1914334 (Refugee)

[2024] AATA 4376

1914334 (Refugee) [2024] AATA 4376 (19 September 2024)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1914334

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Turkey

MEMBER:Alison Ryan

DATE:19 September 2024

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 19 September 2024 at 11:47am

CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Turkey – religion – follower of reformist Islam movement – social media and secret group activities – warned by family and assaulted during return visit – no further information provided and consent to decision without hearing – responsibility to establish claims and provide evidence – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5AAA, 5H(1)(a), 5J(1), 36(2)(a), (aa), (2A), 65, 425(2)(b)
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2

CASES
MIEA v Guo (1997) 191 CLR 559
Prasad v MIEA (1985) 6 FCR 155

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. The applicant, who claims to be a citizen of Turkey, most recently arrived in Australia on a visitor visa on 20 January 2018. The applicant applied for a protection visa (Class XA, Subclass 866) on 6 April 2018.

2. A delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs refused to grant the applicant a protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act) on 24 May 2019. The delegate’s decision is the subject of this review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal).

3. The applicant was invited to attend a hearing of the Tribunal in his case. The applicant declined the invitation and consented to a decision being made on the papers.

   CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

   Protection visa application

4. In his protection visa application, the applicant indicates that he was born in Kocaeli, Turkey in [Year]. The applicant notes he is Muslim and of Turkish ethnicity and is separated from his wife. The applicant can speak, read, and write Turkish and English.

5. The applicant’s claims in his protection visa application are summarised as follows.

6. The applicant left Turkey because he fears persecution for accepting and following an interpretation of Islam which is reformist and peace centred. The applicant refuses to accept any particular sect in Islam as he thinks that sects such as Maliki, Shafi’i, Hanafi and Hanbali have commercial aims rather than wanted to teach the truth. The applicant thinks that the commercialisation of Islam distorts the truth of the religion and misleads followers into believing the hadith and sunnah were just as important and essential to understanding the Quran, however the Quran alone is sufficient.

7. The applicant watched a Turkish TV programme, ‘Ceviz Kabuğu’ featuring Dr Edip Yüksel in which he talked about the essence of Islam and how hadiths caused Islam to lose its true identity as a religion of peace and how it puts prophet Mohammed on a level equal or above God. Dr Yüksel also questioned the payment of sheiks for preaching Islam as it was inconsistent with the Quran. The applicant did further online research and started to follow Dr Yüksel on [social media]. The more the applicant listened to Dr Yüksel the more he questioned the interpretation of Islam promulgated by Islamic sheiks such as Ahmed Mahmud, Nihat Hatipoğlu, Mustafa Karataş and Necmettin Nursaçan, who were motivated by commercial rewards referred to in texts written hundreds of years after the death of the prophet. These texts supported polygamy, child marriages and stated that those who leave Islam should be killed. The applicant did not believe that this is supported by the Quran.

8. The applicant decided that the Quran is the only source of Islam and the hadith and sunnah do more harm than good for Islam. He also decided that he would spread the true word of Islam as a religion of peace like Dr Yüksel did. The applicant discussed his decision with his family but, except for his wife and one brother, his family opposed his plan. His father, in front of others, warned the applicant to stop reading Dr Yüksel as he was an infidel who was disowned by his well-respected father who was a sheik. The applicant’s father had been involved with Dr Yüksel in the 1970s doing projects with him and said that Dr Yüksel was previously good but he moved to America and accepted an Egyptian person, Rashad Khalifa, to be a prophet. The applicant’s father spoke to the applicant for an hour or 2 telling him why this was the wrong path and that this is the first and last warning he would be given.

9. After this other members of his family, at different times, also warned the applicant that if he was to do anything that caused other people to question our obedience to Islam and respect for sheiks, they would punish him before anyone else did.

10. The applicant then did his research in secret, opening a [Social media] account under a fictitious name to follow people like Dr Yüksel, Dr Ihsan Eliaçik and Dr Caner Taslaman. He regularly posted messages on [Social media] about the importance of following the correct message that is not contaminated by lies and exaggerations.

