1803371 (Refugee) - [2023] AATA 4198

1803371 (Refugee) [2023] AATA 4198 (18 September 2023)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
REPRESENTATIVE:  Mrs Joey Bich Chau Tam
CASE NUMBER:  1803371
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Pakistan
MEMBER:Denis Dragovic
DATE:18 September 2023
PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

Statement made on 18 September 2023 at 12:37pm
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Pakistan – mental health issues – ability to meaningfully participate in the hearing – past association with extremist Islamist groups – key element in a prosecution case against four Taliban associates – fear of harm from the Taliban – not threatened or harmed while in Pakistan – family members not harassed or threatened – Pashtun – cannabis use – compassionate circumstances – health and/or psychological state – Ministerial Intervention requested – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5H, 5J, 36, 65
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2
CASES
BVT20 v MICMSMA [2020] FCAFC 222
CHB16 v MIBP [2019] FCA 1089
CSV15 v MIBP [2018] FCA 699
EZC18 v MHA [2019] FCA 2143
EZC18 v Minister for Home Affairs & Anor [2019] FCCA 464
MIAC v SZQRB [2013] FCAFC 33
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

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 6 February 2018 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The applicant who claims to be a citizen of Pakistan, which I accept, applied for the visa on 29 June 2016.
The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the applicant’s claims of fearing harm from the Taliban for reasons of being a key element in a prosecution case against four Taliban associates did not lead the applicant to face serious harm in Pakistan before coming to Australia and as such would not lead to the applicant facing harm upon return.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on the 1 and 8 September 2023 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from [Ms A], the applicant’s psychologist. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Urdu and English languages.
During the first hearing there appeared to be some interpretation issues but based upon the applicant’s strong English language skills and the accuracy of his response to the questions asked, I am satisfied that the interpretation, when it was required, did not undermine the ability of the applicant to convey the meaning of his responses or to understand the questions.
The applicant was represented in relation to the review.
CRITERIA FOR A PROTECTION VISA
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.
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.
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).
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.
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
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.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
Applicant’s mental health
The applicant is facing considerable mental health challenges. He has had extended engagements with two psychologists, the first ending only after the psychologist could no longer continue to provide the service due to his own personal health.
Relevant to the applicant’s ability to meaningfully participate in the hearing is the most recent psychologist’s statement dated 15 August 2023. The psychologist, [Ms A], notes in her statement that she has had 16 sessions with the applicant. She diagnosed the applicant with PTSD, Depression and Anxiety. She believes the applicant to have been experiencing the symptoms associated with these diagnoses since 2010 when he was claiming the original traumatic incident in Pakistan occurred.
With regards to his psychological treatment needs, she writes that the conditions she has diagnosed the applicant with have ‘severely affected his mental health and daily life in Australia’ and that ongoing professional counselling is required on a monthly basis, adding that if there was a favourable outcome then fewer future sessions would be required.
In the 2023 statement she references a report she prepared dated 3 February 2021 in which further detailed information about her assessment of the applicant is provided.
In this 2021 report [Ms A] references an earlier 2019 report of hers which does not shed further light on the applicant’s circumstances.
An earlier report from his previous psychologist, [Mr B], dated 3 April 2018, included responses to specific questions that were presumably provided to him by the applicant’s representatives. The responses to these questions are relevant in so far as they raise concerns which were put to [Ms A] at the hearing for a more current diagnosis and opinion.
[Mr B] wrote that the applicant claimed to have an accurate recall of the occasions when the militants threatened him with death.
[Mr B] outlined his views on the situation of the applicant returning to Pakistan including that it would be ‘inevitable that he would break down completely and experience overwhelming anxiety, depression and stress.’
At the hearing [Ms A] gave her opinion that the Tribunal can rely upon his short-term and long-term memory. I accept this view as it is the most current assessment.
The psychologist also gave her views on the repercussions to the applicant’s mental health were he to return to Pakistan. She said that in Australia he has a sense of safety. She said that he does not feel safe returning to Pakistan and which in turn would exacerbate his conditions. Specifically with regards to the impact of a return to Pakistan the psychologist said that his anxiety would escalate, he would be withdrawn and go into hiding. Heightened anxiety would limit his ability to participate in the wider society or form relationship. He would have impaired sleep and digestion. He would have impaired cognitive ability such as being unable to concentrate. These could transfer into high blood pressure and poor eating.
The psychologist noted that the applicant has a high level of suicidality in Australia.
I put to the psychologist that one research report I read suggested that a large portion of Karachi residents have depression[1] and I noted that many people in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa fear for their lives due to the ongoing threats. I asked whether the applicant’s circumstances would be distinguished him from others. She responded that the difference may be whether people have the ability to move around their community as it is the applicant’s sense of fear that is limiting him.
