1912938 (Refugee) - [2025] ARTA 1383

1912938 (REFUGEE) [2025] ARTA 1383 (25 FEBRUARY 2025)
DECISION AND
REASONS FOR DECISION
Respondent: Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

Tribunal Number: 1912938
Tribunal:General Member R Johnston
Date:25 February 2025

Place:Sydney
Decision:The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

Statement made on 25 February 2025 at 10:12am
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – Protection Visa – India – religion – Sunni Muslim – a suspect in the death of a person – attendance at the religious event – inconsistencies in evidence – has left Australia four times since claiming protection – not satisfied the applicants have a well-founded fear –credibility concerns – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024
Migration Act 1958, ss 5, 36, 65, 359, 499
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2, r 2.08F
Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 369 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information.
STATEMENT OF REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 23 May 2019 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The applicant who claims to be a national of India, applied for the visa on 6 October 2017. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the applicant is not a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations.
On 24 May 2019 the applicant lodged an application for review of the delegate’s refusal decision with the former Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). On 14 October 2024, the AAT became the Administrative Review Tribunal (Tribunal). Under the transitional provisions in the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 (the Transitional Act), applications for review to the AAT that were not finalised before 14 October 2024 are taken to be an application for review to the Tribunal. The Transitional Act gives the Tribunal the authority to continue and finalise any aspect of the review not already completed by the AAT. This decision and statement of reasons is made by the Tribunal.
CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
Claims and evidence before the Department
Protection visa application
The applicant lodged a protection visa application on 6 October 2017. In that application he provided the following:
·     He was born in [year] in [Town 1], Mangalore, Karnataka.
·     He married on[date] January 2007.
·     He lived between July 2009 and 3 October 2017 at the one address in [Karnataka]. Prior to that he lived in [other places].
·     He speaks, reads, and writes Kannada, speaks Hindi, and reads and writes English.
·     He is a Sunni Muslim.
·     He completed high school in Karnataka between 1985 and 1995. He worked between February 2006 and 19 August 2017 as a [occupation] of a [company].
·     Between 2005 and 2016 he travelled [various countries] for work.
The applicant makes the following claims in his protection visa application form:
·     He comes from a simple family. His father’s name is [name]. He was born in Mangalore and he comes from a town called [Town 1].
·     His school days were full of fun and enjoyment. His elders would bring him back to the path of righteousness. His father wanted him to have a good education to better his future.
·     Whilst in Mangalore he attended a family function and at that time some group of people attacked a person who was belonging to another religion. The person who was attacked lost his life at the spot of the incident. He was there at the time of the attack. The police arrested him for no reason and poached him on charges of attacking. He was behind bars for two days and his father brought a lawyer to the police station and after that he was released.
·     After that incident he was searching for a job and at last he got an opportunity from his family and chose a future as a [Occupation 1]. He got admitted for the training as a [Occupation 1] and completed a six month course [and] he was selected in a [company] for a nine month contract of each year. He did this for almost fifteen years and he signed off from the [job] on 12 February 2017.
·     In his town Mangalore communal crises are prevailing for the long run. In his home, no caste or creed distinction was taught. But the difference shown to him made him violent. Everyday there seem to be some opposition or criticism for no reason, but religiously it would hurt much for him. Within the locality or function there would be riots, once there was a religious function and all the town belonging to his religion were present for the gathering and suddenly some groups from other religions attacked his people and destroyed the vehicles and property belonging to them and a riot was framed and he was always caught up by the cops, it was a dreadful state to be behind the bars.
·     After a couple of days he was cool and one day some gangsters were approaching him when he was returning from the mosque. They commented some filthy words and pushed him away. He got angry and he slapped one of them. He did not know they were intentionally fighting with him under political rivalries under the leaderish of his elders and wards. At the time of the election there would be some incidents of tearing the flex board and gossiping with the voters and giving wrong information.
·     His job was more important to him. As a [Occupation 1], it was a hard job, but more feeling was losing his family, friends, and his native place.
·     Later he got married to a girl named [name] near his hometown and was blessed with two babies. After his marriage the same groups started to torture him and his family. Unable to bear the situation his wife started getting tension. His father asked him to leave the house and get settled anywhere he wished. He decided to leave his home. His opportunity after that to join [a workplace] was getting low so he visited Australia and he felt better and safe and happy for him to be in Australia.
·     He tried to move to Mumbai but they are all over in India because they are the ruling party so he applied for an Australian visa. If he returns to India, they are going to kill him.
Bridging visa applications
The applicant applied for a Bridging Visa B (subclass 020) to travel to Mangalore between [date] October 2018 and [date] December 2018 due to his father being in intensive care. He provided medical documentation to the Department from [a] Hospital of 2 October 2018 referring to his father’s condition.
