1900981 (Refugee)

[2024] AATA 3873

1900981 (Refugee) [2024] AATA 3873 (7 August 2024)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1900981

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Malaysia

MEMBER:Sydelle Muling

DATE:7 August 2024

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 07 August 2024 at 3:36pm

CATCHWORDS

REFUGEE – protection visa – Malaysia – particular social group – lesbian – bringing shame on family – relationship ceased – exclusion from family events – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, ss 5(1), 5H, 5J – 5LA, 36, 65, 424, 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 dependants.

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 3 January 2019 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).

2. The applicant who claims to be a citizen of Malaysia, applied for the visa on 5 June 2018. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the applicant did not meet the criteria for a protection visa.  

3. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 17 June 2024 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Malay and English languages.

   CRITERIA FOR A PROTECTION VISA

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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).

7. 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.

8. 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

9. 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 (DFAT) expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.

   CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

10. The applicant claims to be a citizen of Malaysia who was born on [date] in [Town 1], in Sabah, Malaysia. According to her protection visa application, the applicant’s religion is Islam. She resided in [Town 1], Sabah from [birth] to March 2018. The applicant is fluent in Malay and English. She departed Malaysia legally [in] March 2018, arriving in Australia on [the following day]. She is in contact with relatives outside Australia on [social media].

11. The applicant presented her claims in her protection visa application, summarised as follows:

    ·She left her country because she is in love with her lesbian partner.

    ·Malaysia is an Islamic country, so lesbians are not allowed.

    ·Both of their families were strongly against her relationship with her lesbian partner, so she had to leave her country to avoid family trouble.

    ·If she returns to Malaysia she may experience a lot of serious trouble and be in danger because her partner’s family members threatened to kill her, and she ran away from them.

    ·She did not move to another part of the country because her partner’s family has a strong background and have people who can find them.

    ·The authorities cannot protect her because “their” family members have strong backgrounds and a lot of family members found them in all parts of the country.

12. The delegate was not satisfied Australia had protection obligations in respect of the applicant and refused the protection visa application on 3 January 2019.

13. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 17 June 2024 and gave oral evidence about her circumstances in Malaysia, reasons she left the country and fears upon return there now. The evidence will be discussed below, in the analysis and findings.

    CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

14. The issues in this review are whether there is a real chance that, if she returns to Malaysia, the applicant will be persecuted for one or more of the five reasons set out in s 5J(1)(a) for the purpose of s 36(2)(a) of the Act and, if not, whether there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of her being removed from Australia to Malaysia, there is a real risk that she will suffer significant harm for the purpose of s 36(2)(aa) of the Act.

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

16. The applicant claims to be a citizen of Malaysia. She travelled to Australia on a valid Malaysian passport and states that she is a national of Malaysia. The Tribunal accepts on the evidence before it, namely a copy of the applicant’s passport, that Malaysia is the applicant’s country of nationality or receiving country for the purposes of complementary protection.

17. The applicant claimed in the hearing that she came to Australia in March 2018 because her family had learnt that she “likes females”. She claimed her family did not agree with her relationship and felt ashamed. Further, her partner’s family would not hesitate to shame or embarrass her family. When asked what she believes will happen if she returns to Malaysia now, the applicant stated that there is nothing that can happen to harm her because she has lost contact with her previous partner. However, she has no freedom and will have to obey what her family says if she wants to get along with them. She stated that she wants to remain in Australia because she wants to be herself and wants freedom to be a couple with someone of the same gender.  In response to the Tribunal’s question as to whether she believes she will be harmed, the applicant stated yes, not physical harm but mental harm. When asked to explain what she meant by mental harm, the applicant explained that as she will have to live secretly, she will be asked why she does not get married, and she will need to lie. She also stated that she does not want to be a burden to her family and cause them any shame because she is in a relationship with a female.

18. The Tribunal finds the applicant’s claims regarding her alleged sexual orientation not credible for the following reasons.