[1] Farooq S, Khan T, Zaheer S, et al, Prevalence of anxiety and depressive symptoms and their association with multimorbidity and demographic factors: a community-based, cross-sectional survey in Karachi, Pakistan, BMJ Open 2019
I asked to what degree could the applicant’s fear be a self-fulfilling prophecy reinforcing a sense of fear. The psychologist responded that efforts can be made to change a mindset. She said that so much of reality is perceived and individuals can change it, but that it can be difficult.
We discussed the role of being a part of one’s culture and how it can help mitigate mental health. She said that in this case, the applicant is afraid of the people around him. She acknowledged that family and culture are contributing positive factors, but they can weigh against a perceived sense of safety.
An emergency department file note from [Hospital 1], was provided which recapped the applicant’s circumstances upon presentation on the 26 August 2022. The report does not add anything further to what has been provided by [Ms A] and it expressly references her report of 2019.
Regarding other health issues, the applicant was reported by [Ms A] to have stomach problems that in 2021 included abdominal swelling, ulcers and acid reflux.
At the second hearing the applicant said that he has had two appointments with one psychiatrist and then two appointments with another through [Hospital 1]. He said that at the session the day before the second hearing they talked about his nightmares. He said that the psychiatrist will recommend some medication to help reduce nightmares in addition to the other medication he is taking to deal with his social anxiety and mood. He claimed that she would refer him to Foundation House for his PTSD and flashbacks.
He mentioned at the hearing that he is worried that the side effect of the medicines he is receiving are reducing his sexual feelings and that he is unhappy about that. As a result he is trying to reduce the dosages of the medication.
As the psychologist, [Ms A], was available at the first hearing I heard from her at the outset and specifically asked what type of additional measures should be undertaken throughout the hearing to facilitate the applicant’s ability to meaningfully participate. Arising from this discussion I endeavoured throughout the two hearings to allow the applicant as much time as he required to answer a question, broke down my questions into simple terms, avoided double barrelled questions as much as possible and provided breaks when needed. Regarding the opportunity to consider his answers, I note that the applicant would often take long pauses before answering but during these pauses it was visible that he was contemplating how to answer the question as opposed to being in some sort of absent state.
Upon the completion of the two hearings and on reflection I am satisfied that the applicant had a meaningful opportunity to give evidence and present arguments at the hearings.
Evidence and findings of fact
The applicant is a [age]-year-old Pakistani Pashtun male from Karachi. He claims that he was recruited as a suicide bomber at the age of [age] years. He claims that the authorities identified the terrorist cell and arrested and convicted two of the four individuals involved while releasing the applicant without charge. The applicant claims that as a result of this event he faces a real chance of serious harm and a real risk of significant harm upon returning to Pakistan.
The applicant provided three links to videos of news coverage of his interviews following the arrest of the conspirators. These interviews were arranged by the police during the approximately two weeks that he remained in the police station. The applicant claimed that he had requested that his image be blurred but this request was not followed through with by the media. In viewing the videos, I accept that the applicant’s [age] year old face can be seen. The transcripts of the interviews are included below:
In one interview the police at the press conference describe the arrests as:
[Details redacted].
The applicant is recorded as saying:
[Details redacted]
In the second transcript provided to the Tribunal the applicant is interviewed in another location:
[Details redacted]
The third video was not translated but a similar narration in English to the two above is seen running across the screen.
These videos were accompanied also in the submission by an article in [Newspaper 1] which had a photo of the applicant, named him, and described him as a ‘[details redacted].’
[Newspaper 1] is an English language newspaper that describes itself as [specified].’[2]
[2] [Source redacted].
An earlier submission included scanned copies of a [Media 1] article about the applicant which I accept to be genuine.
In a submission dated 31 August 2023 the applicant submitted a link to a [social media] page of ‘[Account 1]’. At the time of the hearing the link could not be accessed nor is the [social media] page of ‘[Account 1]’ live at the time of this decision. No page that could be considered a successor or one associated with this site could be found. At the time of the link being sent to him, in March 2018 when it was still live, the applicant took screen shots which showed the same video as described at [38]. The screenshots showed that this video had amassed 415,000 views within a week.
It is relevant to note that in none of the video recordings or written material is the applicant’s name mentioned, instead they refer to [Alias 1]. The applicant explained at the hearing that this is the name he used during the interviews as the authorities had told him he could do that.
When I put to the applicant that his name is not mentioned in any of the online articles or videos he said that nevertheless his face is visible and that it still makes him identifiable.
A further submission dated 31 August 2023 included five hyperlinks to current articles and videos of his incident. I accept that there are existing videos and links to videos as well as articles that show the applicant when he was [age] years old and that these articles and videos provide details of the incident.
