of land by non-residents. Far more people migrate from Sarawak and Sabah to peninsula Malaysia than in the other direction, due to better work opportunities and higher salaries.

    5.20 In recent years, Sabah and Sarawak have denied entry to a small number of individuals. The Official Secrets Act contains the list of individuals banned from entering, and is not available to the public. During the Sarawak state election in May 2016, opposition leaders including PKR's Vice President Nurul Izzah Anwar, Selangor Chief Minister Azmin Ali, and DAP's Liew Chin Tong were denied entry on arrival in Sarawak. In March 2016, Tony Pua, Selangor state DAP Chief was refused entry into Sarawak. In 2015, Teresa Kok, a Chinese Malaysian and vice-Chairman of the DAP, was prevented from entering Sabah and the Hindu Rights Action Force chairman P Waythamoorthy was denied entry into Sarawak. DFAT is not aware of any instances of authorities denying an individual’s exit from Sabah or Sarawak.

    5.21 DFAT assesses that, subject to the restrictions outlined above in relation to Sabah and Sarawak, Malaysians can and do freely relocate internally. Individuals likely to attract official attention under state sharia-based law, including transgender individuals, women escaping domestic violence or Muslims wishing to marry a non-Muslim, often move to large urban centres to avoid attention. People also move to different parts of Malaysia, generally larger urban areas in peninsula Malaysia, for economic reasons. 

    ·The first applicant has worked in [a specified field] in Malaysia and Australia, and I conclude that he has important employment skills which would serve him well in re-establishing himself in Malaysia.  At hearing, the applicants conceded that they could relocate within Malaysia and that the first applicant would be able to find work, as he had in the past.  The applicants have always lived independently of their families once married, and I am satisfied that they have no particular financial or emotional need nor desire to return to their previous region of residence or to locate close to either applicant’s family if they were to return to Malaysia.  They could therefore choose to relocate throughout the country outside of those two regions where they have encountered persecution in the past.  I have considered the country information about freedom of movement and the availability of relocation in Malaysia (save for some difficulties identified by DFAT surrounding relocation to Sabah and Sarawak.) I note their evidence about the possibility of relocation and have also taken into account the first applicant’s resourcefulness and history of skilled employment. I consider that there are no practical impediments to the applicants relocating and re-establishing themselves in Malaysia.   

    ·In his written submissions, the applicant’s representative submitted that relocation is ‘complicated by the issue of religion’, noting that some Malaysian states are ‘stridently Islamic’  and have enacted laws proscribing behaviour that [the first applicant] and his family find quite normal.  “This is especially the case for [the second applicant] and her two daughters, who would find the strictures in regard to dress codes and other cultural prohibitions relating to women, unreasonable.”[1] 

    ·Islam is the official religion of Malaysia and Muslim practices and customs are performed throughout the country, and such will have been the experience of the applicants throughout their lifetimes in Malaysia.  On this point, I also note and rely on the general country information which clearly states that Islamic law applies only to Islamic citizens of Malaysia. [2]  The applicants are not Muslim, but are Hindu.  The submission does not outline the particular issues about religion (apart from dress codes and cultural prohibitions relating to women) which it is said would affect the reasonableness of the applicants’ capacity to relocate.  Those dress codes and cultural provisions prescribed by Islamic law of course only apply to Islamic citizens.  At no stage in their written and oral evidence have the applicants argued that they would be harmed or that they feared harm in Malaysia due to their religion.  In relation to the issue of relocation, I consider that this submission equates to an argument that it would not be reasonable to expect the applicants to relocate because throughout Malaysia (where they have each grown up) they would be again exposed to Muslim culture and rules with which they may disagree or find confronting. For the reasons above, I do not accept that it is unreasonable for the applicants to relocate on the basis that they will be exposed to Islamic customs and practices throughout the country.

    ·I find that the applicants could reasonably relocate within Malaysia to areas and cities outside of the State of Selangor and the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur and that if they were to do so, there would not be a real risk that they will suffer significant harm.   Consequently, there is taken not to be a real risk that the applicants will suffer significant harm in Malaysia as described in s.36(2B).

    [1] Adobe Migration Lawyers submission, page 13

    [2] See for example:  DFAT report at 3.28 and 3.29:

    3.28 Malaysia has a two-track legal system: common law, administered at federal level; and sharia-based law, administered at the state level, which varies by jurisdiction. Matters considered by states under sharia-based law relate to succession, betrothal, marriage, divorce, adoption, guardianship, approval of mosques or any Islamic place of worship, and the ‘determination of matters of Islamic law and Malay customs’. The federal government delivers national rulings and provides guidance to state religious departments through the National Department of Islamic Development (JAKIM) and the National Fatwa Council. These bodies sit within the Prime Minister’s portfolio.

    3.29 Sharia-based law applies only to ‘persons professing the religion of Islam’. However, the enforcement of sharia sometimes affects non-Muslims, particularly on matters involving religious conversion and family.

1. For those same reasons, I find that the applicant could reasonably relocate (with his parents) within Malaysia to areas and cities outside of Selangor and Kuala Lumpur and that if he were to do so, there would not be a real risk that he will suffer significant harm.

2. For the reasons given above, I am not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(a) or under s.36(2)(aa).

3. I am satisfied that the applicant is a member of the same family unit with his [parents].   They do not currently hold protection visas.  The applicant also does not satisfy 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

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

   Anne Grant
   Member

   
   

   ATTACHMENT  -  Extract from Migration Act 1958

   5 (1) Interpretation
   …
   cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment means an act or omission by which:

   (a)severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person; or

   (b)pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person so long as, in all the circumstances, the act or omission could reasonably be regarded as cruel or inhuman in nature;

   but does not include an act or omission:

   (c)that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or

   (d)arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.

