1800172 (Refugee)

[2020] AATA 3298

1800172 (Refugee) [2020] AATA 3298 (2 August 2020)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

`CASE NUMBER:  1800172

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   China

MEMBER:Mara Moustafine

DATE:2 August 2020

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 02 August 2020 at 2:10pm

CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – China – imputed political opinion – dispute with city officials about compensation for acquisition of property – fear of persecution and imprisonment – credibility – vague, implausible and inconsistent evidence – new claims, and no mention of original claims, in oral evidence to tribunal – decision under review affirmed

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

CASES
MIEA v Guo (1997) 191 CLR 559
Nagalingam v MILGEA (1992) 38 FCR 191
Prasad v MIEA (1985) 6 FCR 155

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 on 13 December 2017 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

   Background

2. The applicant is a citizen of China and is [Age] years old. He arrived in Australia [in] August 2017 as a holder of a Visitor visa and applied to the Department for a Protection visa on the same day.

   Evidence before the Department

3. According to his Protection visa application form, the applicant was born in [Year] in Guanghan, Sichuan province, China and was living in the same area until he came to Australia in 2017. He is Han Chinese by ethnicity, of no religion and has never married. He reads, writes and speaks Mandarin and completed high school in Guanghan in [year] then worked in [job task] at a [company] from 2007 until 2017. His parents are living in China. He indicated that he left China legally [in] August 2017 using his own passport, issued [in] 2012. 

4. The applicant’s protection claims, as outlined in his application form can be summarised as follows:

   ·He left China because he was persecuted by the Chinese government as he made a petition to reveal government officials’ corruption.

   ·The local government sent a notice for his old house to be demolished but only offered a third of the market price as compensation. As he refused to sign the agreement, the local government sent people to force him to sign the demolition agreement. They smashed all the goods in his home, threated him and beat him because he prevented their behaviour.  He sought help from the police, but they left them to wait.

   ·He made a petition and wrote a complaint letter to the city government hoping to get a reasonable explanation and compensation. After the officials found out, they sent the police to catch him.

   ·He was scared so he escaped China and fled to Australia.

   ·He fears that if he returns to China, he will be persecuted by the police, be imprisoned and suffer mental and physical persecution.

   ·He does not believe the authorities in China will protect him because the government is corrupt, government officials collude with the police and only care about their own benefits. He does not believe he can relocate to another part of China as the situation is the same in the whole of China.

5. With his application, the applicant submitted a copy of his Chinese passport issued [in] 2012. He failed to attend his scheduled Protection visa interview with the Department on 7 December 2017.

6. On 13 December 2017 a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection refused to grant the applicant a Protection visa as she was not satisfied that he was a person in respect of whom Australia had protection obligations under either the refugee or complementary protection criterion.

   Evidence before the Tribunal

   On 3 January 2018, the applicant applied to the Tribunal for a review of the Department’s decision.  He submitted a copy of the decision to the Tribunal for the purpose of the review and is taken to be on notice of its findings and reasons.

7. On 23 June 2020 the Tribunal wrote to the applicant inviting him to give oral evidence and present arguments relating to the issues arising in his case at a hearing on 23 July 2020. The applicant was advised that, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Tribunal was not holding face to face (in person) hearings since Monday, 23 March 2020 and was currently closed to all visitors until further notice> He was advised that his hearing would, therefore, take place by telephone.

   The hearing

8. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal by telephone on 23 July 2020 to give evidence and present arguments.

9. When called for the hearing, the applicant told the Tribunal hearing officer that he was unaware of his scheduled hearing. Asked at the beginning of the hearing to confirm his email address, the applicant gave a different email address to the latest address he had provided to the Tribunal in a signed Change of Contact Details form on 8 August 2018 to which the hearing invitation was sent. The applicant said he had changed emails after losing his mobile phone. However, when asked what his current mobile number was, he identified the same number on which he had been called, as noted in his Change of Contact Details form of 8 August 2018. The applicant also claimed that he no longer lived at the address given on the Change of Contact Details form but did not know his current address, other than it was in [Suburb]. The Tribunal reminded the applicant that it was his responsibility to keep his contact details up to date and suggested that he should provide these to the Tribunal after the hearing. However, no new advice has been received.