The applicant explicitly mentions that he was never arrested or charged by the police for any activity related to the 2010 event. He wrote in his statutory declaration at [21] that he believed the officers ‘understood that I was young and innocent and had been lead in the wrong direction.’ He recalled at the hearing that the judge said to the court officer to request the parents give him a good education and to protect him and give him a good upbringing.
I accept that the applicant was recruited as he claimed to have been and that the terrorist cell was subsequently identified by the authorities and some of the individuals involved sentenced as the applicant had claimed including that he gave evidence against them and that his evidence played a part in their conviction. I also accept that the four convicted knew that the applicant had given evidence in court against them.
According to the applicant’s written statement from 2016, the circumstances of the four Taliban adults who were at the heart of the case are as follows:
a.[Mr C], who first befriended him and introduced him to the terrorist cell, ran away when the police came to arrest him. The applicant claims that [Mr C] went to Afghanistan but that he saw him a few times in Karachi.
b.[Mr D], to whom [Mr C] introduced the applicant and subsequently was introduced to [Mr E] through [Mr D], ran away when police arrived to arrest him. The applicant claims that [Mr D] went to Afghanistan but that he saw him a few times in Karachi.
c.[Mr E] introduced the applicant to [Mr F]. [Mr E] was arrested and convicted on terrorism charges and jailed.
d.[Mr F] made the arrangements but had also described an earlier crime he had committed which the applicant claimed was used by the police to convict him. He was convicted and jailed.
The applicant described the police taking him from his home and demanding that he provide evidence against those who had planned the suicide bombing. He claimed to have refused initially, but when [Mr E] and [Mr F] were brought hooded before the applicant into the interview room in the police station and [Mr E] named the applicant as the boy who would carry out the attack, the applicant claimed that he then provided to the police all the information he knew.
The applicant detailed the day that he went to court. He said that there were 30 vehicles around him when he was brought to the court and that the prosecutor’s case would have been weak if anything had happened to him. The applicant claimed to have provided detailed information in court naming the four men that had engaged with him and all of their plans. He claimed that [Mr E] and [Mr F] denied that they knew him, but the court accepted his evidence. The applicant wrote that, ‘When I finished explaining what had happened, the Judge pulled me close to him and said that I was free to go without penalty because they knew that I was just an innocent child.’
At the hearing I noted to the applicant that he had written in his statement that it was the Taliban members themselves who fingered him as the suicide bomber to the police and that he was taken by the police only after the two had already been arrested. I put to the applicant that this suggests that he did not report them but rather that they had already incriminated themselves. The applicant responded that the government raided the Taliban and beat them and so they revealed his identity.
The applicant wrote that there were a lot of media outside the court, but that he didn’t give any interviews. At the hearing he estimated that there were five outlets, but he didn’t speak to any and instead went straight into the police vehicle that then took him home.
The applicant had written about mentioning to the police about [Mr C]’s bragging to him of another murder he had been involved in and that the applicant had told the police about it and the police were claimed to have been grateful for the information. When this claim was discussed at the hearing the applicant said that he could not remember anything about it.

Following his return home, the applicant claimed that his father didn’t tell anyone that he was coming home as ‘There are a lot of Taliban supporters in our area and we knew that they would be looking to take revenge against me.’
At the hearing the applicant said that he subsequently spent a month inside his home. He believes that everyone thought that he was in jail during this period, as when he left the court only the police and family knew that he was taken home. I reminded him that he was released from the court and went through a media throng. He said that there was no one inside the court, it was a private hearing, and so no one knew that he was released without conviction by the judge. While the media were outside the courthouse, he said that he was escorted through the media by a police officer and placed into a police car without anyone knowing where the car was taking him.
I have doubts about the applicant’s view that there was a presumption that he was in jail. I note that there is no mention in any of the reporting that the applicant was ever arrested whereas it is clear that the two Taliban who were captured were arrested. Having said that, it could be possible that the applicant was thought to have been taken to a safe house or a relative’s house, in other words there would have been many possibilities of where he could have been taken. Arising from this uncertainty, I find that the applicant’s whereabouts would have been unknown, people neither knowing that he had returned to his family home or that he had moved elsewhere.
Arising from the circumstances facing the applicant as he was released to his family, his father made arrangements for the applicant to join [College 1] on the outskirts of Karachi. The applicant wrote that he believes his father paid half of the fees and the police paid the other half.
The applicant described the college as a very strict school with a [strict] uniform and that there were a lot of regulations and discipline. There being a month between when he left the police station and when the college year would start the applicant claims that he spent it at home, not leaving the house.
During this period of a month the applicant said that no one came seeking him out at his home.
The applicant described his time at the college as a happy time and that he felt safe as they had security and it was a gated compound.
He claimed that during this period he only went home for Eid festivals, and it was done secretly.
