1834941 (Refugee)

[2024] AATA 2942

1834941 (Refugee) [2024] AATA 2942 (10 April 2024)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1834941

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   China

MEMBER:Dr Greg Weeks

DATE:10 April 2024

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 10 April 2024 at 1:24pm

CATCHWORDS

REFUGEE – Protection Visa – China – religion – a devout underground Christian – making money was a substantial reason for the applicant coming to and wishing to remain in Australia – does not claim to fear harm in China – claim to have been threatened was vague and lacked detail – not satisfied that the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, ss 5, 36, 65, 499

Migration Regulations 1994, 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 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 (delegate) on 21 November 2018 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).

   Background

2. The applicant is a [age]-year-old woman and is a citizen of China. She claims to have been born in Yunnan Province, although her passport indicates that she was born in Sichuan Province. Prior to her arrival in Australia, the applicant resided in [a] County, Ziyang City, Sichuan Province.

3. The applicant has two sons, both of whom still reside in China. The elder is [age] years old and works as a [occupation]. The younger is [age] years old and attends school. He resides with the applicant’s elder sister. With the help of her sister, the applicant has raised her children alone since she started to live apart from her former husband following the birth of their younger son.

4. The applicant obtained a visitor visa to enter Australia and arrived in Sydney in August 2017.

5. The Tribunal has been provided with a copy of the applicant’s application for a protection visa dated 28 September 2017 (PV application).

   Claims for protection

6. In the PV application, the applicant claimed that she is “a devout underground Christian” but that “there is no freedom of religious belief” in China. She claimed that many of her church friends were “caught [at an] underground gathering”, after which they were “cruelly tortured and insulted in the detention centre”. The applicant claimed that “police wanted to arrest [her] because they knew [she is] a devout underground Christian”. She claimed that the police “continually came to [her] home and harassed [her] family” and that she came to Australia for “safety”.

7. In the PV application, the applicant claimed that China is a one-party dictatorship which “forbids the existence of underground Christians” and that, if she returns to China, she “will be harmed by the government just like other underground Christians” and “will definitely be arrested by the police” who “will force me to give up my belief and torture me cruelly in the prison”.

   Procedural history

8. The applicant was invited to attend an interview with the delegate on 1 November 2018 but failed to do so. The delegate subsequently refused to grant the applicant a visa.

9. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 8 April 2024 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Mandarin and English languages.

10. The applicant was not represented in relation to the review.

    CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

    The relevant law

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. 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).

14. 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.

15. 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

16. 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 (the Department), and country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.

    Analysis, reasons and findings

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

    Motivation to come to Australia

18. The applicant claimed that she did not draft her PV application but that, about a week after she arrived in Australia, she paid someone else to do so for her. She is no longer in contact with that person. The applicant claimed not to know what claims had been made in her PV application.

19. The applicant gave evidence that the reason that she paid to have another person draft her PV application was to “protect” her visa. When I asked what she meant by that, the applicant replied that, if she “wanted a job to make money” in Australia, she needed to protect her visa. The applicant also gave evidence that she wants to make money to support her children and that she regularly sends money back to China in sums between 1,000 RMB and 3,000 RMB. She stated that her children had no issues with her leaving China because she “came [to Australia] to make money to support them”. I raised a concern with the applicant that, given the evidence summarised above, I might conclude that making money was the reason for which she came to Australia. The applicant did not respond to that concern.

20. On the basis of her evidence in the hearing, I find that making money was a substantial reason for the applicant coming to and wishing to remain in Australia.

    Religious beliefs and practices

21. The applicant gave little substantive evidence in the hearing about her religious beliefs and practices. The applicant’s reluctance to speak about her religious beliefs and practices during the hearing must be considered in the context of her not having attended an interview with the delegate. It follows from that fact that I can have regard only to the relatively general and briefly expressed claims in the PV application in addition to the applicant’s oral evidence in assessing her claim for protection.

22. After the applicant affirmed at the commencement of the hearing that her evidence would be truthful rather than taking an oath to the same effect, I asked whether she had been offered the chance to swear on the Bible. She replied that she would be “uncomfortable” and that it would be “embarrassing” to do so but was otherwise reluctant to respond to my inquiry.

23. I asked the applicant why she does not wish to go back to China and she replied that it is “not that [she doesn’t] want to” but she is “used to living here”. She added that “they don’t like [people] learning Christianity” in China but that “they [are] not against it” and would not “do anything” about it. When I asked what would happen if she were to go back to China, the applicant responded that she “really [doesn’t] know”. I asked if she was afraid to go back and the applicant replied that, “to be honest”, she just wants to stay in Australia. I asked if there is any reason that the applicant fears persecution if she returns to China and she replied only that “I don’t want to go back to China”.