10. At the start of the hearing the applicant confirmed that he was alone and in a quiet and private place.  He accepted that under current circumstances the hearing would proceed by telephone. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant was given a fair opportunity to give evidence and present arguments.

11. The Tribunal discussed with the applicant his background in China, his reasons for leaving China and why he fears returning there. Where relevant to his protection claims, the applicant’s evidence to the Tribunal is referred to below.

    CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

    Relevant Law

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. 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).

15. 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.

16. 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.

17. 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.

    Credibility

18. The mere fact that a person claims fear of persecution for a particular reason does not establish either the genuineness of the asserted fear or that it is ‘well-founded’ or that it is for the reason claimed. Similarly, that an applicant claims to face a real risk of significant harm does not establish that such a risk exists, or that the harm feared amounts to ‘significant harm’. It remains for the applicant to satisfy the Tribunal that all of the statutory elements are made out. Although the concept of onus of proof is not appropriate to administrative inquiries and decision-making, the relevant facts of the individual case will have to be supplied by the applicant himself or herself, in as much detail as is necessary to enable the examiner to establish the relevant facts. A decision-maker is not required to make the applicant's case for him or her. Nor is the Tribunal required to accept uncritically any and all the allegations made by an applicant. (MIEA v Guo (1997) 191 CLR 559 at 596, Nagalingam v MILGEA (1992) 38 FCR 191, Prasad v MIEA (1985) 6 FCR 155 at 169-70.)

    Analysis, Findings and Reasons

19. The issues that arise on review are whether the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the refugee criterion or the complementary protection criterion.

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

21. At the start of the hearing, the applicant confirmed that all the information in his application form was true and correct and that he did not wish to make any changes or to add anything. He said the application form had been filled in by a person from a law firm. He said he paid for the service but did not remember how much, although the form stated that no money was paid. The applicant said that all the content in the form had been provided by him, although the information had not been read back to him. Asked how he then knew that all the information in the form was true and correct, the applicant said he had complete trust in the person whom he fully authorised. The Tribunal noted that he had declared in his form that he had ‘provided complete and correct information in every detail on this form’, which he accepted.

22. The applicant told the Tribunal that he decided to come to Australia in August 2017 because his friend was coming here and told him good things about the country, so he wanted to take a look for himself. He left China legally on his own passport. He had no particular plans when he arrived beyond sightseeing and touring the country. However he gradually realised that many things in Australia were better than in China and developed a love for Australia, so he applied for a Protection visa. He had been working [in a workplace] and enjoyed [activities].

23. The Tribunal found the applicant’s evidence at hearing vague, implausible and completely inconsistent with the claims he submitted in his Protection visa application. This raises serious doubts about his truthfulness and general credibility of his evidence.

24. At hearing when asked whether he was in fear of anything at the time he left China, the applicant responded vaguely that he was afraid of being persecuted by his fellow countrymen because he was a very honest person so could not get on in China so faced a high possibility of being harmed by someone. Asked if he ever experienced harm in China, the applicant said he had been beaten and frightened, suffered a broken [body part] at school and was threatened by people in Ya’an city in Sichuan province. Asked to elaborate, he claimed that when he drove to collect some documents for a friend, his car was intercepted by someone he did not know, who blackmailed him to pay to get his vehicle back. In response to the Tribunal’s query as to whether he had experienced serious harm in China, the applicant initially responded that he did not know how to answer this question. After the Tribunal explained the definition of serious harm, the applicant said he had suffered such harm, saying his life was threatened because of his social background. Prompted again to provide more details, the applicant said he was falsely imprisoned for reasons he did not know by someone he did not know who forced him to say things against his interests. He did not know exactly where or when the incident took place, saying variously that it was in 2017 or 2018, then between 2018 and 2019. He claimed that he was held for two days but managed to escape and tried to call the police, but it was no use.

