1817181 (Refugee)

[2020] AATA 3741

1817181 (Refugee) [2020] AATA 3741 (1 September 2020)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1817181

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Thailand

MEMBER:Tamara Hamilton-Noy

DATE:1 September 2020

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 01 September 2020 at 9:08am

CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Thailand – economic migrant – discrepancies with written protection claims – no fears of harm – decision under review affirmed

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

CASES
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

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 16 May 2018 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The applicant who claims to be a citizen of Thailand, applied for the visa on 8 February 2017. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the applicant is not a person to whom Australia owes protection obligations.

   CRITERIA FOR A PROTECTION VISA

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

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

5. A person is a refugee if, in the case of a person who has a nationality, they are outside the country of their nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to avail 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).

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

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

   Mandatory considerations

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

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

9. The issue in this case is whether the applicant meets any of the alternative criteria in s.36(2)(a), (aa), (b) or (c), that is, whether he is 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 of such a person.  For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.

   Country of nationality

10. The applicant travelled to Australia on a Thai passport.  He has at all times maintained that he is a citizen of Thailand.  The Tribunal finds that the applicant is a Thai citizen and has assessed his claims against Thailand as his country of nationality.

    Claims for protection

11. The applicant arrived in Australia on a student visa [in] August 2014 and this visa ceased on 5 April 2016.  The applicant applied for a protection visa on 9 February 2017.[1]

    [1] Movement details taken from Department decision, a copy of which was provided by the applicant to the Tribunal.

12. In his written protection application, the applicant said that he was born in [District 1], Chiang Rai province, that his parents and [siblings] are living in Chiang Rai and that he worked as an [Occupation 1] in [a specified workplace] while in Thailand.  In the written protection application, the applicant gave the following reasons for having left Thailand:

    I left my own country because distrust of the judiciary and low enforcement, poor system of government, burreacracy [sic] starting from the lowest lever up to the top.  The destruction of the global economy impact on nations economy.  Poverty and unemployment are still big, due to such problems, as the people of Thailand, I has been living in harsh condition so I had to borrow money from my relatives because of that I finally could not pay the debt.  I live in mental distress and fear.  Many people in Thailand have problem like me, who borrowed money had been hit, injured and killed.

13. In the written protection application claim, the applicant stated if he returns to Thailand, he will be caught by creditors and could be beaten, injured or killed.  In response to the question of whether he had experienced harm in Thailand, he stated yes and that “I already experienced, suffered discrimination in the workplace because of the gender.  Due to such problems, as the Thailand women, I have been living in harsh conditions”.  In response to the question of whether he believes he will be harmed or mistreated if he returns, he said yes and that “I will live in harsh conditions, suffered discrimination for Taiwanese women”.

14. The delegate of the Department found that the applicant is not a refugee as he has not claimed harm for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, and would not be denied protection from Thai authorities for one of the reasons set out in s.5J(1)(a); and that he is not owed complementary protection as he could obtain protection from the authorities such that there would not be a real risk he would suffer significant harm. 

15. At the time of lodging an application with the Tribunal, the applicant provided further written submissions in support of his claims, stating that everything he had provided in his original written application was correct but the decision maker had not been aware that one of the loans was fraudulent and was claimed by a fraudulent moneylender; that this was a tactic by the moneylender to harass him for political reasons; that the moneylenders are supporters and contributors to Yellow Shirts; that the applicant was an ardent Red Shirt supporter while living in Thailand; that the fraudulent loans were claimed and filed with the courts; and that if he returns to Thailand, the applicant will be harassed, assaulted and eventually set to prison because of the fraudulent claims of the moneylender. 

    Tribunal hearing

16. The Tribunal hearing was conducted on 19 August 2020.  The applicant was not represented at the hearing and gave evidence on affirmation, and the Tribunal was assisted at the hearing by a Thai interpreter.  At the time of the hearing the Tribunal’s Registry was closed due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.  The Tribunal exercised its discretion to conduct the hearing by telephone, having regard to the Tribunal’s objectives of providing a mechanism of review that is fair, just, economical and quick and having regard to the delay in this matter if it was not conducted by telephone.  The Tribunal was satisfied from the applicant’s answers that he was able to give evidence and present arguments throughout the hearing. 