11. By the end of 2016 the applicant met and became friends with people who shared his views. They started publishing a quarterly information booklet and delivered it secretly to mailboxes at night. Their meetings were held secretly as the members, like the applicant, feared their families may harm them if they found out what they were doing.

12. In May 2017 the applicant’s wife followed him to a meeting of the group because she thought the applicant was cheating on her. To convince her the applicant explained what he was doing and she attended a meeting. She promised not to tell anyone but the applicant lived in fear.

13. The applicant was required to travel to Australia on a temporary work visa soon after his wife attended the meeting. The applicant thought leaving the country would be good as his wife would not be motivated to reveal the secret to his family. Also if she did reveal the secret he would be able to deny any involvement saying he had been overseas focusing on his work.

14. After being in Australia on his temporary work visa he applied for a visitor visa to extend his period away from Turkey until April 2018. The applicant thought that after being away from Turkey for so long his wife would not have a reason to inform his family of his involvement with people who followed an understanding of Islam which was radically different to the one followed by the mainstream.

15. In December 2017 the applicant received a call from his wife telling him that their youngest child was critically ill and he must come back to Turkey. The applicant was picked up by 2 of his brothers at the airport who took him to his father’s house where his child was.

16. When the applicant entered the house he was sworn at, spat at, punched numerous times on the head and slammed to the ground by his brothers. This assault lasted for 5 to 10 minutes. He was taken to a room where his father was and his father threw papers at him, that were apparently given to his father by his wife. The applicant’s father asked him to explain the papers. The papers were print-outs of all the posts and private messages of the [Social media] page the applicant had opened with a fictitious name. The applicant and his father spoke for about an hour and at the end he was convinced that he would not be able to leave the room alive unless he confirmed that the pages belonged to him. In fear the applicant said he made a mistake and sought his father’s forgiveness.

17. The applicant’s father told the applicant that he must earn forgiveness and gave him a list of things the applicant had to do including, not returning to Australia, move into his father’s house with his family, go to the mosque of his father’s choice every day, attend talks from a certain sheik with him on a regular basis and follow his path, put constant updates on his social media to reassure people that he was on the wrong path, support the AKP government. The applicant’s father said that if he failed to do as he asked he would not prevent the applicant’s brothers from physically assaulting him which they are obliged to do as the true followers of Islam. The applicant’s father said ‘only with me you are safe, but the decision is yours’.

18. Out of fear the applicant accepted his conditions knowing that he had plans to come back to Australia. The applicant lived in fear until his departure from Turkey and he is convinced that he will be subject to severe punishment if he returned to Turkey.

19. On 16 September 2020, the applicant was sent a letter by the Department of Home Affairs (the Department) requesting him to provide additional details and evidence about his claims including documentary evidence. No response was provided.

20. The applicant attached copies of the following documents with his application:

    a.Identification page of his passport;

    b.Clarion project article by Ryan Mauro, ‘Muslims Against Islamists: Turkish Reformist Edip Yüksel’, 28 May 2012.

    c.Transcript of ABC radio show, Islam: From heretics to believers, 16 March 2008.

    The Department interview

21. The applicant was invited to an interview with the Department of Home Affairs on 9 April 2019 and the applicant declined to attend.

    The delegate’s decision

22. The delegate refused the applicant’s protection visa application on 24 May 2019. The delegate found that the applicant’s fear of harm is limited to the applicant’s home region in Turkey. As a [Age]-year-old man who has lived and worked independently he would be able to relocate to another part of Turkey for his safety if necessary. The delegate also found that the written material provided by the applicant does not provide a sufficient basis to be satisfied that the applicant does, in fact, express their understanding of Islam in a particular way, or that they face harm of any kind for such a reason on return to Turkey.

    The review application

23. The applicant made an application for review to the Tribunal on 5 June 2019. No further information about his claims for protection were provided with the application.