The Departmental delegate’s decision record indicates the applicant was granted a Bridging Visa B (subclass 020) on 4 October 2018. It outlines he departed Australia on [date] October 2018 and arrived back in Australia on [date] November 2018.
Interview with the delegate
The applicant was invited to attend an interview with a delegate of the Department on 25 March 2019. He did not attend at the schedule time and place. He subsequently contacted the Department and advised it that he had only got notice of the interview through the registered post as he had initially lost the card to pick up his registered post letter. A further interview was arranged for 8 May 2019, which the applicant did attend. The interview was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Hindi and English languages. In the interview, the applicant responded to questions and elaborated on his claims. The Tribunal has listened to a recording of the interview. Where relevant, the applicant’s oral evidence at the interview is referred to in the Tribunal’s analysis below.
The delegate’s decision
On 23 May 2019, a delegate of the Minister refused the applicant’s protection visa application. The delegate did not accept the applicant’s claims that he was personally threatened or harmed in India. They did not find his claims as a whole were genuine, credible, or reflective of his true circumstances, or that he would be harmed by persons in India. The delegate was not satisfied that the applicant is a refugee, as defined by s 5H(1) of the Act or that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed to India, there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm as defined in s 36(2)(aa) of the Act. The delegate therefore found the applicant is not a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations.
Claims and evidence before the Tribunal
Review application
On 24 May 2019, the applicant lodged an application for review of the delegate’s decision.
The hearing
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 10 February 2025 to give evidence and present arguments. No witnesses were called to give evidence in support of the applicant’s claims. The applicant was not represented in relation to the review.
The hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Hindi and English languages. The interpreter appeared via videoconference. The Tribunal confirmed with the applicant they were able to understand the interpreter. The applicant was able to answer questions without hesitation and his answers demonstrated an understanding of the questions being put to him.
The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant had a reasonable and genuine opportunity to present evidence and submissions, be heard, and participate fully in the hearing. Where relevant, the applicant’s oral evidence to the Tribunal is referred to in the analysis below.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
Criteria for protection visa
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.
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.
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).
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.
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
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.
REASONS AND FINDINGS
The issue in this case is whether the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
Nationality
The applicant claims to be a citizen of India and provided a copy of the bio-data page of his Indian passport to the Department. The delegate was satisfied that the applicant is using his own identity and that he is a citizen of India. At hearing the applicant presented his Indian passport to the Tribunal. The applicant has consistently claimed to be a citizen of India. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Tribunal accepts this and finds the applicant is a citizen of India and India is his receiving country for the purposes of assessing his claims for protection.
Analysis, reasons and findings
In the hearing, the Tribunal discussed the applicant’s protection claims, what he claims occurred in India, why he fears returning to India, and his work, family, education, travel, and residential history.
The applicant advanced the same claims at hearing as detailed in his written protection visa application. He claims he will be harmed on return to India in revenge for a death that occurred at a religious function prior to 2005 and where he was considered a suspect. He also raised concerns about being targeted as a Muslim in India, detailing at hearing that he was the target of harm on account of his religion a month before he arrived in Australia in 2017.
Whilst the Tribunal is satisfied the applicant was drawing on personal experiencing in detailing the incident at the religious function occurring prior to 2005 and the altercation he had in 2017, it is also of the view the applicant has exaggerated the narrative and impact of those events, the ongoing issues he and his family experienced in India in relation to those events, and his movements in India in response to those events in order to bolster his protection claims. The Tribunals findings, assessment, and concerns in respect of the applicant’s claims are set out in more detail below.
Claims relating to a religious ceremony occurring in India before 2005
In his written claims the applicant outlined whilst in Mangalore he attended a family function and at that time some group of people attacked a person who was belonging to another religion and that person lost their life. He claimed he was there at the time of the attack and the police arrested him for no reason for the charge of attacking. He claimed he was behind bars for two days and his father brought a lawyer to the police station and after that he was released. In his departmental interview he similarly referred to this incident, explaining he was locked up for two days.
At hearing the applicant explained he attended a religious function in which a man got killed and the other party held him responsible for it. He stated this occurred before he joined [a company] that he started working for in 2005, so before 2005. When asked why he was embroiled in the issue, he stated he had a lot of friends belonging to the Hindu religion and that is the reason he attended the function, but when a person was killed at the function, he was held responsible for it. He stated he was arrested for a couple of days and then his father got him bailed. In exploring with the applicant whether anything else happened after the incident and in the decade following, he stated no, and after that he joined the [company] and never stayed in India for long.