25. As discussed with the applicant, given that he was already in Australia at the time he claimed the incident took place and given the lack of detail he had provided about the incident, the Tribunal had serious doubts that it actually happened. The applicant responded that the incident actually took place between 2016 and 2017. He also elaborated that when he was intercepted, the unidentified person claimed that one of the applicant’s friends had damaged something of his and demanded compensation from the applicant, without which he would not let him have his car back. The applicant claimed that he tried to call the police, but the man grabbed his phone and imprisoned him, physically attacked him and threatened his life. After he escaped, he went to report the incident to the police, but they took no action and the man came to his work and tried to threaten him again, so he then tried to avoid that person.

26. The applicant said he feared returning to China now because of the incident that happened in Ya’an and because the person, whose name he did not know, was still looking for him. Asked how he knew this, the applicant responded that he had friends there. He was afraid he would be physically attacked and his life threatened by the unknown person but did not know why. Asked if he feared returning to China for any other reasons, the applicant responded, ‘many other reasons’ but only identified ‘the COVID-19 pandemic’.

27. Significantly, at no time in the hearing did the applicant mention any of the claims set out in his Protection visa application which, as summarised at paragraph 4, related to the alleged confiscation of his house by the local government. When the Tribunal drew this to the applicant’s attention, expressing its concern at this inconsistency between his written claims and evidence at hearing, the applicant requested – and was granted – additional time to make a further submission with the assistance of the person from the law firm.

28. The applicant’s failure to provide further submissions to the Tribunal to explain the inconsistencies in his claims or to update his contact details, as discussed at the beginning of the hearing (paragraph 9), further undermine his credibility. The Tribunal also notes that the applicant did not give a truthful account of how he came to apply for his Protection visa. The applicant told the Tribunal that he arrived here with no particular plans beyond sightseeing and touring the country and made his application some time later (paragraph 22). According to Department records noted in their decision, however, the applicant actually applied for the visa so on same day as he arrived in Australia, suggesting that he arrived with this intention.

29. In light of the multiple concerns discussed above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant has given a truthful account of his experiences in China or that any of his evidence can be relied upon. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant was beaten, frightened, intercepted, blackmailed, imprisoned or detained for two days or that his life was threatened by an unidentified person, as claimed. Nor is the Tribunal satisfied that the applicant was threated or beaten by the local government officials because he refused to sign an agreement for the demolition of his house, nor that he was persecuted by the Chinese government for making a petition to reveal the corruption of government officials. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant suffered serious or significant harm while he was in China.

30. It follows that the Tribunal is not satisfied that, should he return to China now or in the reasonably foreseeable future, the applicant will be physically attacked and his life threatened by the unknown person, nor that he will be persecuted by his fellow countrymen or suffer persecution by the police, go to prison and suffer mental and physical persecution, as claimed. Rather, it is the Tribunal’s view that the applicant fabricated his claims in order to achieve a migration outcome.

31. The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s claimed fear of returning to China because of the COVID-19 pandemic but does not accept that such a fear falls under one or more of the five reasons specified under the refugee criterion.

32. For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that, if the applicant were to return to China now or in the reasonably foreseeable future, there is a real chance that he will be harmed for any of the other reasons set out in s.5J(1)(a) of the Act. The Tribunal finds that the applicant does not have a well-founded fear of persecution in China.

33. The Tribunal has also considered whether the applicant is entitled to complementary protection for any of the reasons claimed. Having rejected the entirety of the applicant’s claims, on the evidence before it, 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. 

34. With regard to his fear of returning to China because of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Tribunal considers that any risk from the random illness would be a situation faced by the Chinese population generally and not directed against the applicant personally. Nor would it be intentionally inflicted on him, nor intended to cause extreme humiliation, which is unreasonable, as required under the complementary protection guidelines to constitute significant harm. 

    CONCLUSIONS

35. 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).

1. 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).

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

   DECISION

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

   Mara Moustafine
   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.

   …