17. The applicant told the Tribunal that he is a [age]-year-old from [District 2], Chiang Rai province.  His parents, [and siblings] are all still living in Chiang Rai, in a village.  His parents and brothers all do ‘general work’ and he rarely has contact with his family, only once or twice a month.  He does not have any family members in Australia.  He is not married and has no children.

18. The Tribunal asked the applicant about his studies and work in Thailand.  He said he also did general work around his house.  He went to high school in Chiang Rai and spent some time working in [Country 1] in a [workplace] which was organised by an agent.  Since being in Australia he has been working on a farm and is living in a town outside [City 1].

19. The applicant stated to the Tribunal that he has not returned to Thailand since first arriving in Australia.  The Tribunal observed that the applicant had arrived in Australia on a student visa and asked what he had enrolled to study in and he said he didn’t attend because of money.  The Tribunal asked what course he was supposed to study and he said he ‘learned something like the easy one’ but is not doing anything anymore because of the language barrier. 

20. The Tribunal asked about the protection application submitted to the Department and the applicant stated that he can’t remember who completed it on the day but it was a [certain] person.  He doesn’t know what is in the protection application because they didn’t tell him anything.  The person was someone through his work and he heard that the person could do this, but they didn’t tell the applicant what they were putting in the application.

21. The Tribunal asked why the applicant had left Thailand and he said it was for financial reasons, because he had no money and so came to Australia to earn some money.  His parents are old and he doesn’t want them to have a hard life. 

22. The Tribunal asked whether the applicant had owed anyone money when he left Thailand and he said he had borrowed [amount] from his neighbour. He has not repaid all of this amount because he has no job and no visa.  He has paid interest but doesn’t have money to repay the capital and still owes [amount].  He has told his neighbour he doesn’t have much work and his neighbour has said he can repay slowly.  He feels ‘a bit’ of pressure to repay the debt.  The money was borrowed for general things and because his parents are old.

23. The Tribunal observed that submissions had been provided to the Tribunal in June 2018 by the applicant and asked who had prepared these.  He said he doesn’t know and used to work with them.  He paid them and they told him he would get a working visa.  The Tribunal observed that the submissions had said the applicant was harassed for political reasons and he said he doesn’t know because they didn’t tell him what was in there.  The Tribunal observed that the submissions had said the applicant was a Red Shirt supporter and he said that is not correct.  The Tribunal observed that the submissions said that fraudulent loans had been claimed and filed with the courts and the applicant said no, he doesn’t have these.  The Tribunal observed that the submissions said the applicant would be harassed, assaulted or sent to prison by Yellow Shirt moneylenders and the applicant stated no, that is not correct. 

24. The Tribunal also discussed the written protection claims with the applicant during the hearing and observed that in the written protection application, the applicant had said he suffered discrimination in the workplace as a Thai woman.  He said he really doesn’t know what was in there.  The Tribunal observed the claims had said that if the applicant returns to Thailand, he will suffer discrimination as a Taiwanese woman and he said he really didn’t know ‘what type of visa they had put in’.  The Tribunal observed that the protection application process was a serious process and asked why the applicant would allow someone to put this information in to the Department on his behalf and he said he really doesn’t know.

25. The Tribunal asked the applicant whether there were any other reasons for him leaving Thailand and he said no, only the one thing, to earn money.  The Tribunal asked what the applicant fears if he returns to Thailand and he said no, he doesn’t have any fears.  The Tribunal asked whether the applicant fears harm from anyone in Thailand and he said no.  As to whether he wanted to add anything about his claims, he said he wants to work in Australia. 