The Tribunal asked the applicant who it is specifically that he believes blames him for the death of the person at the religious event. He stated his friends and the party workers for the BJP. He stated he has not kept in touch with anyone since the religious event occurring before 2005. He was unable to explain who it was that died at the event as he did not know the person. In discussing why he was a suspect in the death of that person he stated because he was the only Muslim person there. When the Tribunal asked him why he was released on bail if he was a suspect, he explained the police investigation found he was not responsible for it, otherwise he would be in jail until now. The Tribunal raised with him why if the police found he was not responsible for the death of the person, anyone would think he is still a suspect now. In response he stated he does not know, and they still held him responsible. The Tribunal struggled to understand who specifically it was that continued to hold the applicant responsible and what they had done since the event occurred to convey that to him.
The Tribunal asked the applicant if his family ever experienced any issues in India. He explained at the time of the first incident in 2005 his house was completely trashed. He stated he was renting a property and that is the reason he doesn’t have a safe permanent place to stay for longer.
The Tribunal had some concerns about the applicant’s evidence in respect of his attendance at the religious event before 2005 and his claims he was suspected as a culprit in the death of a person at that event, investigated, and held in prison for two days. The applicant was unable to detail who it was that died and elaborate on the circumstances leading to him being a suspect. The applicant has nevertheless given largely consistent evidence about this event in his written claims, during his Departmental interview, and in his oral evidence before the Tribunal. Whilst details in relation to the event itself, such as the timing of the event and the purpose of the event have shifted in the applicant’s evidence, the Tribunal is mindful the event occurred approximately twenty or more years ago. The Tribunal is prepared to accept the applicant attended a religious event prior to 2005 in which a person was killed and the applicant was investigated as a suspect in the death of that person. The Tribunal accepts the applicant was held in prison for two days during the investigation, that his father paid police bail, and that he was found by the police not to be responsible for the death of the person. The Tribunal accepts the applicant has not kept in contact with anyone who attended the religious event. The Tribunal accepts the applicant’s rental property prior to 2005 was trashed.
Claims relating to an incident after attending the mosque in 2017 and the applicant’s residence in India
At hearing the applicant stated he was harmed on another occasion in India when he was coming back from the mosque and there were some people troubling him and he ended up slapping them and he was beaten.
In discussing with the applicant when this incident took place, he said it was before he came to Australia before his last sign off. In pressing the applicant as to what month or year the incident occurred, he stated it was a month prior to his travel. He stated he did not know the people that he slapped and that they beat him. He explained it started as he was returning after offering Namaz and they started troubling him and abusing him and pushing him and that’s when he slapped them. In asking the applicant what kind of abuse he experienced he stated it was abuse for his religion. When asked if anything happened after that incident, he stated no. In discussing whether the police were involved he explained the police were involved and they put him behind bars for a few days, but no case was filed and he was released. He explained he was not held at the police station for longer than two days and no case was registered against his name. When the Tribunal raised with him whether he had any documentary evidence in support of his claims he stated he did not have any written materials and that no charges were issues against him and there was no First Information Report produced.

The applicant stated prior to travelling to Australia after the incident with the slapping and beating a few guys came to his family house in Kerala and broke in and trashed the house. When asked how they knew where he lived, he stated they take out information. In exploring this with the applicant further he stated he guessed they got the information from a friend and enquired where he lived. As to what occurred at his house, he stated they asked about his whereabouts, as he was not at home, and his family did not reveal anything, so they spoilt a few things but it wasn’t bad damage. He stated he is not sure if it was the same people that were involved in the slapping incident as he was not at home and that nothing happened after that. He stated there was no other instances in India where he was harassed, intimidated, or harmed.
The Tribunal is prepared to accept, albeit with some reservations, that the applicant was involved in an altercation with some people in 2017 in the month before he came to Australia, whereby he was verbally abused in respect of his Muslim religion, pushed, and that he slapped the assailants, leading him to be beaten. The applicant has consistently referred to an incident where he was verbally harassed and where he slapped the assailants in his written claims, in his Departmental interview, and at hearing. The Tribunal accepts the applicant was detained for a few days after this incident but released without charge or any case being registered against his name. The Tribunal accepts some people visited the applicant’s family home in Kerala after this incident where they asked after him and spoilt a few things in his home.
In his written claims the applicant referred to returning from the mosque where he was harassed by some people and he slapped the assailants. He claimed in his written application that the people who approached him were gangsters and that they were intentionally fighting with him under political rivalries under the leadership of his elders and wards. The Tribunal raised with the applicant at hearing its concern as to why he would be harmed or targeted by the people involved in the slapping incident on return to India when he does not know these people and why that incident occurred. In response he stated yes, he has no fear.