19. The Tribunal finds the applicant’s evidence with respect to her self-realisation that she was sexually attracted to females to be vague and limited. The applicant initially spoke about feeling “horny” for females and about her “fantasy sex” being “more like that”. When asked to clarify her response, the applicant stated that it came naturally. The Tribunal noted in the hearing that she had claimed in her protection visa application that lesbians are not accepted in Malaysia as it is an Islamic country and questioned, in light of this, how she felt when she became aware that she was sexually attracted to females at the age of 17. The applicant responded that at the time the person came into the shop she worked in and approached her, and they had chemistry. When pressed about how she came to terms with her sexuality, particularly given her evidence in the hearing that this was going to bring shame to her family, the applicant stated that she just followed her heart. The Tribunal observes that the applicant demonstrated difficulty articulating how her claimed sexuality impacted her despite being asked several times. Similarly, she was unable to provide any clear or detailed response to the Tribunal’s questions about how she conducted her life in Malaysia as a lesbian, stating that she just went through it because there was nothing much she could do. The applicant subsequently stated that she was just like that but not in public because they needed to hide “it”. Yet, as the Tribunal put to the applicant in the hearing, this appeared to conflict with her evidence of being intimate with one of her girlfriends in a car at the beach. In response, the applicant stated that this was initially in their relationship. Regardless of when the applicant had engaged in this alleged activity, the Tribunal finds the applicant’s evidence in this respect contradictory. While the Tribunal appreciates articulating emotions can be difficult and it is mindful that there is no test or set of “right” answers to ascertain a person’s sexuality, it finds the applicant’s evidence regarding her alleged sexuality to be superficial and unpersuasive.

20. The Tribunal also finds the applicant’s evidence regarding the two relationships she allegedly had in Malaysia to be unconvincing. The applicant claimed her first relationship was with a girl named [Ms A] whom she met when she first started working in [year range]. Despite claiming to be in a relationship with [Ms A] for 2 years, the applicant did not know what kind of work [Ms A] did (despite knowing that [Ms A] worked with her uncle) or where she lived other than the suburb. While the Tribunal notes the applicant’s evidence that she had never been to [Ms A’s] home, the Tribunal finds it concerning that she would have no awareness of at least the name of the street [Ms A] lived in. She was also unable to discuss in any detail how her relationship with [Ms A] developed beyond meeting her at her workplace and then going out together to eat. When asked how long after first meeting she and [Ms A] were sexually intimate, whilst the applicant stated it was maybe a few months, she also expressed feelings of embarrassment and shame in responding to this question. The Tribunal is mindful that an applicant may be reluctant to discuss aspects of their past relationships due to the fact it involves personal information. It also accepts that some LGBTQI individuals may harbour deep shame. However, the Tribunal finds the applicant’s unease in answering when her relationship with [Ms A] became sexual, when considered together with its other concerns, confirms the Tribunal’s concerns regarding the credibility of her claim that she is a lesbian and raises serious doubts that she was speaking from lived experience during the hearing.    

21. Similarly, the Tribunal finds the applicant’s evidence with respect to her second relationship in Malaysia, with [Ms B], to be lacking. Her evidence regarding how her relationship with [Ms B] developed was limited. She stated that she knew [Ms B] from a friend and [Ms B] asked her to watch her play [a sport], they went out to eat and then went to [Ms B’s] house and maybe a week later they started a relationship. When asked what attracted her to [Ms B], the applicant stated she loved her. The Tribunal asked the applicant further questions to elicit a more detailed response from her including why she loved [Ms B] and what it was about [Ms B] that made her want to be with her, however the applicant repeatedly responded that she just loved her. According to the applicant’s evidence she and [Ms B] were allegedly in a relationship from 2015 until August 2017. The Tribunal finds the applicant’s inability to articulate anything further than feeling love for [Ms B] as the basis of her attraction and desire to be in a relationship with her confirms the Tribunal’s doubt about the existence of this relationship.