The applicant claimed that while he was away at [College 1] his father told him that the Taliban would come to his family’s house where he was staying and demand that he comes out but when he wouldn’t, nothing would happen. The applicant claimed that his family told him that Taliban supporters would come ‘at least once a week banging on the gate and asking for me.’ He claimed that his father would tell them that the applicant was in jail hoping that they would go away eventually but they would nevertheless continue to come back on a regular basis. His father didn’t complain to the police of this behaviour as they feared becoming targets themselves.
The applicant claimed that no one entered the house with the intention to take him as in Islam, ‘it is a very bad thing for men to come into the house because there are ladies there so out of respect to our religion and the women, the Taliban would not come into the house uninvited to come and get me.’
I put to him that Pashtun culture allows for violence against another family member, but nothing happened to any of his family members.[3] He said that they wanted to kill him, take revenge against him personally. He said that his issue is not about culture, although revenge is in the culture, but instead it is very personal.
[3] Lieutenant Colonel Jonathan Hawkins DSM and Bar, Australian Army, ‘The Pashtun Cultural Code: Pashtunwali,’ Australian Defence Force Journal, 2009
I put to the applicant that if they were desperate to kill him, they could simply lay a bomb in front of his house as they have done to many others. The applicant acknowledged that the Taliban attack schools and houses, but he reverted to speaking about culture and that in his tribe’s culture if someone raises their hand against a woman then they drop to a very low status.
At the hearing I asked how he knew that the Taliban who were claiming to be coming to his house had ill intentions. He said that he believes they did because he was a witness against them in the court and that they would want to seek revenge. He believes that they were initially confused about his loyalties but then they realised that he was responsible for pointing them out. He added that he doesn’t know what was going on in the hearts and minds of the Taliban. He clarified that there was no one else in the court room, but the two Taliban, security and the judge. He said that it was known that he was the key witness so it would be known that he had turned after the two had been convicted. I asked if they maybe wanted to speak to him about doing something else for them. He said they are not brothers or relatives, and he has given witness against them. He is therefore their enemy.
The applicant’s life at [College 1] was uneventful until he reached [grade] when another student identified him as a former suicide bomber from one of the news YouTube videos. This student then shared the video on his [social media] page and all of the other students found out. The applicant claimed that the students then started to call him ‘suicide bomber’ and ‘terrorist’.
The applicant wrote:
It was very hard facing this kind of treatment every day. After some time, I could not stand this any longer so I told my father that I had to leave the school. He told me that I should complete [grade] and then he would let me leave. I completed [grade] with a lot of difficult and at the end of the school year, I transferred from the school.
With regards to the treatment he received from the teaching staff at the college, he said at the hearing that no one knew, not even the teachers until [year] when the student shared the video clip. I put to him that from his evidence no one tried to force him out of the school despite learning of his past to which he said that it was difficult for him to stay there because it was not a normal incident that he had been involved in. He acknowledged that he was not punished in any way but that the video led to a change of behaviour towards him. He described one situation in which he was sitting for an exam and each of the students would write their student number on the exam paper but not their name. He said that he wrote X-X-X where the name would otherwise go on the page. Then he was called into the principal’s office where a few other teachers were seated, and they asked him why he had written X-X-X suggesting that he had implied something pornographic. He explained that it wasn’t for that reason and that he writes the same at every exam. He then said that one of his teachers in that meeting mumbled ‘Suicide Bomber’ and asked him what had happened to him before he came to the college.
After leaving [College 1] he claims to have then returned home and enrolled at [College 2]. He claimed that this period of his life was ‘hell’ as he could not leave the house because:
The majority of the people in our area are uneducated and support the Taliban… They all viewed me as a terrorist for giving evidence against the Taliban. If I did leave the house, people would call out to me on the street calling me a terrorist, a liar and a double crosser. People came up to me in the street and took selfies with me and told me that they were going to post these pictures of themselves with a terrorist on social media.
I asked the applicant about his claim of people wanting to take selfies with him in the context that it is indicative of people not wanting to harm him but rather to celebrate him. He said that he believes it was because he was a fallen person, in other words that he was notorious.
At the hearing the applicant said that during the two years he spent completing his studies after the [college], but while still in Pakistan, he mostly stayed at home. He said that he would go out of the house to obtain his yearly enrolment card or for his exams, but otherwise he felt isolated in his house. He mentioned that sometimes he would go out wearing an abaya.
I asked whether he recalled anyone coming to his house asking for him as he had not made any claims in his submissions about such events. He said that he couldn’t remember as it was a long time ago.