On the evidence before it, where the applicant does not know who the people he had the altercation with in 2017 are, and where he did not refer in his oral evidence to any connection to political rivalries or instruction from elders, the Tribunal does not accept the assailants were gangsters, that they were intentionally fighting with him under political rivalries or under the leadership of elders or wards, or that the incident related to any election or voting. Nor does the Tribunal accept, where the applicant stated at hearing that the only incidents of harm he experienced in India were in respect of the religious event that occurred before 2005 and the slapping incident in 2017, that any groups tortured him or his family, that his wife received any tension, or that he was personally caught up in any riots or detained for that reason or had his vehicle damaged. When the Tribunal raised with the applicant at hearing the inconsistencies in his written and oral evidence, including as to the harm he claims his family experienced, noting his written claims refer to his family being tortured, whereas at hearing he stated people visited his home and spoilt some items, and explained such inconsistencies may lead it to form the view his evidence is not credible and to affirm the delegate’s decision, he did not comment on the Tribunal’s concern.
The Tribunal explored with the applicant at hearing his past political and residential history in India. He explained at hearing that he was not a member of any political or other groups in India. He stated he is a simple man and he does not have any connections with any groups or parties or such. The applicant stated he was living in Karnataka and that he moved to Kerala after the incidents took place and stayed with his parents there. When asked how long he was in Kerala he stated just for some time and that he could not stay at one location for long and had to move places.
The Tribunal raised with the applicant at hearing its concern in respect of inconsistencies in his evidence relating to his residence and movements in India. It explained in his written claims he had stated he lived at the one address in India in Mangalore from 8 July 2009 until 3 October 2017 yet he had also stated in his written claims that he had moved to Mumbai. It explained in his oral evidence he had stated he moved in India to Kerala but did not mention ever moving to Mumbai. The Tribunal explained the inconsistency in his evidence may lead it to form the view his claims are not credible. The applicant stated in response that his parents lived in Kerala and that is the reason he used to go and stay at their place.
The Tribunal considered the applicant’s response and did not find it overcame its concern as to the inconsistencies between his oral and written evidence as to his movements and residential history in India. The Tribunal is prepared to accept the applicant resided with his parents in Kerala before he departed India for Australia, although does not accept on the evidence before it that he moved to Kerala as a result of any incidents of harm. The applicant had explained in his oral evidence that people visited his family home and spoke with his parents after the 2017 incident, but that he was not home at that time. The Tribunal finds the applicant was already living in Kerala in his parent’s family home at the time of the 2017 slapping incident. The applicant explained at hearing that he did not experience any other issues in India other than the 2017 slapping incident and the problems at the religious event occurring before 2005, and that nothing happened after the people visited his family home in Kerala. The Tribunal does not accept on the evidence before it that the applicant ever moved to Mumbai or that he relocated to any other location in India on account of any instances of harm or threats made against him.
Claims of future harm on return to India and his family’s circumstances
When asked why he fears harm on return to India the applicant stated he does not feel safe because of the prior religious event incident and someday those people will find him, the incident will repeat, and they could also kill him and there is no guarantee. He stated when asked why he thinks that will happen that they will take revenge for the incident. The Tribunal asked who it is that will take revenge, to which he replied he was held responsible for the man who got killed and they will seek revenge for it. He did not believe the police could protect him as they belong to the BJP.
The Tribunal queried with the applicant who it is that is still targeting him in relation to the 2005 religious event. In response he stated when he goes back to India, he will not be able to stay in one location permanently and he will have to keep changing places as he does not feel safe. When the Tribunal raised with him that it may find he would return to Kerala he stated he cannot say for sure if he is able to go there.
The Tribunal raised with the applicant its concern as to why anyone would target him or harm him in relation to the religious function and the historical death when he has not been contacted or harmed by anyone in relation to that death since he was released by the police and found not to have committed that crime. In response the applicant stated he feels that. It also raised its concern as to why anyone would remember him from that incident or target him in relation to the death of that person in circumstances where the police cleared him, he did not have any political profile in India and did not know the person that died, has not had any contact with anyone since that incident, and it occurred over twenty years ago. In response he stated he cannot say for sure what is going on in someone’s mind and if someone is on the lookout or not. The Tribunal did not find his response persuasive as to why he would be a target of harm in relation to this historical event.
The Tribunal raised with the applicant it may find on the evidence before it he does not face a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm on return to India in the reasonably foreseeable future from anyone in relation to the religious event or incident occurring before 2005, including the BJP, the authorities, or anyone else. In response the applicant stated he can’t say anything for sure. His response did not overcome the Tribunal’s concern.