24. On 6 August 2024 the Tribunal wrote to the applicant to advise that his case was being prepared to be given to a Member and invite him to provide any more information about his protection claims. The applicant responded however no further information about his claims for protection were provided.  

25. On 16 August 2024 the Tribunal wrote to the applicant informing him that the Tribunal was not able to make a favourable decision on the information he had provided. The invitation stated that if he did not attend the hearing, the Tribunal may dismiss the application for review without any further consideration of the application or the information before it. The Tribunal invited the applicant to attend a hearing on 13 September 2024 to give further evidence and present arguments.

26. On 19 August 2024 the applicant emailed the Tribunal the pre-hearing response form indicating that he will not participate in the hearing and consents to the Tribunal making a decision on the papers without taking further steps to allow him to appear.

27. In these circumstances, the Tribunal considers it appropriate to determine the review without a hearing in accordance with s 425(2)(b) of the Act.   

    CRITERIA FOR A PROTECTION VISA

28. The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s 36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth). 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.

29. 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.

30. 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).

31. 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.

32. 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

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

    CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

    Nationality

34. The applicant claims to be a citizen of Turkey in his protection visa application. He travelled to Australia a number of times on a Turkish passport and has provided a copy of the identification page of his passport with his application. The Tribunal finds that the applicant is a citizen of Turkey.

35. There is no information before the Tribunal to suggest that the applicant is a citizen of another country or that he has a right to enter and/or reside in another country.

    Protection

36. The issue in this case is whether the applicant is a person to whom Australia owes protection obligations. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.

37. The mere fact that a person claims fear of persecution for a particular reason does not establish either the genuineness of the asserted fear or that it is ‘well-founded’ or that it is for the reason claimed. Similarly, that an applicant claims to face a real risk of significant harm does not establish that such a risk exists, or that the harm feared amounts to ‘significant harm’. It remains for the applicant to satisfy the Tribunal that all of the statutory elements are made out. A decision-maker is not required to make the applicant’s case for him or her. It is the responsibility of the applicant to specify all particulars of the claim to be a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations and to provide sufficient evidence to establish the claim. The Tribunal does not have any responsibility or obligation to specify, or assist in specifying any particulars of the claim, or to establish or assist in establishing the claim: s 5AAA. Nor is the Tribunal required to accept uncritically any and all the allegations made by an applicant (MIEA v Guo (1997) 191 CLR 559 at 596, Prasad v MIEA (1985) 6 FCR 155 at 169–70).

38. The applicant has not provided sufficient details related to his protection claims.

39. The applicant’s claims centre on his fear of violence from his brothers and his father due to his religious views, the expression of these views and also because he disobeyed the rules his father had imposed including leaving Turkey. The applicant states that his father required that the applicant and his family move in with his father but there is a lack of details provided by the applicant as to whether he and his family did move in with his father. The applicant does not provide details of how he was able to escape his father and other family members who he feared and leave Turkey.

40. The applicant provides insufficient details about the group of friends that he made who had similar religious views. The applicant did not explain how he met this group of people, who was in the group, where they held their secret meetings and what is the current situation for those people in the group.

41. The applicant claims that he expressed his religious views though a [Social media] account under another name. The applicant did not state the name of the [Social media] account that he used and did not provide any documentary evidence of the account or his online posts. Further, the applicant did not provide sufficient details of what views he expressed on social media and what was included in the information booklets that his group published. 

42. The applicant has not provided any information about what occurred after he left Turkey as relevant to his fears of harm in Turkey. The applicant has not provided any details of his current religious practice, views and expression of his views.  

43. Considering all the information before it, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant holds and expresses the religious views as claimed or that he has experienced harm and threats of harm from his father and brothers due to his religious views or actions or for any other reasons. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant will be subject to serious or significant harm in the future in Turkey due to his religious opinions, actions or defying rules imposed by his father or for any other reason.

44. The Tribunal is not satisfied, on the evidence before it, that the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion in the foreseeable future. Nor is the Tribunal satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm.

45. 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).

46. 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).

47. 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

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

   Alison Ryan
   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.

   …