The applicant described the circumstances surrounding two people, described as suspicious, enquiring about him while he was sitting for his [grade] [exams]. He said that he had completed three exams and while in the middle of the fourth his classmates told him that people on motorbikes were asking about him. He said that he was so frightened that he left even though it meant that he couldn’t finish his exams. This was estimated to be mid-[year] which aligns with country information on the Pakistan school year.[4]
[4] >
I asked if his friends could have made it up to play a trick on him. He said that he is not sure but doesn’t believe that they did as the way they describe it was very serious. He said that those friends did not know about his past.
I put to the applicant that he had to leave the house many times for various reasons over a period of two years and yet nothing happened to him. The applicant said that it wasn’t many times and that he only left for exams, enrolment, and accounting classes which were for less than a year. He said that during his studies at his second college he didn’t attend any classes only exams. He said that he’d have to attend to obtain his admission card, but otherwise he would get home tuition. He said that when he went out, he wouldn’t go out alone, and that he would always be with family members and that no one knew that he was going out. He added that his visa application process required him to leave the house to obtain biometrics, a medical, and to submit his materials via FedEx.
An article was submitted detailing the assassination of Chaudhry Aslam Khan, the head of the anti-terror unit in Karachi and the police office the applicant named as having had an engagement with him. Mr Khan was killed in January 2014. The applicant noted this incident as contributing to his fear of the Taliban getting the people they want to get.
Regarding the applicant’s family members and how they were impacted by his actions, the applicant said that his father whose job was to sell [product] and earn a commission saw some of his business dwindle but the applicant confirmed that his father continued in his work. As a result, he said that when he came to Australia, they didn’t have enough money and had to borrow some to pay for his travel and initial costs in Australia.
Regarding his brothers who were still studying at that time, they continued and completed their studies. The applicant said that they were ostracized at school and that their friends put pressure on them about what was going on, but he said that his father ensured that they continued to study. I asked about the brothers’ marriages. The applicant said that the eldest was already married at the time of the applicant’s involvement in the incident, while the second oldest was committed to someone from a young age but had not married. I noted that the family of the second brother’s wife could have withdrawn from the promise to marry his brother if they thought his family brought shame or dishonour to them. He said that it is difficult to go back on a promise but acknowledged that it is possible. The applicant said that his third brother was affected after this incident as his mother had told him that she had asked the hand of a few girls for him, but they didn’t accept. The applicant believes that the rejections were because of his actions, though his mother did not say that to him.
Regarding his family, the applicant mentioned his eldest brother has [number] children and they live with his wife in the applicant’s family home while his brother works in [an] area away from home for three-month periods [undertaking specified work].
The applicant said that he feels bad about the situation and that his parents feel ashamed about their son’s circumstances.
When I asked about the applicant’s written claim from his 2016 statement that in referring to [Mr C] and [Mr D] ‘I have seen them a few times in my area in Karachi,’ the applicant said that he could not remember. I put to him that I can only assume that what he wrote in his statement from 2016 was an honest recollection of events. The applicant did not respond.
The applicant described tribal traditions of revenge and those of the Taliban saying that the need to seek revenge never expires and that any slight that requires revenge but hasn’t been fulfilled is constantly taunting the person. I put to the applicant that he had been in Karachi for two years and yet according to the evidence before me the two men who were free and whom he had claimed to have sighted in Karachi a few times had not sought him out. He said that this does not mean that they don’t have an interest to seek revenge. He said that they will take revenge at any cost.
Considerations
The applicant fears harm arising from his past association with extremist Islamist groups. Specifically, he fears harm from supporters of the Taliban and other extremist groups, from specific individuals who faced the repercussions arising from him giving evidence against them and members of society in general who are both supporters of the Taliban and against the Taliban.
I have also considered whether the applicant faces any harm from the state despite the applicant not raising this as an issue and note that the applicant was not charged or arrested and instead was considered to be a misguided victim and subsequently supported in pursuing an education. When this was put to him at the second hearing, he said that definitively as he was a [age]-year-old innocent minor who could not differentiate between what is right and wrong, the officers considered his circumstances differently. Considering that the applicant was able to subsequently obtain an education and leave the country without any further official engagement I find that the applicant does not face any harm from the state arising from his past actions.
Feared harm from the Taliban
I accept that during the period when the applicant was at [College 1] his family received unexpected visits by people presumed to be Taliban to their family home calling out for the applicant. I also accept, as claimed, that nothing happened when the applicant did not appear.
After returning from [College 1] the applicant remained in Pakistan living out of his family home for two years. During those two years there was one incident which the applicant believes to be related to his past, namely when he was sitting for exams and his friends notified him of two men with long hair and suspicious appearances looking for him. Otherwise, no one came to his house, no one followed him or called him, no one assaulted or threatened him. The applicant confirmed that his family members including four brothers were not harmed and have not been harmed since the incident in 2010.
