1804827 (Refugee)

[2024] AATA 1124

1804827 (Refugee) [2024] AATA 1124 (1 March 2024)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1804827

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Vietnam

MEMBER:Patrick Francis

DATE:1 March 2024

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicants protection visas.

Statement made on 01 March 2024 at 11:41am

CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Vietnam – fear of harm from loan sharks – application completed by friend and claim discontinued at hearing – economic conditions, especially parents’ situation in rural area, and employment prospects – country information – qualification and work experience – claim of not being able to find work speculative – member of family unit child born in Australia after application made – schooling resources – now second child not subject of delegate’s decision – decision under review affirmed

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

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

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of decisions made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 1 February 2018 and 25 July 2019 to refuse to grant the applicants protection visas under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).

2. The first applicant who claims to be a citizen of Vietnam applied for the visa on 1 May 2017. The second applicant was subsequently born on [Date] and a further decision was made in respect of her on 25 July 2019. The delegate refused to grant the visas on the basis that the first applicant had claimed in her application to fear loan sharks on the basis that she had borrowed money in Vietnam and was unable to repay that money. The delegate reasoned that country information indicated that the Vietnamese authorities were reasonably effective in combating the activities of loan sharks and that the applicant would receive effective protection from the Vietnamese authorities against any threats faced by the applicants from loan sharks. As such the delegate reasoned that there was not a real risk of significant harm to the applicants. As the second applicant was not a member of the same family unit as a noncitizen who held a protection visa of the same class applied for, the second applicant was also refused a protection visa.

3. In correspondence to the Tribunal the first applicant set out her concerns that she did not have sufficient finance to support her young baby. Further, that her parents lived in the countryside in Vietnam and their economic situation had deteriorated without government assistance. She expressed her wish to stay in Australia for a further time.

4. The applicants appeared before the Tribunal on 20 February 2024 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Vietnamese and English languages.

   CRITERIA FOR A PROTECTION VISA

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

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

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

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

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

   Mandatory considerations

10. In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.84, made under s 499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken account of the ‘Refugee Law Guidelines’ and ‘Complementary Protection Guidelines’ prepared by the Department of Home Affairs, and country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade Report Vietnam, January 2022 (DFAT Report 2022)) expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.

    CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

11. The issue in this case is whether the applicants are persons in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion, or on other ‘complementary protection’ grounds, or as a member of the same family unit as such a person and that person holds a protection visa of the same class. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.

12. At hearing the first applicant claimed that she was born in Vietnam and is a citizen of that country. On the departmental file is a copy of her Vietnamese passport. The second applicant was born in Australia to parents of Vietnamese citizenship. There is no suggestion that she is entitled to citizenship of any other country apart from Vietnam. On the basis of that information the Tribunal finds that the applicants are Vietnamese citizens and have assessed their claims against Vietnam as their country of nationality and the ‘receiving country’ per s.5(1).

13. The Tribunal notes that the first applicant now has a second child. As was discussed with the first applicant at hearing, the delegate’s decision has not been made in respect of that second child and nor is there a review application for that child before this Tribunal. Therefore this review is in respect only of the named two applicants.

    Claims

14. The protection visa application form sets out claims regarding a loan taken from a loan shark in Vietnam and concerns arising from such loan. At hearing the first applicant indicated she did not complete the visa form herself and did not know what was in the claim. She said that a friend had completed it for her at a time when she was very concerned around covering costs related to her pregnancy and birth of her first child. In discussion at hearing regarding the reasons the applicant seeks protection in Australia it is evident she makes no claim to fear harm in Vietnam arising from any matters concerning loans or loan sharks. Taking into account the first applicant’s lack of knowledge of those claims in the protection visa application and her subsequent statements, the Tribunal finds that the first applicant did not borrow money from a loan shark in Vietnam and nor does she fear harm or face harm on that account or other loans in Vietnam. The Tribunal finds the applicants do not have a well-founded fear of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm in relation to any such loan(s).

