1917702 (Refugee)

[2024] AATA 4443

1917702 (Refugee) [2024] AATA 4443 (8 October 2024)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1917702

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   China

MEMBER:Rachelle Johnston

DATE:8 October 2024

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 08 October 2024 at 10:46am

CATCHWORDS

REFUGEE – Protection Visa – China – religion – Christian faith – request for a decision on the papers – insufficient evidence – lack of detail contained in the applicant’s claims –decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, ss 5, 56, 65, 499

Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2

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

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 6 June 2019 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).

2. The applicant who claims to be a citizen of China, applied for the visa on 18 August 2018. 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.

   CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

   Claims and evidence before the Department 

   Protection visa application

3. The applicant lodged a protection visa application on 18 August 2018. In that application he provided the following information, among other things:

   ·     He was born in [year] in Anhui, Hunan, China, as were his parents.

   ·     He has never married.

   ·     Whilst in China he only ever resided in Anhui, Hunan Sheng.

   ·     He speaks, reads, and writes Mandarin.

   ·     He is a Christian.

   ·     Between March 2010 and May 2018 he was self-employed as a farmer in Anhui, Hunan Sheng.

   ·     He completed primary school between [years] and middle school between [years] in Anhui, Hunan Sheng.

4. The applicant makes the following claims in his protection visa application form:

   ·     He left China because he is a Christian believer and because it is not safe in his country to believe in Christ because his country’s government opposes the Christian faith.

   ·     The Chinese Communist Party started a campaign to remove the crosses from atop of churches in his city and they have detained many pastors and destroyed many Christian churches in the area.

   ·     He was the victim of such brutality and was arrested by the police and threatened to be tortured in jail for life if he remained to continue following Christ. When the police arrested him, one of them spit in his face because he was praying out loud. He was told that Christ does not exist and that he was a lunatic. That really hurt him deeply and affected his dignity.

   ·     He refrained and felt that he had no religious freedom at all. Christianity is the most important faith in his life, and he does not want to lose his Christian faith and be controlled by an oppressive government.

   ·     He was afraid of the authorities so did not seek help whatsoever. Also he did not believe there is someone who could help him. He did not try to move because he did not feel that he was going to be safer. Protection from religious oppression is impossible in China because the CCP rules are against religion. Relocating in China to seek safety is not an option because there is religious oppression everywhere.

   ·     If he returns to China, he will have no religious freedom. He will be harmed in a brutal way. He will be tortured in prison. He really believes there is great danger if he returns.

   Interview with the delegate

5. The applicant was requested to attend an interview with a delegate of the Department on 6 June 2019 to discuss his claims for protection. The applicant did not appear at the interview at the scheduled time and place.

   The delegate’s decision

6. On 6 June 2019, a delegate of the Minister refused the applicant’s protection visa application. 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 China, 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

7. On 2 July 2019, the applicant applied for a review of the delegate’s decision. He provided the Tribunal with a copy of the delegate’s decision.

   Request for a decision on the papers

8. On 18 September 2024 the Tribunal wrote to the applicant advising that it had considered all the papers relating to his application, but it was unable to make a favourable decision on that information alone. The Tribunal invited the applicant to give oral evidence and present arguments at a hearing on 7 November 2024. The Tribunal asked the applicant to complete a Response to Hearing Invitation Form.

9. On 24 September 2024 the applicant provided the Tribunal with the Response to Hearing Invitation Form. In that form he ticked the box indicating he did not wish to participate in the hearing and consented to the Tribunal making a decision on the papers without taking further steps to allow him to appear. That form was signed and dated 23 September 2024. The signature on the form matches the applicant’s signature on the copy of his passport he provided the Tribunal when updating his contact details.   

10. On 25 September 2024 the Tribunal wrote to the applicant confirming it had received his written request for a decision on the papers and that the Tribunal would make a decision on the papers without taking further steps to allow him to appear at a hearing.

11. This matter has therefore been determined on the evidence available to the Tribunal.

    CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

    The relevant law

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. 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).

15. 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.

16. 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

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

    Nationality

18. The applicant claims to be a citizen of China and provided a copy of the bio-data page of his People’s Republic of China passport to the Department. The delegate was satisfied that the applicant is using his own identity and that he is a citizen of China. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Tribunal accepts this and finds the applicant is a citizen of China and China is his receiving country for the purposes of assessing his claims for protection.

    Analysis, reasons and findings

19. 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.

20. It is the responsibility of an applicant for a protection visa to specify all particulars of his or her claim to be owed protection and to provide sufficient evidence to establish the claim: s 5AAA(2) of the Act. The Tribunal does not have any responsibility or obligation to specify or assist in specifying any particulars of the applicant’s claim, or to establish or assist in establishing the claim: s 5AAA(4).

21. The Tribunal formed the preliminary view that there was insufficient material before it to be satisfied that the applicant’s claims to be owed protection were established, and that he faces a real chance or real risk of serious or significant harm on return to China. As the Tribunal was unable to make a favourable decision it invited the applicant to a hearing in accordance with s 425 of the Act. The Tribunal’s invitation to the hearing advised the applicant that it was unable to make a favourable decision on the information before it. Nevertheless, the applicant elected not to attend the hearing and consented to a decision on the papers.