The Tribunal also raised with the applicant in respect of the 2017 slapping incident and beating and subsequent attendance of people at his family home that on the evidence before it, where the applicant does not know who the individuals are and where there were no further incidents at his family home, or involving his family or himself, that it may find he does not face a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm on return to India in the reasonably foreseeable future in relation to that incident, from the BJP, or from anyone else. In response he stated he has nothing to say.
The applicant outlined at hearing that his wife, son, and daughter remain living in India. He claimed there is no one place that they can stay and that they have to migrate every now and then. He stated they have been living in Maharashtra for the last year and before that they lived in Hyderabad for three to four years. He stated before that they resided in Kerala with his parents.
The Tribunal asked the applicant about his travel history. He stated he has returned to India on three occasions since arriving in Australia, once because his father was unwell and twice because his wife was unwell. He stated he stayed in Kerala when his wife was unwell and visited his father when he was unwell once a week by staying in Mumbai. He stated his last visit was about seven months ago when his wife was not well. The Tribunal raised its concern with the applicant that he had stated his wife had moved to Maharashtra for the last year yet he had also indicated in his evidence he visited her in Kerala. In response he stated on this occasion he went to Maharashtra, but on the last occasion he went to Kerala.
The Tribunal raised with the applicant under s 359A of the Act information that it considered would be the reason, or part of the reason, for affirming the decision of the Department to refuse to grant him a protection visa. The Tribunal explained why the information is relevant and asked him to comment on the information. It explained movement records before it indicate since applying for a protection visa, he has departed Australia on [date] October 2018 and returned on [date] November 2018, departed Australia on [date] August 2019 and returned on [date] August 2019, departed Australia on [date] April 2022 and returned on [date] June 2022, and departed Australia on [date] March 2024 and returned on [date] June 2024. It explained it appears he has left Australia four times since claiming protection.
The Tribunal explained the applicant’s Bridging Visa B applications before it indicate he has applied to leave Australia on dates that largely correspond with the movement records to travel to India. It explained whilst he has stated in his oral evidence that his family moved around India since his departure from the country and were staying in Maharashtra for the last year, his application for a bridging visa to travel to India in March 2024 indicates he wished to travel to be with his wife who had brain surgery and his intended address was in Kerala. It explained whilst he had stated in his oral evidence his family was living in Hyderabad for the three to four years prior to last year, his application for a bridging visa to travel to India in April 2022 to be with his wife who had a stroke indicates his intention to reside at an address [in] Kerala.
The Tribunal explained its concern he has indicated he fears harm on return to India, yet the information before it indicates he has departed Australia and returned to India on four occasions since arriving in Australia. It outlined the information before it indicates he has sought to repeatedly return to Kerala, India, including during periods he had stated in his oral evidence at hearing that his family had moved to live elsewhere in India. The Tribunal explained if it relies on this information in making its decision, it may lead it to find that his claimed fear of harm on return to India is without credibility, and that his claims his family have moved around India in fear of harm are without credibility, and this may form a reason, or part of the reason, in affirming the delegate’s decision.
The applicant was invited to comment on the information. He stated in response that his wife’s surgery took place in Kerala as the specialist was only available in that region and after that they moved to Hyderabad. The Tribunal considered the applicant’s response and given the evidence before it, where the applicant had submitted Bridging Visa B applications in April 2022 and March 2024 seeking to return to India to an address in Kerala, it did not find his response persuasive or that it overcame the Tribunal’s concerns. On the evidence before it and considering the concerns of the Tribunal as set out above, the Tribunal does not accept the applicant’s wife and family moved from Kerala to Maharashtra or Hyderabad at any time. The Tribunal finds the applicant returned to India on four occasions since he arrived in Australia and claimed protection and that he returned to Kerala in April 2022 and March 2024.
Claims relating to the applicant’s passport
At hearing the Tribunal discussed with the applicant his Indian passport issued to him on [date] 2018. He stated he had some difficulty in Karnataka renewing his passport and he had to seek help from agents. When asked what difficulty he encountered he stated there was a case filed and so he had to do a lot of things to get the passport. The Tribunal asked the applicant what was filed and what the difficulties he encountered were. He stated after he had come back from his [industry] work and he had been to the mosque, a case was filed and because of that he had difficulty getting his passport. When the Tribunal raised with him it was struggling to understand what difficulties he faced getting his passport and what had occurred he stated there was a case pending and because of that he had to visit the police station to get a clearance to apply for a passport.
