1910990 (Refugee)

[2024] AATA 3038

1910990 (Refugee) [2024] AATA 3038 (24 April 2024)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1910990

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   China

MEMBER:B. Mericourt

DATE:24 April 2024

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 24 April 2024 at 11:03am

CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – China – country information – fear of harm from loan sharks and gangsters – usurious loan – harassed, threatened and beaten, furniture smashed and goods stolen – working in Australia to support family – borrowed money from relative to travel, and paid it back – application completed by agent without applicant’s knowledge of contents – financial and economic hardship in home village – late claim that family’s land appropriated by village committee without compensation – father’s protest and illness – passage of time – country information – decision under review affirmed

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

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

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 8 April 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 China, applied for the visa on 12 February 2018. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that he was not satisfied that the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution or that there is a real chance he will be persecuted for one or more of the reasons mentioned in s5J(1) of the Act if he returns to China. Nor was the delegate satisfied that there is any real chance the applicant will suffer significant harm as defined in s36(2A) of the Act if he returns to China.

3. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 19 April 2024 to give evidence and present arguments. He was not represented.

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

   Receiving Country

10. The applicant claims to be a citizen of the People’s Republic of China. He provided a copy of the bio data page of his Chinese passport to the Department. The Tribunal accepts that he is a citizen of China based on the findings made by the Department. The Tribunal finds that China is the receiving country for the purpose of assessing his claims for protection under the refugee criterion and the complementary protection criterion.

    Third Country Protection

11. The Tribunal finds that the applicant is outside his country of nationality. There is no evidence before the Tribunal to suggest that he has the right to enter and reside in any country other than his country of nationality.

    BACKGROUND

12. The applicant is a [age]-year-old married man from Henan Province, China. He has one [child] aged [ years]. His wife, [child] and parents reside in China. Only his father is employed in [Work sector] in a part-time role.

13. The applicant completed middle school and worked in a factory in China [doing a job task].

14. The applicant was granted a tourist visa and he entered Australia [in] November 2017. He lodged an application for a protection visa on 12 February 2018.

    CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

15. The issues in this case are whether the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution if he returns to China and if so, does he meet the refugee provisions of the Act? If not, does the applicant meet the protection obligations under the complementary provisions of the Act?  

16. The Tribunal has before it the Department’s file relating to the applicant including the delegate’s decision. The Tribunal also has had regard to other material available to it from a range of sources. This includes, but is not limited to the following:

    ·the applicant’s claims for protection in his application form dated 12 February 2018;

    ·the applicant’s evidence at the Tribunal hearing on 19 April 2024;

    ·Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) Country Information Report – People’s Republic of China, 22 December 2021

    ·Department of Immigration – PAM3 Refugee and Humanitarian – Refugee Law Guidelines and PAM3 Refugee and Humanitarian – Complementary Protection Guidelines;

    ·Other relevant country information referred to below.

    Applicant’s claims in his written application for protection to the Department

17. The applicant claims he will be harmed by loan sharks and gangsters if he returns to China. He had borrowed “some usurious loan” and the amount had become dramatically big and he could not repay it. Gangsters had come to his home, smashed his furniture, stole his electronic goods and beat, harassed and threatened him. The authorities cannot help and he could not relocate to another part of China.

    Applicant’s claims at the Tribunal hearing

18. During the hearing the Tribunal discussed with the applicant his family composition, work history, residential history and visa and migration history which are outlined under the heading Background above. The Tribunal then went on to discuss the applicant’s claims and reasons he fears returning to China.

19. The applicant says that he has regular contact with his family via social media 3 or 4 times a week. They are all well. It has been difficult for the applicant to be separated from his family for so long.

20. The applicant said that his intention when he first came to Australia was to support his family in China. He is currently working as [an occupation] in [job sites]. When the applicant first arrived he did not have a stable job but he now has stable work and can send money to his family in China.

21. When the applicant arrived in Australia he found a migration lawyer who advised him to lodge a protection application so he could stay in Australia and work. He paid him a large sum of money twice. He didn’t know what the agent said in the application.

22. The applicant does not want to return to China now as he wants to continue working here because in his village it is very difficult to subsist there. It would be difficult to return to his previous work because of the serious problem of nepotism in China, which makes it difficult for people without contacts to get employment, particularly in rural areas.

23. The Tribunal explained the requirements for the grant of protection visas several times to the applicant.

24. The applicant then said his family’s land was appropriated by the village committee head in December 2016 and there was nothing they could do. His family had used the land (1200 sq metres) to grow food for themselves and also to make an income. They were initially told they would be paid some money each year which enticed them to sign the documents, but they have never been paid and have never received any compensation for their land. He said they did not protest as there was no point.

25. The applicant said he lost confidence in his village and then decided to come to Australia to earn money. He borrowed money from a relative to pay for the costs of coming to Australia. He paid this person back within half a year. He did not borrow money from anyone else.

26. The Tribunal put to the applicant that his protection application stated he borrowed from loan sharks who threatened him with harm. He said he did not know about that.

27. The Tribunal asked again about why he did not want to return to China The applicant said he believes the people who confiscated his land would harm him.. The Tribunal asked why this would be an issue when he had been absent for over 6 years. He said he would go to the village committee and possibly have a confrontation with them and then he might get into trouble. The Tribunal put to him that he said he had not protested at the time as there was no point and asked why would he do so 8 years after the land had been confiscated.

28. The applicant agreed there was no point but he would have to confront them anyway and try to make sense of it. The Tribunal asked if other members of the family had protested about the land confiscation, particularly his father. He said his father became ill because of this incident. He went to the village committee to confront them and they were very unreasonable. He became very angry but the applicant’s aunt intervened before it became a physical confrontation and as a consequence his father became ill.