22. The Tribunal finds the applicant’s evidence regarding her family’s knowledge of her alleged relationship with [Ms B] and their reaction to her being in a same-sex relationship to be vague and limited. According to the applicant, she claimed that her family became aware of her relationship with [Ms B] a year after they had been together, which would have been sometime in 2016 given the applicant claimed she commenced her relationship with [Ms B] in 2015.  When asked how her family reacted, she stated that they disagreed and “the thing put a shame on her family”. She claimed that she experienced no problems after her family allegedly became aware of her sexuality in 2016 however it has never been the same. When asked to explain, she stated it is like she exists and does not exist. The Tribunal asked the applicant to elaborate further, and she spoke about being treated differently and suggested her mother felt frustrated because she was different from her other children. The Tribunal asked how this was expressed and the applicant stated “they” were “cold” so if there was an event such as a gathering for a birthday, sometimes she would be excluded and she would feel offended. The Tribunal finds the applicant’s evidence regarding her family’s alleged response to learning about her sexuality unconvincing and not entirely consistent with her claim that this resulted in her experiencing conflict with her family.

23. The applicant also claimed that [Ms B] told her family about their relationship in 2016 when she took the applicant to her hometown and introduced her to her family. The applicant claimed that [Ms B’s] family also disagreed with their relationship and told them they must end it. She claimed that [Ms B’s] family threatened to tell her family about their relationship in order to cause them shame so that is why she and [Ms B] separated. However, the Tribunal notes the applicant’s earlier evidence was that her relationship with [Ms B] ended in August 2017. When it put this to the applicant, she explained that she and [Ms B] continued their relationship but in secret. When the Tribunal asked the applicant how this changed the way she and [Ms B] conducted their relationship, the applicant stated it was different and not like normal, but she was unable to explain in any detail how it was different except to say that her older sister was monitoring her, and she had no freedom. The Tribunal finds the applicant’s evidence about [Ms B’s] family’s reaction to [Ms B’s] disclosure that they were in a same-sex relationship and the applicant’s assertions that she and [Ms B] continued their relationship secretly unpersuasive.

24. Further, the Tribunal has had regard to the fact that despite the applicant claiming to be in these two fairly long-term relationships, the applicant was unable to show the Tribunal any photographs of her together with either of her alleged partners in Malaysia. Similarly, while the applicant claimed to have been in a relationship with a woman named [Ms C] for almost 2 years whilst in Australia, she claimed to have deleted all photographs of her and messages from her. The applicant claimed to have deleted all photographs of all her alleged partners after breaking up with them. In light of the Tribunal’s concerns discussed above, the Tribunal finds the applicant’s inability to provide any evidence in the form of photographs or communication between her and her partners, particularly her most recent partner, questionable. 

25. Based on the above, the Tribunal does not accept the applicant is a lesbian. It does not accept that she was in a relationship with either [Ms A] or [Ms B] whilst she was in Malaysia. As such, it does not accept that the applicant had any conflict with her family once they became aware of her alleged relationship with [Ms B] or that the applicant was threatened by [Ms B’s] family that they would tell her family about her alleged relationship to cause them shame. As the Tribunal finds the applicant’s claims regarding her sexual identity not credible, it does not accept that the applicant was in a relationship with a woman named [Ms C] or that she has had been intimate with a “lady boy” just for fun whilst in Australia, as she claimed in the hearing.

26. For the reasons discussed above, The Tribunal does not accept that if the applicant returns to Malaysia she will have any conflict with her family because she is a lesbian or if she enters into a same-sex relationship, as she claimed in the hearing. Nor does it accept that she will not be accepted by her family or that she will be ostracised by them for this reason. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant faces a real chance of serious harm because of her alleged sexual identity from her family, her former partner’s family or anyone else (including the family of any possible future female partners she may have and the religious department, as she alluded to in the hearing). Accordingly, the Tribunal finds the applicant’s fear of persecution based on her alleged sexual orientation is not well-founded.

27. In light of the Tribunal’s findings above that the applicant is not a lesbian and has not had relationships with other women or engaged in same-sex activities, the Tribunal finds that there are no substantial grounds for believing that as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Malaysia, there is a real risk that she will suffer significant harm for that reason.

28. The Tribunal is therefore not satisfied that the applicant meets the alternative provisions in s.36(2)(aa).

    CONCLUSION

29. 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).

30. Having concluded that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), the Tribunal has considered the alternative criterion in s 36(2)(aa). The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(aa).

31. 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

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

   Sydelle Muling
   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.

   …