As such the single incident while the applicant was sitting for his exams is an oddity. Is it plausible that some men would identify and then follow him to a different college than the one he is enrolled in and despite overcoming such challenges in finding him there then to ask around for him thereby giving him a warning and a chance to escape? While the applicant claimed this happened, no one is claimed to have taken the route of coming to his home during a two-year period to ask for him. Why would someone need to pursue the applicant to a college where he is sitting exams but not visit his home is vexing. The applicant has not claimed that he received any threatening calls or requests for him to meet with anyone during this two-year period. It would be reasonable to assume that anyone who wanted to harm the applicant would first try to entice him out of the home rather than somehow track his exam schedules. As such I find that two men did not come to the place where the applicant was taking his exams in search of him to harm him.
That the applicant’s family members have not been harassed or threatened is significant. While the applicant has explained this as being for reasons of the Taliban having a personal vendetta against him, as noted and as the applicant has accepted, within the cultural context the targeting of family members occurs. If he was wanted by the Taliban, I would expect that at least someone would have sought to pressure them, if not harm a family member to entice him out of his home (giving the applicant the benefit of the doubt when it comes to his claims of the perceived sanctity of the home due to the presence of women).
The applicant stated that the police officer who was responsible for his arrest was killed by the Taliban. He referenced this incident as an example of how the Taliban pursue their targets and eventually succeed in their revenge. But there is a considerable difference in the applicant’s circumstances and those of a ‘Top Pakistan police chief’ as he was described in one news article submitted by the applicant to the Department which went on to describe him as the, ‘country’s toughest policeman.’[5] Mr Chaudhry’s assassination was not claimed nor is there any evidence to suggest that it was related to the applicant. Nor does his assassination weigh in any manner towards the applicant’s circumstances as it is indicative only of high-profile anti-Taliban individuals being targeted by the Taliban.
[5] ‘Top Pakistan police chief Chaudhry Aslam Khan killed in Karachi Taliban attack: Enemies of country’s toughest policeman finally catch up with him’, 10 January 2014 [p66 of Departmental efile]
Considering that none of the applicant’s family have been threatened or harmed, that the applicant was not threatened or harmed for the two years while remaining in his family home after returning from [College 1] even considering that he had seen [Mr C] and [Mr D] around Karachi a few times and yet neither of them had sought him out, is strongly indicative that the Taliban as a group or the four men who were involved in the incident individually, are not interested in harming the applicant even if they haven’t forgotten his actions which include both the testimony in court but also the information given about [Mr C]’s other murder.
I note that it is unknown as to the length of the sentence [Mr E] and [Mr F] received and whether they have already been released, remain in prison or have passed away. While one possibility is that they will seek to harm the applicant after being released, I find this possibility to be far-fetched. If they wanted to harm the applicant, then they could have sought to harm him via a Taliban proxy during the two years that the applicant was living at his home in Pakistan and the issue was fresh in their minds. That they didn’t is strongly indicative of them not harbouring a desire to harm him. For these reasons, I find that the applicant does not face a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm from the Taliban or the four individuals.
With regards to harm from the community, it is not only that the applicant’s family have not been threatened by the Taliban, but the family continued to live and work in the same location which is a strong indication that the community did not place a substantial level of pressure on them. The applicant’s father continued in his work, albeit seeing a diminishment in his income; the brothers continued their schooling and subsequently at least one found work. While one of the brothers appears to have struggled to find a wife, the applicant’s mother has not concluded that it is because of the applicant. While this may be because she doesn’t want to unduly place pressure on the applicant knowing his mental health challenges, it may also be because it is a fact. Either way, that the applicant’s brother is unable to find a wife is only weakly indicative that the applicant will face societal discrimination or harassment.

I accept that the applicant had minimal movements out of his house, but this could be for many reasons including his parents fearing that he might be susceptible to being enticed towards the Taliban’s ideology once again or through a subjective sense of fear not supported objectively. What is objectively known, accepting the applicant’s evidence as fact, is that when he did go out for the purposes he described, he was not physically harmed. He was abused disparagingly with people saying that he is a ‘terrorist, a liar and a double crosser.’ Others found him a novelty and wanted to have a selfie with him. Importantly, no one tried to detain him or attack him.
When considering whether the applicant faces any future harm from society in general, I find that upon return to Pakistan some may remember him, but with the passage of 13 years since the incident the intensity of emotions among those who do recognise and remember him will have diminished. There would no longer be any novelty in a selfie with the applicant and as such I find no one would seek one out. What was once vitriolic abuse and disparaging words will become passing comments. I accept that the applicant’s current state of mind and into the reasonably foreseeable future makes him vulnerable to such comments from others. But even when taking his mental health into account, I find that such behaviour does not amount to the applicant facing a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm.