24. I asked the applicant if she had ever suffered harm in China for the reason of her religion and she replied that “some people” had threatened her. When I asked who these people were, the applicant replied that they were men and women. She stated:

    It is just a group of people, we are studying this together and, if you don’t listen to them, they will not be happy. So that’s why, if I go back to China, this is what I’m afraid of. We are not allowed to do this in the place where I was living.

25. I asked the applicant about the nature of the threat made against her. She replied:

    It’s not that they want to do anything to me. It can be quite aggressive but it doesn’t mean that they’re going to harm me or do anything to me. In China, the government does not allow this.

26. I asked if the applicant had previously suffered any other harm in China for the reason of her religion and she replied that she had not. I accept that evidence.

27. I asked the applicant to tell me about her religious beliefs and she said that she did not want to talk about them. The applicant asked me whether she had to talk about her religious beliefs and I impressed on her the importance of the issue to her application and that the answers would assist me to understand why she had been threatened for the reason of her religion. The applicant responded that she did not want to “talk about this”. I asked if she could tell me why she did not wish to talk about it and she replied only that she did not. The applicant then told me that she had a headache. I offered to adjourn the hearing to another day. Alternatively, I told the applicant that if she felt comfortable to continue, I estimated that the hearing would finish in about half an hour. The applicant said that she did not want to come back on another day and elected not to seek an adjournment.

28. I asked the applicant whether there was anything she could tell me about her religious beliefs. She said that she goes to a church in [Suburb 1] with several other people “a couple of times in a year” on her days off. She said that she doesn’t “go to learn anything” but simply follows those people.

29. I asked whether the applicant went to church in China and she replied that she went to a building of a “decent size” which she referred to as a “temple”, specifying that it was not a Buddhist temple but what would be called a church in Australia. The applicant stated that she went there two or three times a year to “cook and eat, similar to what we do here”.

30. I asked the applicant whether she shared her Christian beliefs with others in China and she replied that she would if they also believed in Christianity. I then asked the applicant whether she had owned a Bible in China and she replied: “Do I have to say this?”. I said that she need not if she preferred not to and the applicant asked: “Am I allowed to talk about this?”. I said that, not only was she allowed, but that it was really important for me to understand how she practiced her religion. The applicant said:

    We should not tell others about a prayer. We should keep it in our hearts. We should not say that to others.

31. I asked the applicant whether she could tell me about a part of the Bible that she particularly liked and she replied: “Yes, there are some parts that I like but I will not tell others.” I asked whether the applicant currently owns a Bible and she said that she did not want to talk about it because it is her secret and not for others to know. The applicant maintained that stance even after I told her again that an understanding of her religious beliefs and practices would be important to me in assessing her claims for protection.

32. I asked the applicant how she would practice her religion if she were to return to China and she said that she would continue to practice but would not say how because she had made a promise to “keep it in [her] heart”. I asked the applicant whether there was anything else that she wanted to tell me about her religious beliefs and practices and she simply said “no”. I asked whether there was anything else that she wanted to tell me about her claim for protection and she again answered “no” but added that she “just [wants] to stay in Australia”.

33. The account above of the applicant’s evidence demonstrates the difficulty that I have in being satisfied that she has a well-founded fear of persecution in China for the reason of her religion. The applicant was not forthcoming in response to my questions about her religious beliefs and practices despite the fact that she does not claim to fear harm in China for any other reason.

34. The evidence that the applicant did give during the hearing supports a number of findings. I accept that the applicant seldom attended church in either China or Australia, that she attended church in China in a building that could be identified as a church or “temple” and that her attendance at church, both in China and Australia, is focussed extensively on social interaction rather than “learning” about religious doctrine. The applicant’s evidence also supports the finding that she does not discuss her religious beliefs with those who do not share them, much less proselytise to others.[1] China has regulations in force, generally enforced across the country, which prohibit proselytising.[2] I do not accept that the applicant would face harm due to the application of those regulations.

    [1] A key element of the definition of “proselytise” is the act of converting a person or people to a religious faith: L Brown (ed), The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (1993), p 2384.

    [2] DFAT, ‘Country Information Report: People’s Republic of China’ (22 December 2021), [3.26].