The Tribunal also raised with him that his passport before it was issued on [date] 2018, after he had already arrived in Australia. He stated in response he had gone back to India to get the passport done again. The Tribunal raised with the applicant it was struggling to understand what difficulties he had getting his passport given it was issued to him in [Karnataka] and when he had stated he returned to India. In response he explained he went to India when his father was unwell and got his passport done. The Tribunal struggled to gather from the applicant’s evidence, despite repeated questions, what difficulties he faced obtaining his passport and what the case was that was filed after he had returned from his [industry] work, particularly where he had stated to the Tribunal that no charges were issued against him in 2017 or First Information Report produced in relation to the slapping incident.
The Tribunal raised with the applicant at hearing its concern that aspects of his oral evidence were vague and lacking the type of detail it would expect from someone speaking from personal experience. It explained for someone who claimed to experience issues obtaining a passport it would expect him to be able to explain what specifically occurred in relation to the issues with the passport and the difficulties he encountered. It invited him to comment on its concern that it may find his claims are not credible given the lack of detail in his evidence and his brief, repetitive answers that were lacking in detail. In response he stated he has nothing further to say. The applicant’s response did not allay the Tribunal’s concerns.
The Tribunal considered the applicant’s evidence and his response to its concerns. The Tribunal does not accept on the evidence before it, and for the reasons outlined above, that the applicant had any difficulties renewing his passport or that any case was filed against him in India after he came back from his [work] for any reason or that there is an active case against the applicant in India.
Claims relating to his Muslim religion
The applicant outlined at hearing that he follows Islam. He stated that whilst in Australia he has prayed and he attends the mosque on Fridays. He explained he has not joined any political or other groups whilst in Australia. He stated that religion in India is definitely an issue and Muslims are always targeted in any issues that go wrong and the BJP is responsible for any unrest.
Country information before the Tribunal indicates the Indian Constitution guarantees freedom of religion and India is officially secular. Hindus constitute 79.8% of the population, Muslims 14.2% of the population, Christians 2.3% of the population, and Sikhs 1.7% of the population[1]. Many media sources and human rights commentators claim that anti-Muslim sentiment is rising in India amid growing polarisation[2]. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) report that communal violence and anti-Muslim riots occur from time-to-time although violent protests and riots are not common occurrences. DFAT report that small scale incidents such as lynchings, and reports of gangs beating Muslim men for their religion or for having beef in their houses receive significant media coverage but are not common experiences for most Muslims[3].
[1] United States Department of State, 2022 Report on International Religious Freedom: India, 15 May 2023, 4; Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Country Information Report - India, 29 September 2023, 3.9, 19.
[2] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Country Information Report - India, 29 September 2023, 3.33-7, 22.
[3] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Country Information Report - India, 29 September 2023, 3.33-7, 22.
Overall, by and large, it is reported Muslims can access government services in the same way as any other Indians and generally the day-to-day experience of Muslims is not blighted by official discrimination[4]. DFAT assess that Muslims face a low risk of official discrimination[5]. DFAT assesses that there is a low risk of societal violence for Muslims but, where it does occur, the consequences can be serious and even fatal. Poorer and lower-caste Muslims are at greater risk of violence[6].
[4] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Country Information Report - India, 29 September 2023, 3.40, 22.
[5] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Country Information Report - India, 29 September 2023, 3.40, 23.
[6] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Country Information Report - India, 29 September 2023, 3.41, 23.
The majority of Muslims, especially those who live in majority Muslim communities, do not experience significant day-to-day discrimination. DFAT assesses that the level of societal discrimination across India varies from low to medium depending on the majority religion in the region one is located in. They assess the risk is also higher for Dalit converts and Muslims considered to be of a low caste, given their intersectional identities[7].
[7] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Country Information Report - India, 29 September 2023, 3.42, 23.
The Tribunal discussed this country information with the applicant at hearing. It explained considering this country information, his evidence and claims cumulatively, as well as his circumstances, background, education, and work history, it may find he does not face a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm on return to India in the reasonably foreseeable future for reason for his religion or in respect of the continued practice of his religion. In response he stated if Muslims are involved, it becomes a huge issue, although he had nothing further to say about the country information overall and the Tribunal’s concern. The Tribunal considered his response and did not find it overcame its concern.
Does the applicant satisfy the refugee criterion for protection?

The applicant claims if he returns to India, he will be harmed and killed in revenge in relation to the death that occurred at a religious event before 2005 and where he was investigated as a suspect. He also claims Muslim people are targeted whenever there are any issues that go wrong.