    Findings of the Tribunal

26. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant was born in Chiang Rai province, that his parents and [siblings] live in Chiang Rai and that he does not have any family members in Australia.  The Tribunal accepts the applicant has some ongoing contact with his family.  The Tribunal accepts the applicant attended high school in Chiang Rai and that he worked in both Thailand and in [Country 1] before travelling to Australia.

27. The Tribunal accepts the applicant’s evidence that someone else completed both the protection visa application on his behalf and the submissions to the Tribunal and that he did not have input into the contents of either document.  The applicant told the Tribunal that he left Thailand to work in Australia and gave his evidence in a clear and credible manner as to his reasons for having left Thailand.

28. Based on the evidence given by the applicant at the hearing, the Tribunal finds that the applicant did not leave Thailand because of distrust in the judiciary and law enforcement, the poor system of government, the bureaucracy, poverty and unemployment or because he was living in harsh conditions and borrowed money from relatives.  The Tribunal finds that there is not a real chance the applicant faces serious harm, if he returns to Thailand now or in the reasonably foreseeable future, because of Thailand’s judiciary, law enforcement, system of government or bureaucracy.  The Tribunal finds there is not a real chance the applicant faces serious harm, if he returns to Thailand now or in the reasonably foreseeable future, because of poverty and unemployment or because he was living in harsh conditions and borrowed money from relatives.

29. For the same reasons, the Tribunal finds that the applicant did not leave Thailand because a fraudulent loan was attributed to him by a fraudulent moneylender to harass him for political reasons, because he was a Red Shirt supporter or because a fraudulent loan was claimed and filed with the courts.  The Tribunal finds that there is not a real chance the applicant faces serious harm, if he returns to Thailand now or in the reasonably foreseeable future, because of his political opinion or imputed political opinion.

30. Again for the same reasons, the Tribunal finds that the applicant did not leave Thailand because he experienced discrimination in the workplace due to his gender.  The Tribunal finds that there is not a real chance the applicant faces serious harm, if he returns to Thailand now or in the reasonably foreseeable future, because of workplace discrimination, because of his gender, or as a Taiwanese woman.

31. For the reasons stated above, the Tribunal does not accept the applicant owes money to creditors or moneylenders who may harm him upon return.  The Tribunal finds that, if the applicant returns to Thailand now or in the reasonably foreseeable future, there is not a real chance that he will be caught by creditors, that he will be beaten, injured and killed, or that he will be harassed, assaulted and sent to prison.

32. The Tribunal accepts the applicant came to Australia to earn money to support his family, partly because he is concerned that his parents are elderly.  The Tribunal is prepared to accept that the applicant borrowed [amount] from a neighbour for general living expenses.  The Tribunal is prepared to accept that the applicant has repaid interest and part of the amount borrowed and that he currently owes [amount] to his neighbour.  The Tribunal accepts that the applicant’s neighbour has told him he can repay the outstanding amount slowly.  The applicant told the Tribunal that he does not fear harm if he returns to Thailand for any reason and that there is no one he fears harm from.  The Tribunal finds that the applicant has been able to find work in Thailand, [Country 1] and Australia and that, if he returns to Thailand, he will be able to find further employment and will be able to continue repaying his neighbour.  The Tribunal finds there is not a real chance that the applicant will face serious harm, if he returns to Thailand now or in the reasonably foreseeable future, because he owes money to a neighbour.

33. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant faces a real chance of persecution for any reason if he returns to Thailand now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.

34. 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).

35. 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).  This requires the Tribunal to consider whether there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk of significant harm if the applicant is removed from Australia to Thailand.

36. Section 36(2)(aa) refers to a ‘real risk’ of an applicant suffering significant harm. The ‘real risk’ test imposes the same standard as the ‘real chance’ test applicable to the assessment of ‘well-founded fear’ in the Refugee Convention definition: MIAC v SZQRB [2013] FCAFC 33.

37. For the reasons given above, the Tribunal finds there is not a real risk the applicant faces significant harm if he returns to Thailand now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.

38. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(aa).

39. 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

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

    Tamara Hamilton-Noy
    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.

    …