1724345 (Refugee)

[2023] AATA 3218

1724345 (Refugee) [2023] AATA 3218 (14 July 2023)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

REPRESENTATIVE:  Mr Chang Liu (MARN: 1281423)

CASE NUMBER:  1724345

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   China

MEMBER:Tania Flood

DATE:14 July 2023

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 14 July 2023 at 2:49pm

CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – China – political opinion – comments about senior military/political figure at company meeting reported to authorities – dismissed from job – family home visited by officials while applicant in Australia – fear of harm by harassment, arrest, torture, travel ban and inability to earn livelihood – several departures and returns – delay in applying for protection – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5H(1)(a), 5J(1), 36(2)(a), (aa), 65
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2

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

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 (the Department) on 18 September 2017 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).

2. The applicant who claims to be a citizen of China, applied for the visa on 11 April 2016. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the applicant is not a person in respect of whom Australia owes protection obligations.

3. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 12 July 2023 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Mandarin and English languages.

4. The applicant was represented in relation to the review.

   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 (Cth) (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 is a person in respect of whom Australia owes protection obligations.

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

    Applicant’s migration history

13. Departmental records indicate that the applicant first arrived in Australia as the holder of a Business Visitor visa [in] November 2014. He travelled in and out of Australia four times on this visa, last arriving [in] October 2015.

14. On 12 January 2016, the applicant was granted a Visitor visa while onshore with an expiry date of 12 April 2016. In his Visitor visa application, the applicant stated that he wished to sightsee in Australia and that he would self-fund his trip.

15. On 11 April 2016, the applicant applied for a Protection visa.

    Applicant’s background

16. In his application for a Protection visa, the applicant provided the following information. He was born in Fuqing in Fujian province. He listed no religion and no ethnic group. He is a fluent speaker, reader, and writer of the Mandarin language. He is married. His parents, wife and [children] continue to reside in Fujian. He worked in China as the general manager of a [company] in Fujian.  He resided in Fuzhou City from an unknown date until October 2015.

    Applicant’s claims for protection

17. The applicant stated in his application for a Protection visa that he left China for the purpose of a business and leisure trip. 

18. The applicant stated that he feared being politically persecuted in China.  Further, he claimed that he would be banned from travelling overseas and dismissed from his job in China.  He claimed his APEC card was forfeited by his employer under pressure from the Chinese government.   He claimed he will not be able to obtain an important position in any company in China and he will be deprived of a livelihood.

19. He claimed that the state would not protect him in China because he made political comments about corruption in the Chinese government.

    The delegate’s decision

20. The applicant attended a Protection visa (PV) interview on 13 September 2017. As part of his application for review the applicant provided a copy of the refusal decision record to the Tribunal.  This decision record indicates the applicant provided the following testimony during that interview:

    -The Chinese authorities will investigate and imprison him if he returns to China.

    -Chinese government officials visited his family in China twice asking about his whereabouts.  The first time was in December 2015 and the second time in June 2016 when his father passed away.  The government wanted to check if he returned to attend his father’s funeral.

    -Government officials asked his family to pass onto him the message that they wanted him to get back to China.

    -He is wanted by the government because in September 2015 during a regular company meeting he made a remark about a senior leader, the chairman of the Military Committee, Boxiong Guo, being a corrupt government official. 

    -In December 2015 the comments he made in the abovementioned meeting were reported to authorities and consequently he was dismissed from his job in a phone conversation with his boss (sometime in December 2015).

    -In January 2016 his boss sent someone to Australia who contacted him on his phone and arranged to meet with him.  At that meeting his APEC card was taken from him.

21. The delegate did not consider the applicant’s claims to be credible and found that he is not owed protection.  

    The Tribunal hearing

22. On 12 July 2023, the applicant appeared before the Tribunal.  The following is a summary of his oral evidence.

23. The applicant testified that he was born in [Town 1] in Fuqing City, Fujian Province.  He said he continued to live in [Town 1] until his final departure from China. 