The Tribunal has accepted the applicant attended a religious event prior to 2005 in which a person was killed and the applicant was investigated as a suspect in the death of that person. The Tribunal has accepted the applicant was held in prison for two days during the investigation, that his father paid police bail, and that he was found by the police not to be responsible for the death of the person. The Tribunal has accepted the applicant has not kept in contact with anyone who attended the religious event. The Tribunal has accepted the applicant’s rental property prior to 2005 was trashed.
The Tribunal has accepted the applicant was involved in an altercation with some people in 2017 in the month before he came to Australia, whereby he was verbally abused in respect of his Muslim religion, pushed, and that he slapped the assailants, leading him to be beaten by them. The Tribunal has accepted the applicant was detained for a few days by the police following this incident but released without charge or any case being registered against his name. The Tribunal has accepted some people visited the applicant’s family home in Kerala after this incident where they asked after him and spoilt a few things in his family home.
The Tribunal has not accepted the people that beat the applicant or that visited his family home were gangsters, that they were intentionally fighting with him under political rivalries or under the leadership of elders or wards, or that the incident related to any election or voting. The Tribunal has not accepted that any groups tortured the applicant or his family, that his wife received any tension from anyone, that he was caught up in any riots or detained for that reason or had his vehicle damaged.
The Tribunal has accepted the applicant resided with his parents in Kerala before his departure from India to Australia. It has not accepted that he moved to Kerala as a result of any incidents of harm. The Tribunal finds the applicant was already living in Kerala in his parent’s family home at the time of the 2017 slapping incident and beating. The Tribunal has not accepted that the applicant ever moved to Mumbai or relocated to any other location in India on account of any instances of harm or threats against him. The Tribunal has not accepted the applicant’s wife and family have moved from Kerala to Maharashtra or Hyderabad at any time. The Tribunal has not accepted the applicant had any difficulties renewing his passport or that any case was filed against him in India after he came back from his [industry] work for any reason or that there is an active case against the applicant in India. The Tribunal has found the applicant has returned to India on four occasions since he arrived in Australia and claimed protection and that he returned to Kerala in April 2022 and March 2024.
The Tribunal has considered the findings above, and having regard to the findings above, its assessment of the applicant’s future conduct in India and relevant country information as raised above and discussed with the applicant at hearing, the Tribunal is not satisfied there is a real chance that he will suffer serious harm upon return to India in the reasonably foreseeable future.
To meet the refugee criterion, a person must have a well-founded fear of persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in s 5J(1)(a), namely race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.
The criterion in s 5J(1)(a) contains a subjective requirement, that an applicant must in fact hold a fear of being persecuted, whilst s 5J(1)(b) imposes an objective standard, that there must be a real chance of that fear being realised and the person being persecuted.
The applicant has claimed he will be harmed in revenge for the death of a person at the religious event he attended that occurred before 2005 and where he was detained as a suspect related to the death. He was found by the police not to have committed that crime. He was not charged or sentenced in relation to the death of the person at the religious event. He did not have any further contact with anyone at the religious event or the authorities in relation to the incident after his release from detention after 2005. He was not targeted or harmed by anyone in relation to this incident or in revenge when he returned from his [Occupation 1] work to India in 2016, when he lived in Karnataka, when he lived with his parents in Kerala, or when he returned to India on the four occasions after he arrived in Australia. He was not a member of any political groups in India and on his own evidence was a simple man without any connection to any groups or parties. It has been twenty years since the incident at the religious event occurred. When the Tribunal raised with the applicant at hearing, as outlined above, that it may find he does not face a real chance of serious harm on return to India from any person or the authorities or the BJP in connection to the death of the person at the religious event he was unable to provide any persuasive evidence as to why he would be a target of harm or revenge or of any interest to anyone, stating that he can’t say anything for sure. Given the above, the Tribunal finds there is no real chance the applicant faces harm on return to India in the reasonably foreseeable future in relation to the death of the person at the religious event that occurred before 2005, or his previous detention as a suspect, or from the BJP, the authorities, or any other person.
The Tribunal has accepted the applicant was involved in an altercation with people in 2017 where he was harassed in respect of his Muslim religion, leading him to be bashed after he slapped the people who were harassing him. The Tribunal has accepted the applicant was detained and released without charge or any case being issued against his name. The Tribunal has not accepted any case has been filed against the applicant in India since he returned from his [industry] work or that there is an active case against the applicant in India. Whilst people came to the applicant’s family home in Kerala on one occasion asking after him after the slapping incident and spoilt some items in his home, they did not return to his family home address on any other occasion or cause any other incident or harm to the applicant or his family.