15. At hearing when asked whether there were any reasons she needed protection in Australia, the first applicant gave evidence that there were not, however she claimed that there is a real risk that the second applicant would suffer significant harm in Vietnam. The first applicant expressed that she is uncertain if she would be able to obtain employment in Vietnam, claiming that there is very high unemployment in Vietnam. She asserts it is easier to obtain work for a person younger than 35 years of age. The first applicant gave evidence of holding a Diploma of [Subject] but claims that she has not practised [Subject] in Australia and therefore that she has a slim chance of employment in Vietnam.

16. At hearing the Tribunal spoke with the first applicant about country information contained in the DFAT Report 2022. In part (at 2.5 to 2.7 of the DFAT Report 2022) that Vietnam has a low rate of reported unemployment at 2.5% although the unofficial rate is likely much higher, that Vietnam is rapidly urbanising and that the services sector has become the largest part of the economy, about 50% of GDP. Also, that there is good economic growth in Vietnam and the poverty rate has fallen significantly. The report noted that the COVID pandemic was disruptive to unemployment in 2020 and that women and low skilled workers were particularly affected by the pandemic. Noting the first applicant’s qualifications and the above country information, the Tribunal queried whether the applicant was unable to earn a living in Vietnam. In response she stated that from 2023 there has been a downturn of small business, that there is no industrialisation in her local area and that younger staff are preferred by employers. She also referred to her partner’s self-employment in the [Work sector] in Australia.

    ECONOMIC OVERVIEW

    2.5 According to World Bank data, between 2002 and 2018 more than 45 million people were lifted out of poverty. In that period, the poverty rate fell from over 70 per cent to below 6 per cent. The majority of the poor are from ethnic minority groups. The economy continues to grow and has strong growth potential, with 2.9 per cent growth in 2020 despite the COVID-19 pandemic. This is reflected in a growing middle class and increasing urbanisation.

    Employment and welfare

    2.6 The official unemployment rate is about 2.4 per cent according to ILO data. However, the rate of informal employment is very high. According to figures quoted by the World Bank, 76 per cent of all workers are in the informal sector. The COVID-19 pandemic was disruptive to employment with a 1.2 per cent increase in unemployment in 2020. Women and low-skilled workers were particularly affected by the pandemic with many losing their jobs.

    2.7 Vietnam is rapidly urbanising. The services sector has become the largest part of the economy at about 50 per cent of GDP. Vietnam has become a popular destination for manufacturing as wages are low and there is a young, growing and increasingly educated workforce. Some multinational companies looking to diversify their outsourced manufacturing have sought out Vietnam as an alternative location to other countries in the region for manufacturing, creating jobs for young people.

17. The Tribunal acknowledges that the first applicant has concerns regarding her employment prospects in Vietnam. The Tribunal finds that she has obtained a Diploma of [Subject] in Vietnam. That qualification is relevant to all sectors of the economy, including the services sector, which has become the largest part of Vietnam’s economy. Country information referred to above, does not support the first applicant’s claims that she would be unlikely to find employment in Vietnam. The Tribunal finds that the qualification she has obtained, despite the period of time since graduating, would mean she has a higher skill set than many low skilled workers in Vietnam. Although the first applicant claims that it is easier for people younger than 35 years old to get work, that claim is not supported by country information. In any event the first applicant is currently in her early [Decade]. Her evidence is that she had employment in Vietnam as [an Occupation] and of having employment in Australia after ceasing study in about June 2013, some six months after arrival in Australia. The Tribunal has taken account of the first applicant’s expressed concerns regarding the lack of manufacturing in her area however her skills are not restricted to that field of employment. On the basis of the evidence the Tribunal finds that the first applicant has employment experience in Vietnam and in Australia and has qualifications in [Subject].

18. The denial of capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist is an instance of serious harm, as is significant economic hardship that threatens the person’s capacity to subsist, per s5J(5). The Tribunal does not accept however that the first applicant’s claims of not finding employment are any more than speculative taking into account her age, qualifications and experience in addition to relevant country information as referred to above. The Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a real chance that the first applicant would be unable to earn a livelihood of any kind such as to deny her a capacity to support herself and her two children which would threaten their capacity to subsist. As such the Tribunal finds that the applicants do not have a well-founded fear of persecution in Vietnam on this basis and do not meet the requirements of s.5J(1).