24. The applicant testified that he is married and has [children].  He said he has not been in contact with his wife and children for some five to six years as he understands his wife has entered a relationship with another person. 

25. The applicant testified that his parents are deceased.  He said he has [siblings].  His brothers all reside in [Town 1] and his sister has married and lives with her husband.

26. The applicant testified that he obtained a [degree] from a Chinese university.  He said that he worked as the general manager of a [company] from 2002 until 2015.  He said he is unable to provide proof of his employment with the company because he has cut all ties with that employer.

27. The applicant testified that he has been working in [Work sector] in Australia.

28. The applicant was asked about the nature of the business trips he undertook to Australia in 2015.  He stated that his company was expanding internationally and also expanding into the [Work sector] field.  He said he came to Australia to investigate the market for [Work sector] materials.  He said he met with friends of his boss who took him to visit [Work sector] companies to investigate their supply needs.  He said he does not have any evidence to provide in respect of the nature of his travels to Australia.

29. When asked why he applied for a Visitor Visa in January 2016 the applicant stated that due to the incident which occurred in China he was scared to return.  He said he wanted to wait and see what might happen.  Noting his claim to fear returning to China the applicant was asked why he did not instead apply for a Protection visa in January 2016.  He said that he didn’t know how things would pan out at the time and he continued to observe the situation.  He said that when he was certain he would be harmed if he returned he applied for a Protection visa.

30. When asked what contributed to his certainty that he would be harmed he referred to a government official visiting his home in China and insisting to his family that he return to be investigated.  He said this occurred at the end of 2015.  The Tribunal put it to the applicant that it is surprising he then applied for a Visitor Visa in January 2016  instead of a Protection visa.  He said that because he was scared he could only remain in Australia and observe the situation.  He further stated that toward the end of 2015 government officials kept coming to his home asking him to return and because he wasn’t certain this was true he decided to apply to stay in Australia for a further three months.  He clarified that he needed to know exactly what was going on inside his company.

31. The applicant testified that government officials came to his home in December 2015 and again in June 2016 when his father passed away.  The Tribunal put it to the applicant that as the last visit to his home occurred seven years ago it might form the view that the government had lost interest in him.  He replied that he does not know what has been happening in China because he does not have contact with his family or any company members.

32. As to what he fears will happen if he returns to China now the applicant stated that he has violated government regulations and for this reason he will be persecuted, including being physically tortured.  He clarified that he has been accused of expressing an anti-communist party opinion due to something he said during a company meeting in September 2015.  He said that he expressed the view that a senior party official, Boxiong Guo, who was under investigation at the time, was expelled from the party due to factional conflict rather than the accused bribery and corruption which was levelled at him.  He said that nobody reacted to his comment during the meeting but later it was leaked to the government.  He said he does not know who leaked the information.

33. The Tribunal asked the applicant why his comments were only reported to authorities in December 2015 if they were so controversial.  He replied that it was reported in October 2015.  The Tribunal noted that his written claims indicate his comments were reported in December 2015 but he maintained this occurred in October 2015.  He said the government officials visited his home in December 2015.  He said he was also fired from his position in December 2015 in a phone call from his boss.  He said that soon after this his boss sent a colleague to Australia to among other things retrieve his APEC card.

34. The Tribunal asked the applicant why the police and/or other authorities would care if he returned to China now.  He said that the issue has not been finalised and they will come for him if he returns.

35. Noting the claim that his company successfully located him in Australia the Tribunal asked why the Chinese authorities have not made any approaches to him here if they are so interested in his whereabouts.  He replied that he does not know what the government will do.

36. Referring to his written claims the Tribunal put it to the applicant that potentially not being able to depart China again or find a certain calibre of job in China would not appear to amount to serious or significant harm.  He replied that his life will be threatened in China and he is wanted for investigation.  When asked if the police have issued an arrest warrant he said he has no knowledge of that.