29. The Tribunal put to the applicant that there were formal ways to protest about lack of compensation in China. He said he is aware of these but he is from a poor rural village with no influence and so they would not be successful going through official channels. The Tribunal put country information to the applicant about the crack down on corruption in China more recently. The applicant said from his understanding Xi Jinping is only using his anti-corruption campaign to get rid of his political enemies, not to help poor rural people. The applicant said he has a video of people whose land was confiscated.

30. The Tribunal asked the applicant if other people in his village had their land confiscated and, if so, did they protest? The applicant said some other villagers had their land confiscated and confronted the village committee and some of these people were successful. When asked how they were successful when others were not, he said because they were insistent and ‘very hard’. The Tribunal asked why he was not insistent and hard himself and he said he was very scared then – too scared to protest. The Tribunal asked why he would do so now 8 years later if he was scared then. The applicant said he is actually very hesitant now and doesn’t know what he would do.

31. The Tribunal asked what harm he thought would suffer if he did confront the village head or village committee. He then said it doesn’t make sense to go back now 8 years later and confront them and he probably would not get a result. He just does not want to return to China.

32. The applicant said there is nothing else he fears about returning to China except financial and economic hardship.

    Assessment of the applicant’s claims –

    a) harm from loan sharks/gangsters

33. The applicant has resiled from the claims in his written application for protection of fearing harm from loan sharks or gangsters. At the Tribunal hearing the applicant stated he borrowed money from a relative and he repaid it within the first six months of working in Australia. He did not borrow from loan sharks and consequently, does not fear harm from loan sharks.

    b) harm as a consequence of protesting about land appropriation or confiscation

34. The applicant gave evidence at the Tribunal hearing that his family land was confiscated by the village committee or village head and that he did not protest as he was both scared and did not believe he could achieve any positive outcome.

35. Although the applicant initially stated that if he returned to China he would confront the village head or committee about not receiving compensation for his family’s confiscated land, he acknowledged he would probably not do so as it is unlikely he would achieve any positive result.

36. Country information regarding land appropriation in China supports the applicant’s claim that his land was confiscated and the family received no compensation. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) reports that land disputes are common and a common reason for protest[1]. Rapid development and high levels of internal migration have led to an increase in contested development and displacement. Land policies and the process to compulsorily acquire land vary from place to place but, across China, land in urban areas is owned by the state and in rural areas is managed collectively by villages. Disputes arise when local officials try to sell land and evict existing tenants with low amounts of compensation or no compensation. Thus, disputes are generally complaints about local government which may escalate to the national government. China’s new Civil Code, which came into force on 1 January 2021, requires fair and reasonable compensation to be paid for expropriated land but does not define ‘fair and reasonable’. Land sales are an important source of revenue for local governments and corruption in land deals is commonly alleged.[2]

    [1] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), ‘DFAT Country Information Report – Peoples’ Republic of China’, 22 December 2021, p.25

    [2] Ibid

37. The Tribunal accepts the applicant’s evidence that his family land was confiscated in December 2016 and they received no compensation and he did not protest at that time and he is unlikely to do so if he returns to China now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.

38. The Tribunal is satisfied that there is no real chance or real risk the applicant will suffer serious or significant harm as a result of his family land being confiscated in December 2016 even if he does choose to confront the village head or committee to try and gain compensation eight years after the event should he be returned to China now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.

    c) harm as a consequence of financial and economic hardship

39. The Tribunal accepts the applicant’s evidence that he is likely to find himself in reduced economic circumstances if he returns to China and to the type of employment that he had prior to his departure.  The World Bank reports that the unemployment rate in China was roughly 5% in 2023.[3]  China’s growth has slowed since the COVID-19 pandemic and some research has indicated that rural underemployment threatens China’s growth.[4]

    [3] World Bank, ‘Unemployment (% of total labour force) – China’ Unemployment, total (% of total labor force) (modeled ILO estimate) - China | Data (worldbank.org), accessed 19 April 2024 this

    [4] East Asia Forum,” Rural underemployment threatens China's growth”, 30 March 2023

40. The changing nature of work has made it difficult for some low-skilled workers to find employment.[5] Those unemployed in rural areas often migrate to urban areas to find work and improve their livelihoods. DFAT assesses that if a person is returned to China without means of family support, that it would be difficult, but not impossible, to subsist depending on individual circumstances including age, health, ability to work and level of education.[6]

    [5] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), ‘DFAT Country Information Report – Peoples’ Republic of China’, 22 December 2021, p.8

    [6] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), ‘DFAT Country Information Report – Peoples’ Republic of China’, 22 December 2021, p.8

41. Whilst the applicant claims he would suffer significant economic hardship which would threaten his capacity to subsist, this harm is not for a refugee nexus reason (race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion). Furthermore, the harm (or persecution) does not involve systematic and discriminatory conduct. The Tribunal also has had regard to the applicant’s age, health, ability to work and employment history, all of which lead the Tribunal to find that it is possible, although possibly difficult, for him to find employment and earn a livelihood if he returns to China now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.

42. Based on the above evidence and findings, the Tribunal is satisfied that there is no real chance or real risk the applicant will suffer serious or significant harm as a result of any difficulty in finding employment and earning a satisfactory income should he return to China now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.

    Assessment of cumulative claims

43. The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s claims both individually and cumulatively and is satisfied that there is no real chance or real risk the applicant will suffer serious or significant harm as a consequence of his claims being considered cumulatively.

    CONCLUSION

44. 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).

45. 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).

46. 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

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

    B. Mericourt
    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.

    …