35. The applicant’s evidence was, by contrast, insufficient to satisfy me about several other aspects of her claims for protection. On the evidence before the Tribunal, I do not accept that the applicant owned a Bible in China or that she owns a Bible now. I do not accept that the applicant has either an understanding of, or an interest in learning about, Christian doctrine. The applicant’s evidence was insufficient to satisfy me that she attended an underground church. Some of her evidence indicated, to the contrary, that she sporadically attended what would be described as a church in Australia and the applicant characterised as a “temple”. Country information indicates that most Protestants in China worship in unofficial ‘house’ churches, which may literally meet in a house but can be large gatherings which meet, for example, in commercial office space.[3] These low-profile meeting places are chosen because Chinese authorities discriminate against underground Christians.[4] I do not accept on the basis of the evidence before the Tribunal that the applicant attended an underground church in China.

    [3] DFAT, ‘Country Information Report: People’s Republic of China’ (22 December 2021), [3.33].

    [4] DFAT, ‘Country Information Report: People’s Republic of China’ (22 December 2021), [3.35].

36. The applicant did not address during the hearing her claim in the PV application that her friends had been detained after having been arrested at an underground church. On the evidence before the Tribunal, I do not accept that the applicant’s friends were “caught [at an] underground gathering” or that they were “cruelly tortured and insulted in the detention centre”.

37. The applicant’s claim to have been threatened was vague and lacked detail. Taken at its highest, it did not amount to a claim that she either suffered harm for the reason of her religion while in China or fears harm for that reason if she returns. Her evidence regarding the threats that had been made to her expressly did not claim that those making the threats were “going to harm … or do anything to” the applicant. I do not accept that the applicant was threatened for the reason of her religion or that, even had such threats been made, that the applicant would have faced harm as a result.

38. The applicant denied that the people who had threatened her were representatives of the government. She did not otherwise give evidence at the hearing that she had been the subject of adverse interest to the Chinese authorities for the reason of her religion or otherwise. On the evidence before the Tribunal, I do not accept that police wanted to arrest the applicant for having been a member of, or attendant at, an underground church or for any other reason related to her religious beliefs. On the evidence before the Tribunal, I do not accept that police came to the applicant’s home and to harass her or her family.

39. I shared country information with the applicant that it is very hard to leave China without official approval, that it is difficult to bribe border protection agents, who are a professional and comparatively well-paid sector of the public security infrastructure, and that increased reliance on technology and algorithms means that human officials do not make all of the decisions which affect people attempting to leave China.[5] I then put to the applicant that she had left China legally on a passport issued in her own name in both 2016 (for a holiday to [other countries]) and 2017 (when she came to Australia) and asked her to comment on the possibility that I might therefore conclude that she was of no adverse interest to the Chinese authorities when she left China. The applicant stated that she wished to make no comment on that issue. I do not accept that the applicant was of adverse interest to the Chinese authorities at the time that she departed from China.

    [5] DFAT, ‘Country Information Report: People’s Republic of China’ (22 December 2021), [5.35].

40. I put to the applicant that she had claimed in the PV application to have been a member of an underground church in China but that she had not provided any further support for those claims during the hearing. I further put to the applicant that I might therefore have trouble believing that she would face a real chance of persecution in China due to her religion and asked her whether she wished to comment on that possibility. The applicant stated that she wished to make no comment in response to that concern.

1. I put to the applicant that she had given evidence in the hearing that a substantial reason for having come to Australia was to make money to send back to China for the benefit of her children but that she had told me very little about her religion and had not added detail to the claims raised in the PV application. I asked the applicant whether she wished to comment on the possibility that I might therefore conclude that she does not fear persecution for the reason of being a Christian and does not meet the refugee criterion in the Act. The applicant stated that she wished to make no comment on that issue. I have accepted above that making money was a substantial reason for the applicant coming to and wishing to remain in Australia.

2. I have rejected above the claim that the applicant attended an underground church in China. On the evidence before the Tribunal, I do not accept that the applicant is “a devout underground Christian” or that that the applicant’s safety was threatened on the basis of having been an underground Christian in China. I do not accept that, if she returns to China, the applicant will attend an underground church, that she “will be harmed by the government just like other underground Christians” or that she faces arrest, imprisonment or other harm for the reason of her religion.

   Conclusions

3. For the reasons given above, I do not accept that there is a real chance that the applicant will face serious harm in the reasonably foreseeable future for the reason of her religion. I am not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(a).

4. Having concluded that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), I have considered the alternative criterion in s 36(2)(aa). The applicant did not claim, and I do not accept, that there is a real risk that she will suffer significant harm as a foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to China. I am not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(aa).

5. 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

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

   Dr Greg Weeks
   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.

   …