    FINDINGS AND REASONS

    Country of reference

37. Attached to the Department’s file is a copy of the applicant’s People’s Republic of China passport which verifies his claimed identity and nationality.  Based on this documentation, and in the absence of any information to the contrary, the Tribunal accepts the applicant is a national of China and has assessed his claims against China.

    Claimed fear of harm at the hands of the Chinese authorities

38. Having considered the applicant’s written and oral evidence the Tribunal is prepared to accept he was fired from his general manager position in December 2015 as claimed.  The Tribunal is prepared to accept that he was fired for reason of a comment he made during a company meeting in September 2015 which was considered anti-communist party and subsequently reported to government officials.   The Tribunal is also prepared to accept that a company official visited the applicant in Sydney in January 2016 and confiscated his APEC card.

39. Regarding the visits by officials to his home in December 2015 and June 2016 the Tribunal has reservations about the veracity of his claims in this respect.  The applicant claims that the visit to his home in December 2015 caused him to become afraid for his safety should he return to China and yet in January 2016 he made an application onshore for a Visitor visa to allegedly do some sightseeing in Australia.  According to his testimony at hearing he did so in order to buy time to see what would unfold but at the same time he advised the Tribunal that it was this visit to his home in December 2015 and the threat of an investigation that caused him to become seriously concerned for his safety.  That the applicant then applied for a Visitor visa in January 2016 and delayed his application for a Protection Visa until April 2016 causes the Tribunal concern.  If government officials had visited his home in December 2015 to insist he return home and face an investigation into his behaviour the Tribunal considers it likely he would have applied for a Protection visa sooner than he did.    The Tribunal considers the applicant’s actions to be somewhat implausible and is of the view he has not adequately explained his decision to delay his application for a Protection visa.  His actions also cause the Tribunal to doubt the visit to his home by officials in December 2015 occurred.

40. Based on the available evidence the Tribunal is not persuaded that government officials visited the applicant’s home in December 2015 in connection with the claimed events.  Similarly, the Tribunal is not persuaded that government officials visited his home in June 2016 in order to determine whether his father’s death would bring him back to China.  If the Chinese authorities were so interested in the applicant’s return to China the Tribunal considers they could have employed their surveillance systems at the airport to alert them to this fact rather than visiting his home on the off chance he might have returned.

41. Having considered the claims and evidence the Tribunal has concluded that the applicant’s dismissal from his employment was punishment for his expressed opinions against the internal operations of the communist party but it considers that this was in all likelihood the end of the matter.  As discussed with the applicant during the hearing the Tribunal considers the Chinese authorities have the capability of locating him in Australia, as did his former employer, and considers they may well have done so if they were intent on questioning him or otherwise harassing him about the comments he made back in September 2015.  The lack of evidence of any ongoing interest or surveillance of the applicant by the authorities over the course of seven to eight years causes the Tribunal to conclude that he is not of ongoing interest to government officials now.  Based on the available evidence the Tribunal is satisfied that the chance of the applicant being monitored, harassed, arrested or tortured by authorities on return to China is remote.

42. The Tribunal notes the applicant’s written claims that he may be barred from travelling outside of China and unable to secure certain types of employment if he returns to China.  The Tribunal does not consider the applicant is of ongoing interest to the authorities in China and is not persuaded that he will be denied the ability to earn a livelihood or to travel.  As discussed with him during the hearing the Tribunal considers at the very least he could find employment in the [Work sector] based on the experience he has gained in Australia.   Further, as discussed with him during the hearing the types of harm he has expressed, namely not being able to travel outside China and to gain an important position in a company, should that occur, would not in the Tribunal’s view amount to serious or significant harm. 

43. For the reasons outlined above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a real chance the applicant will suffer serious harm at the hands of the Chinese authorities if he returns to China now or in the reasonably foreseeable future for the reasons claimed.   Accordingly, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution in China.

    CONCLUDING PARAGRAPHS

44. 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).

45. 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).  For the same reasons already articulated the Tribunal is not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to China there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm.  Therefore, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(aa).

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

   DECISION

2. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection visa.

   Tania Flood
   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.

   …