22. Based on the evidence before it, the Tribunal has multiple concerns with the applicant’s claims. The evidence presented by the applicant to the department and the Tribunal is not sufficiently detailed to enable the Tribunal to be satisfied that the applicant faces a real chance of persecution in China or that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to China, there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm.

23. There is insufficient evidence before the Tribunal in relation to the applicant’s claim he left China because he is a Christian believer and because it is not safe in his country to believe in Christ because his country’s government opposes the Christian faith. The applicant has not explained how he came to believe in Christianity, what his Christian beliefs are, how he practices his Christian beliefs, and whether his Christian beliefs are tied to any ethnic, political, or sensitive government issues in China. He has not explained how the Chinese government opposes the Christian faith and why he believes it is not safe to believe in Christ in China.

24. In relation to his claim the Chinese Communist Party started a campaign to remove the crosses from atop of churches in his city and they have detained many pastors and destroyed many Christian churches in the area, he has not outlined whether he attends church and if he does, whether his church had its cross removed, whether his church was destroyed or targeted in any way and why, and whether any pastors from his church were detained.   

25. The applicant has not explained when he was arrested by the police and threatened to be tortured in jail for life if he remained to continue following Christ. He has not explained where he was when he was arrested, how many people arrested him, whether he was the only person that was arrested, and what he was doing that led to his arrest. He has not explained how he reacted when he was arrested and when he was spat on by the police.

26. There is also insufficient information before the Tribunal in relation to the applicant’s claim he refrained and felt he had no religious freedom at all. The applicant has not explained if he ceased practising his religion entirely and or if he maintained any personal religious practices. He has not explained why he is unable to practice his religious beliefs in China without harm. 

27. In relation to the applicant’s claims he did not seek help, believe anyone could help him, relocating in China to seek safety is not an option, and that protection from religious oppression is impossible in China because the Chinese Communist Party’s rules are against religion, the applicant has not explained why he believes this to be the case and what it is about his religious practices that are in opposition to the Chinese Communist Party.

28. There is also insufficient information before the Tribunal as to his claim if he returns to China he will have no religious freedom, he will be harmed in a brutal way, be tortured in prison, and be in great danger. The applicant has not explained if he has been charged in relation to his arrest, whether he is wanted or a target of anyone in China, why he would be harmed in a brutal way and tortured in prison, and why he believes he is in great danger. Nor has he explained why specifically he would have no religious freedom in China in the context of his belief system. He has not provided an outline of what his religious practices have been in Australia and if he has continued to express any religious beliefs.

29. In view of the insufficient detail provided by the applicant in his claims, as explained above, the Tribunal is not satisfied of the applicant’s claims. The Tribunal accepts the applicant was born in Anhui, Hunan, China. Given the lack of specific details about the applicant’s claims, as identified above, the Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant is a Christian, that he holds, has expressed, or has wanted to express any religious beliefs in China or Australia, or that he was ever arrested by the police, threatened with torture, spat in the face, or verbally abused for any reason in China. Given this, the Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant was not safe or free in China to the extent he left China to come to Australia. It follows the Tribunal is not satisfied that he is known by anyone in such a way in China, or that he has specific religious practices that would make him the target of harm on his return to China.

    Does the applicant meet the refugee criterion?

30. The applicant claims if he returns to China, he will have no religious freedom at all and he will be harmed in a brutal way, tortured in prison, and be in great danger. As set out above, in view of the insufficient information and lack of detail contained in the applicant’s claims, the Tribunal does not accept the applicant’s claims that he is a Christian, that he holds, has expressed, or wanted to express any religious beliefs in China or Australia, or that he was ever arrested by the police, threatened with torture, spat in the face, or verbally abused in China for any reason. The Tribunal does not accept the applicant’s claim therefore that he will suffer harm on return to China in connection to those claimed events. As the Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant is a Christian, it follows the Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant would undertake any religious practices or express any religious beliefs if he were to return to China. The Tribunal is not satisfied he has been persecuted in China in the past, or that there is a real chance that he will be persecuted in the reasonably foreseeable future.

31. The applicant did not claim, and there is nothing in the material to suggest, that he fears persecution for any other reason in China.

32. Having considered the applicant’s claims singularly and on a cumulative basis and taking into account the findings set out above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that if the applicant returns to China 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.

33. 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, it is not satisfied that the applicant meets the definition of refugee in s 5H(1). As the applicant does not meet the definition in s 5H(1), the Tribunal is not satisfied he is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(a).

    Does the applicant meet the complementary protection criterion?

34. Having concluded that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a) of the Act, the Tribunal has considered whether the applicant meets the criterion for the grant of a protection visa under the complementary protection criterion in s 36(2)(aa).

35. The ‘real risk’ test under the complimentary protection criterion imposes the same standard as the ‘real chance’ test under the refugee criterion[1]. For the reasons set out above, the Tribunal finds the applicant does not face a real risk of significant harm for any reason. 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 China, there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm.

    [1] MIAC v SZQRB [2013] FCAFC 33.

36. 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

37. 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).

38. 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).

39. 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

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

    Rachelle Johnston
    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.

    …