19. The first applicant also expressed concerns that Vietnamese society is still undeveloped and may not be suitable for her children who were born in Australia and used to the Australian environment, including school. She referred to the long hours children attend school in Vietnam, that they carry heavy books to school and also to the approach to rote learning in Vietnam. There is no suggestion that the second applicant has any particular condition or circumstance which would impact on her more adversely than other children going through the Vietnamese education system. The Tribunal accepts that the school environment in Vietnam is different to that in Australia and that the second applicant has undertaken a few years of schooling in Australia. There is no evidence before the Tribunal to support a finding however that the school system in Vietnam is detrimental to a child or, in the circumstances of this application, that there is a real chance that it would be detrimental to the second named applicant.

20. It is a requirement of s5J(4)(b) that the feared persecution must involve serious harm to the person. The Tribunal is not satisfied however that the claimed fears regarding the second applicant’s participation in schooling in Vietnam amount to serious harm. The Tribunal therefore finds that the second applicant does not have a well-founded fear of persecution in Vietnam per s.5J.

21. The Tribunal has considered the interactions of the claims on a cumulative basis. That includes that the first applicant would be working while the children are at school, that she would need to ensure that the children are cared for while she is at work, that the children may have long school days and that her children may not have access to the same level of resources as other children. Even when considered cumulatively however the interaction between employment for the first named applicant and schooling for the second named applicant does not lead to either facing a real chance of serious harm. The Tribunal is satisfied of that and finds accordingly.

22. Nor is there any other basis to be satisfied that there is a well-founded fear of persecution in Vietnam for either applicant.

23. As the applicants do not have a well-founded fear of persecution in accordance with the requirements of the Act they cannot be considered to be refugees and do not meet the requirements of s.36(2)(a).

24. The Tribunal considered the applicants’ claims in relation to the complementary protection criterion referred to earlier in these reasons. Those obligations exist where there are 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 the second applicant will suffer significant harm per s.36(2)(aa). The term ‘significant harm’ is defined in s.36(2A):

    (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.

25. The Tribunal has found that the first applicant did not borrow money from a loan shark in Vietnam and nor does she fear harm or face harm on that account. On that basis the Tribunal finds that there are no grounds for believing that the applicants would suffer significant harm in Vietnam on such account.

26. In respect of the first applicant’s claims regarding difficulties of obtaining employment and consequential economic hardship, the Tribunal has found that the first applicant has employment experience in Vietnam and in Australia, qualifications in [Subject] and that the services sector in Vietnam constitutes approximately 50% of GDP. The Tribunal finds that there is not a real risk that the applicants would suffer significant harm as defined above, on the basis of the first applicant’s claims of a lack of employment.

27. In respect of the claims made on behalf of the second applicant the Tribunal has not accepted that the schooling system in Vietnam would be detrimental to her despite differences between the Australian and Vietnamese systems. It may be more demanding and may not be as well-resourced as Australian schooling. The evidence before the Tribunal however does not support any finding regarding the second applicant being subject to degrading treatment or punishment, cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment or other factors set out in s.36(2A).

28. As set out above the Tribunal has considered the interaction of the claims on a cumulative basis in relation to employment and education concerns. The Tribunal finds that there are not substantial grounds for believing that as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to Vietnam there is a real risk that the applicants would suffer significant harm s.36(2A).

29. The Tribunal is not satisfied that either of the applicants are persons in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(aa).

30. For the reasons given above the Tribunal is not satisfied that any of the applicants is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations. Therefore the applicants do not satisfy the criterion set out in s 36(2)(a) or (aa) for a protection visa. It follows that they are also unable to satisfy the criterion set out in s 36(2)(b) or (c), and cannot be granted the visa.

    DECISION

1. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicants protection visas.

   Patrick Francis
   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.

   …