The applicant does not know who the people were that harassed and bashed him. They have not continued to visit or contact his family or ask after him. When the Tribunal raised with the applicant at hearing why he would be harmed or targeted by people in connection to the 2017 slapping incident where he does not know the people and why the incident occurred, he stated he has no fear. The Tribunal finds the incident was an isolated spontaneous attack and not part of any broader pre-mediated intent on the part of any group or person to systematically target or harass the applicant. The Tribunal finds in circumstances where people visited the applicant’s home on a single occasion in 2017 and where he and his family have not had any contact with them since that time that he is not of any ongoing interest to any person or group or an ongoing target of harm for any reason. Given the above, the Tribunal finds there is no real chance the applicant faces harm on return to India in the reasonably foreseeable future in relation to the 2017 slapping incident or his 2017 detention, including from the people he slapped and who beat him, the people that visited his home in 2017 asking after him, and the authorities.
The applicant raised at hearing that he had difficulties obtaining his passport in India and that there was a case filed against him. The Tribunal has not accepted the applicant had any difficulties renewing his passport or that any case was filed against him in India for any reason after he returned from his [industry] work or that there is an active case against the applicant in India. Given this, it finds there is no real chance he faces harm on return to India in the reasonably foreseeable future in respect of his passport or a case filed against him.
The Tribunal considered the applicant’s claim religion is an issue in India and Muslims are always targeted whenever an issue goes wrong. The country information as raised with the applicant at hearing outlines anti-Muslim sentiment is rising in India amid growing polarisation and that violence and anti-Muslim rioting does occur from time-to-time, although are not common occurrences. As discussed with the applicant at hearing, DFAT assesses there is a low risk of societal violence for Muslims, with poorer and lower-caste Muslims at greater risk of violence. They assess the level of societal discrimination across India varies from low to medium depending on the majority religion in the region one is located in, with the risk higher for Dalit converts and Muslims considered to be of a low caste. The applicant does not have a political profile, is not a member of any political groups, is not a political agitator, and on his own evidence, is a simple man. He has obtained an education in India, has a strong work history, and has established family connections and networks and a strong support network and family home. When the Tribunal raised the country information with the applicant at hearing and explained considering his profile and background it may find he does not face a real chance of serious harm on return to India for reason of his religion, he commented that if Muslims are involved, it becomes a big issue, although stated he had nothing to say in response to the Tribunal’s overall concern and the country information. He did not provide any persuasive evidence as to why he specifically would be a target of harm on return to India owing to his Muslim religion and considering his religious practices and profile. Considering the country information as discussed with the applicant at hearing, the applicant’s specific profile and circumstances, and his claims individually and cumulatively, the Tribunal finds there is no real chance he faces serious harm on return to India in the reasonably foreseeable future for reason of his religion or in relation to the continued practice of his religion.
The applicant did not claim, and there is nothing in the material to suggest, that he fears persecution for any other reason in India. When asked if there was any other reason or basis on which he feared harm on return to India he stated no.
For the reasons given above, and having considered the applicant’s claims individually and cumulatively, the Tribunal is not satisfied that if the applicant returns to India now or in the reasonably foreseeable future that he faces a real chance of serious harm for any reason set out in s 5J(1)(a) of the Act, or for any other reason. Accordingly, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution for any of the reasons set out in the Act, or for any other reason. As the Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution, the applicant does not meet the definition of refugee in s 5H(1) and does not satisfy the criterion set out in s 36(2)(a).
Does the applicant satisfy the complementary protection criterion for protection?
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 has considered whether on the evidence before it, there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to India.
For the reasons set out above, the Tribunal has found that there is not a real chance that the applicant will experience harm on return to India in the reasonably foreseeable future in relation to his religious beliefs and the continued expression of his religious beliefs, in respect of the religious event that occurred before 2005 where someone was killed and he was detained and investigated as a suspect, from the BJP or authorities, in relation to the incident in 2017 where he was harassed and beaten and where people subsequently came to his family home in Kerala to ask after him, or in respect of his passport or any case filed against him in India. The ‘real risk’ test under the complimentary protection criterion imposes the same standard as the ‘real chance’ test under the refugee criterion[8]. This applies equally to the assessment of ‘well-founded fear’ for the purposes of s 5J. It follows the Tribunal finds that the applicant does not face a real risk of significant harm for any reason.
[8] MIAC v SZQRB [2013] FCAFC 33.
On the evidence before it, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to India, there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm. That is, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a real risk in being removed from Australia to India that he will be arbitrarily deprived of his life or suffer the death penalty; or subjected to torture; or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or to degrading treatment or punishment.
The Tribunal is therefore not satisfied the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(aa).
Conclusion
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).
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).
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 criteria in s 36(2).
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
Date of hearing: 10 February 2025
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.
…