I also find that the applicant will not be harmed as a result of his family’s perception of having supported him, as the applicant’s representative identified as a claim. The reason is that if the applicant is not at risk individually and none of the family members have been at risk individually, then there is no reason to believe that were the two, family and applicant, reunited that there would be a heightened level of risk for the applicant.
Subsequent to the applicant’s departure to Australia the only relevant incident is when a friend forwarded a link of a website that is no longer live but according to the screenshot taken by the applicant was of the news report from 2010, simply reposted in 2018. As this link is no longer live in of itself it poses no risk to the applicant. It is, though, indicative of the possibility that into the future some other site will post the same video. The applicant argued that his story is not a normal story that one forgets. He believes that people haven’t forgotten his story and that the [Account 1] [social media] page reposted the video six years after it happened is an indication of this. Yet, I note that the applicant admitted that his friends with whom he was undertaking the exams did not know his past.
With regards to the applicant’s concerns of being recognised, it is possible. But as the applicant ages it becomes less likely that someone will firstly, see the reposted video and secondly connect it to the applicant. Noting that there is no mention of the applicant’s name in any of the footage or news reporting, I find that there is a remote chance and a remote risk that someone familiar with the applicant or someone who would come within the applicant’s orbit would identify the applicant as the person in an already post or a reposted video. As such I find that there is not a real chance or a real risk that the applicant faces any harm arising from the available material on the internet relating to the 2010 incident.

100. To avoid doubt, I have considered whether the applicant’s mental health and the functional limitations they impose upon him, as detailed by the applicant’s psychologist, may impact considerations pertaining to threats from the Taliban. Noting that the harm the applicant fears arises from a past action and has been articulated as revenge against the applicant, a diminished ability by the applicant to function will not influence whether the Taliban take action against him, or they don’t. As such his mental health does not play a role in this consideration.
Being Pashtun
101. We also discussed the claim by the applicant’s representative that he would face harm as a result of being a Pashtun. I note that among the country information submitted by the representative there is a DFAT report which states that there is a low risk of harm to Pashtuns outside of Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa. Karachi, where the applicant is from, is outside of Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa.
Elsewhere in Pakistan, Pashtuns generally face a low risk of official and/or societal discrimination and a similar risk of violence to other ethnic groups in the same locations.

102. When this was put to the applicant, he said that Pashtuns in Karachi face lots of difficulties in obtaining a job particularly government jobs, and that those with a domicile from Waziristan such as himself are looked down upon. He also said that it is difficult to get a scholarship from university for Pashtuns and that the police may stop Pashtuns to check their identity documents.
103. While I accept that there are challenges facing Pashtuns, I rely heavily on the DFAT assessment contained in the country information provided by the representative which states that as a Pashtun, on the basis of ethnicity alone, he faces a low risk of harm from official and societal discrimination. This assessment aligns with the evidence the applicant gave about his and his family’s experiences. I note that the applicant went to school and college, his father has maintained employment, his brother works, they’ve been able to marry, and the family were able to gather together the resources to send the applicant to Australia. No evidence was provided of past experiences of discrimination encountered by his family or himself. As such I find that the applicant does not face a real chance of serious harm into the reasonably foreseeable future or a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal.
104. As noted above, to avoid doubt, in considering the applicant’s claims of being Pashtun, I have turned my mind to whether the applicant’s mental health and the functional limitations they impose upon him, as detailed by the applicant’s psychologist, may impact this consideration. Noting that the harm the applicant fears arises from how others perceive him and that it has been found that this perception is minimally adverse, a diminished ability by the applicant to function will not influence whether those who discriminate against Pashtuns would discriminate against him more so. Though, I acknowledge that the type of discrimination that could be possible would enhance the level of harm as he is vulnerable, but not to that of a real chance of harm.
Applicant’s mental health
105. I asked the applicant if he feared harm arising from his mental health. He said that mental health is important for him and that he is trying his best to manage the stress and anxiety through regular appointments with his GP. He believes that his mental health will worsen were he to return to Pakistan as he would be unable to access support. But he acknowledged that if he has a mental health problem it is not that someone else will harm him but rather the harm arises from within.
106. I noted that he would be able to access anti-depressants in Pakistan as he is taking standard medication.[6] He said that it is not about the medication but about his life being at threat. He added that here he can go to the hospital and access support from a psychologist and psychiatrist, but there he would not be able to.
[6] With regards to the applicant’s mental health, he has not claimed that he would be targeted as a result of his mental health, nor is there evidence before the Tribunal that a person with mental health challenges is distinguishable from the wider population. While it is acknowledged that the applicant will face considerable challenges arising from a lack of access to the same level of medical care he has grown accustomed to in Australia, this has long been recognised as not being a basis upon which Australia’s protection obligations are triggered for various reasons including the need for there to be an intention by someone to inflict harm under refugee and complementary protection claims (arbitrary deprivation of life (s 36(2A)(a)) does not require an actual subjective intention, but the need for an intentional or deliberate act or omission that results in another person being deprived of their life has been read into the definition). In this case there is no evidence that supports a view that anyone would seek to harm the applicant as a result of his mental health nor is there any evidence before the Tribunal that the state is withholding medical resources from mental health support for some discriminatory reasons.