   …
   degrading treatment or punishment means an act or omission that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation which is unreasonable, but does not include an act or omission:

   (a)that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or

   (b)that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.

   …
   torture means an act or omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person:

   (a)for the purpose of obtaining from the person or from a third person information or a confession; or

   (b)for the purpose of punishing the person for an act which that person or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed; or

   (c)for the purpose of intimidating or coercing the person or a third person; or

   (d)for a purpose related to a purpose mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c); or

   (e)for any reason based on discrimination that is inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant;

   but does not include an act or omission arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.

   …
   receiving country,  in relation to a non-citizen, means:

   (a)a country of which the non-citizen is a national, to be determined solely by reference to the law of the relevant country; or

   (b)if the non-citizen has no country of nationality—a country of his or her former habitual residence, regardless of whether it would be possible to return the non-citizen to the country.

   …

   5J Meaning of well-founded fear of persecution

   (1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person has a well-founded fear of persecution if:

   (a)     the person fears being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion; and

   (b)     there is a real chance that, if the person returned to the receiving country, the person would be persecuted for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (a); and

   (c)     the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of a receiving country.

   Note:    For membership of a particular social group, see sections 5K and 5L.

   (2)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country.

   Note:    For effective protection measures, see section 5LA.

   (3)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if the person could take reasonable steps to modify his or her behaviour so as to avoid a real chance of persecution in a receiving country, other than a modification that would:

   (a)     conflict with a characteristic that is fundamental to the person’s identity or conscience; or

   (b)     conceal an innate or immutable characteristic of the person; or

   (c)     without limiting paragraph (a) or (b), require the person to do any of the following:

   (i)alter his or her religious beliefs, including by renouncing a religious conversion, or conceal his or her true religious beliefs, or cease to be involved in them practice of his or her faith;

   (ii)conceal his or her true race, ethnicity, nationality or country of origin;

   (iii)alter his or her political beliefs or conceal his or her true political beliefs;

   (iv)conceal a physical, psychological or intellectual disability;

   (v)enter into or remain in a marriage to which that person is opposed, or accept the forced marriage of a child;

   (vi)alter his or her sexual orientation or gender identity or conceal his or her true sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.

   (4)If a person fears persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a):

   (a)     that reason must be the essential and significant reason, or those reasons must be the essential and significant reasons, for the persecution; and

   (b)     the persecution must involve serious harm to the person; and

   (c)     the persecution must involve systematic and discriminatory conduct.

   (5)Without limiting what is serious harm for the purposes of paragraph (4)(b), the following are instances of serious harm for the purposes of that paragraph:

   (a)     a threat to the person’s life or liberty;

   (b)     significant physical harassment of the person;

   (c)     significant physical ill‑treatment of the person;

   (d)     significant economic hardship that threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;

   (e)     denial of access to basic services, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;

   (f)    denial of capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist.

   (6)In determining whether the person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a), any conduct engaged in by the person in Australia is to be disregarded unless the person satisfies the Minister that the person engaged in the conduct otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening the person’s claim to be a refugee.

   5K  Membership of a particular social group consisting of family

   For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person (the first person), in determining whether the first person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for the reason of membership of a particular social group that consists of the first person’s family:

   (a)     disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced, where the reason for the fear or persecution is not a reason mentioned in paragraph 5J(1)(a); and

   (b)     disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that:

   (i)the first person has ever experienced; or

   (ii)any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced;

   where it is reasonable to conclude that the fear or persecution would not exist if it were assumed that the fear or persecution mentioned in paragraph (a) had never existed.

   Note: Section 5G may be relevant for determining family relationships for the purposes of this section.

   5L  Membership of a particular social group other than family

   For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person is to be treated as a member of a particular social group (other than the person’s family) if:

   (a)     a characteristic is shared by each member of the group; and

   (b)     the person shares, or is perceived as sharing, the characteristic; and

   (c)     any of the following apply:

   (i)the characteristic is an innate or immutable characteristic;

   (ii)the characteristic is so fundamental to a member’s identity or conscience, the member should not be forced to renounce it;

   (iii)the characteristic distinguishes the group from society; and

   (d)     the characteristic is not a fear of persecution.

   5LA  Effective protection measures

   (1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country if:

   (a)     protection against persecution could be provided to the person by:

   (i)the relevant State; or

   (ii)a party or organisation, including an international organisation, that controls the relevant State or a substantial part of the territory of the relevant State; and

   (b)     the relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (a) is willing and able to offer such protection.

   (2)A relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) is taken to be able to offer protection against persecution to a person if:

   (a)     the person can access the protection; and

   (b)     the protection is durable; and

   (c)     in the case of protection provided by the relevant State—the protection consists of an appropriate criminal law, a reasonably effective police force and an impartial judicial system.

   ..

   36Protection visas – criteria provided for by this Act

   …

   (2A)A non‑citizen will suffer significant harm if:

   (a)     the non‑citizen will be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life; or

   (b)    the death penalty will be carried out on the non‑citizen; or

   (c)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to torture; or

   (d)    the non‑citizen will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or

   (e)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment.

   (2B)However, there is taken not to be a real risk that a non‑citizen will suffer significant harm in a country if the Minister is satisfied that:

   (a)     it would be reasonable for the non‑citizen to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or

   (b)    the non‑citizen could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or

   (c)     the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the non‑citizen personally.

   …