Cannabis Use
108. Just prior to the conclusion of the second hearing, prompted by the representative’s closing submissions, the applicant mentioned that he has in the past used cannabis. This claim arose through the context of the applicant having [in] August 2023 completed seven days in a detox facility. A [Hospital 1] Withdrawal Unit certificate was provided to the Tribunal after the second hearing. The applicant said that while at the detox facility he was given Valium and other medicine. The applicant said that he is trying not to use cannabis anymore as he knows it is affecting him adversely. He said that it has been two weeks since he left the detox facility, and that he has not reverted to the use of drugs. He referred to the use of cannabis as the biggest mistake of his life.
109. Based upon the applicant’s identification of the problem that cannabis usage has caused him and that he had successfully completed a seven-day detox course I conclude that into the reasonably foreseeable future the applicant would not be smoking cannabis including were he to return to Pakistan where he would face increased anxiety resulting from his fear of harm.
110. Having made the finding that the applicant will not be smoking cannabis, I do not engage further with any claims that arise from his past usage. To avoid any doubt, I find that the applicant does not face a real chance of serious harm into the reasonably foreseeable future or a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal arising from his past cannabis usage.
Other health issues
111. The applicant’s psychologist conveyed her opinion on what would happen to the applicant’s health were he to return to Pakistan. She said that his anxiety would escalate, he would be withdrawn and go into hiding. Heightened anxiety would limit his ability to participate in the wider society or to form relationships. He would have impaired sleep and digestion. He would have impaired cognitive ability such as being unable to concentrate. These could transfer into high blood pressure and poor eating.
112. The psychologist also noted that the applicant has a high level of suicidality in Australia.
113. When considering these circumstances, I note that for the purposes of Australia’s protection obligations for both what is referred to as refugee reasons (s 5J of the Act) or Complementary Protection, there needs to be a person with the intent to cause harm. Psychosomatic harm or suicide do not have an individual other than the person claiming protection who is the claimed persecutor (see for example: EZC18 v Minister for Home Affairs & Anor [2019] FCCA 464 and upheld on appeal EZC18 v MHA [2019] FCA 2143, and also CSV15 v MIBP [2018] FCA 699 and CHB16 v MIBP [2019] FCA 1089).). While it may be argued that the applicant’s psychological state is as a result of the actions of certain past individuals, this is not the same as it being future harm caused by those same individuals (see for example: BVT20 v MICMSMA [2020] FCAFC 222). For this reason, I do not consider further any harm that arises from the applicant’s own psychology.
Cumulative claims
114. In considering the cumulative circumstances facing the applicant upon return to Pakistan I note that the applicant was involved in a well-publicised suicide bombing plot that led to the four conspirators being sought by the police, two being caught, charged and convicted with the aid of the applicant’s evidence; the applicant being Pashtun; having mental health challenges; and having, in the past, used cannabis.
115. I found that there would be less than a real chance or a real risk of the applicant being harmed by someone as a result of the 2010 incident but even when the other elements are considered cumulatively, noting the applicant’s vulnerabilities, I find that the applicant does not face a real chance of serious harm into the reasonably foreseeable future or a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal from Australia.
116. 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).

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).
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

119. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.
Denis Dragovic

Deputy President
Ministerial Intervention:
120. I support this matter being brought before the Minister for consideration.
121. While the applicant’s circumstances do not meet the statutory threshold that would trigger Australia’s protection the applicant is firmly within the guidelines provided by the Ministerial intervention principles from PAM3 under Cases that should be brought to my attention: Unique or exceptional circumstances:
compassionate circumstances regarding the age and/or health and/or psychological state of the person that if not recognised would result in serious, ongoing and irreversible harm and continuing hardship to the person

122. The applicant is a young man whose life was subverted when he was [age] years of age by people who wanted to use him as a suicide bomber. Since then, the applicant has had the support of the Pakistan authorities, his family and people in Australia including his psychologist to start a new life.
123. Since arriving in Australia he has been diagnosed with various mental health challenges that are actively been worked on by the applicant through the support and guidance of professionals. The type of support he has been receiving will not be available to the applicant in Pakistan.
124. Among the mental health issues the applicant has been identified as having is high suicidality. Considering the background of the applicant and how he came to be experiencing the hardships that led to his mental health challenges, I believe that this case amounts to a compassionate circumstance for the Minister to intervene based upon the applicant’s psychological state.
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.
…