1920681 (Refugee)

[2024] AATA 4098

1920681 (Refugee) [2024] AATA 4098 (5 August 2024)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

REPRESENTATIVE:  Mr Kourosh Momeni (MARN: 0955242)

CASE NUMBER:  1920681

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Iran

MEMBER:Sue Zelinka

DATE:5 August 2024

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

DECISION:The Tribunal remits the matter for reconsideration with the direction that the applicant satisfies s 36(2)(a).

Statement made on 05 August 2024 at 3:16pm

CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Iran – religion – conversion to Christianity – apostasy – denial of the fellowship of church membership – decision under review remitted

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5H, 5J, 36, 65, 415, 417
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2

Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other 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 26 July 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 Iran applied for the visa on 14 September 2016. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that he found the applicant’s claims not to be credible.

3. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 15 July 2024 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from the applicant’s husband, [Mr A], and the pastor of her church, [Pastor B]. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Farsi (Persian) and English languages.

4. The applicant was represented in relation to the review. The representative attended the Tribunal hearing.

   CRITERIA FOR A PROTECTION VISA

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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).

8. 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.

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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 matter should be remitted for reconsideration.

    Background

12. The applicant is a [age]-year-old woman who travelled to Australia in 2016 with her younger sister to see their eldest sister who is an Australian citizen. The applicant has a university education and pursued a career in Iran in a specialised [company] owned by her maternal uncle. Her role involved travel to European and Middle Eastern countries.

13. The applicant presented her Iranian passport to the Tribunal. This was issued in Tehran [in] 2014 and expired [in] 2019. It showed past travel to [Country 1], [Country 2] and the Schengen states; and an entry to Australia [in] August 2016 (the last time the passport has been used).

    Initial claims

14. In her protection visa application (PVA) submitted very soon after her arrival in Australia, the applicant presented claims about the increasing difficulties she was facing as a single professional woman, privately secular in her views. This was especially so after the employment within her uncle’s company where she and her sister worked of a man who had been with the basij. She and her sister left Iran to visit their other sister in Australia, and because they travelled frequently and always returned, they were allowed to leave. She feared harm if she returned to Iran not only from her uncle and his company but also from the government for contravening religious and morality laws.

    To the Tribunal

15. The applicant reiterated these claims in submissions to the Tribunal. She also claimed that she had become involved in Christianity in early 2019 and was baptised in September of that year. She also stated that she had married an Australian-Iranian who was a Christian in June 2021. She provided an amount of photographic evidence about the wedding and her interaction with the congregation at her church.

16. At hearing, the Tribunal asked the applicant about her religious background. She said that her parents had always supported her and her sisters being modern, independent women. This led to a resentment of the way that Islam – or rather, the way Islam was promulgated through the religious authorities in Iran – treated women. She said that when she and her sister left Iran on one of their business trips, they would remove their hijabs as soon as the plane took off. This had not caused problems before except on their last business trip to [Country 2] where they were unwittingly being observed by another of the delegation who then reported back to the company.

17. The Tribunal notes that in her first statutory declaration written in September 2016 and submitted with her PVA, the applicant stated that she has “no faith in Islam … I have never voluntarily presented myself as a Muslim unless I had to do so in my dealings with Iranian government agencies and/or authorities”. The Tribunal asked her how she initially encountered Christian churches in Australia. She said that after settling in Australia, she and her sister lived near a large Pentecostal church and had been entranced by the singing they heard coming from the building. They had gone in to take a look. Then her friend, another Iranian woman who was living here and who was a Christian, took her to the church which she attended (not the Pentecostal one) and the applicant found that there were about half a dozen other Iranians in the congregation. They welcomed her in such a warm way that she continued to attend with her friend. She had first gone in May 2019 and by September of that year had become committed enough to be baptised. She then started going out with the brother of one of the core group of Iranian parishioners. This brother, [Mr A], is also involved with this church and he and the applicant were married there in June 2021.

    The witnesses

18. The Tribunal heard from a witness, the pastor at the church the applicant and her husband attend. The pastor testified to their active involvement in the church, not only their regular attendance at weekly services but also at bible study classes and social activities such as dinners with fellow congregants. The pastor had no hesitation in testifying to the applicant’s commitment to her church. The pastor also said she was best friends with the woman who had been the pastor at the time when the applicant first came to the church in 2019 and who had baptised her. The witness said that she had discussed this applicant’s case prior to the hearing and the previous pastor had no doubts that the applicant’s baptism was a genuine sign of her understanding of and commitment to the Christian faith. The Tribunal notes that this original pastor has provided written testimony saying that she was the person who baptised the applicant and performed the marriage ceremony; and that she has no doubt that the applicant’s Christian faith is genuine.

19. The Tribunal also heard briefly from the applicant’s husband who stated that he had come to Australia more than a decade ago on a skilled migration visa and is now an Australian citizen with a solid career. He confirmed that he met his wife through the church group of which his brother was a keen member. He said he is now a committed attendee, having been baptised there in 2021 prior to his marriage. He stated that both he and his wife were regular worshippers at the church and that it constituted an important part of their calendar and their social network.

20. The Tribunal asked the applicant if she had told her family in Iran of her conversion. She said she had discussed her path to Christianity with her parents from the beginning. They were not upset at the news – indeed, she said, they were pleased that she had actually committed to a faith. They are always supportive of her.

    Political activity

21. The Tribunal asked the applicant about the other photos she had submitted which showed activities other than church ones. The applicant said that the photographs showed that she participated in demonstrations in Sydney in support of human rights in Iran – for example, the rallies that were held after the death of Mahsa Amini. She said that she follows several groups on social media; some are in Farsi. Information about forthcoming rallies or demonstrations is quickly spread through these networks and she intends to stay involved with them.

    Analyses, findings and reasons

22. On the basis of her passport, her language and her testimony, the Tribunal finds that the applicant is a national of Iran and that Iran is the receiving country in this case.

23. The Tribunal accepts the applicant’s testimony and that of her witness about her Christian activities in Australia since 2019. It accepts that she was introduced to a Christian church by an Iranian friend, that she became part of the congregation which also included a group of Iranians, that she was baptised, that she married an Iranian Christian who is an Australian citizen, that this wedding took place in the church, that she has regularly attended church on a weekly basis since 2019, and that she is actively involved in other church activities.

24. The Tribunal is aware that in determining whether actions taken in Australia are relevant in considering the well-foundedness of an applicant’s claims to fear persecution, regard must be had to s 91(R)3 of the Act. This provides that the Tribunal must disregard any conduct by the applicant in Australia if it was entered into for the purpose of strengthening the applicant’s refugee claims. With s 91(R)3 in mind, the Tribunal considered the actions of the applicant in converting to Christianity and in attending demonstrations against the Iranian government.

25. The Tribunal notes that in her initial protection visa application made very shortly after her arrival in Australia the applicant had made claims about the oppressive nature of Islam as the State religion in Iran upon her as a modern woman. She had not, however, stated that she was an atheist – that she had no religion – but only that she rejected the one that she had to follow in Iran. In Australia, she was attracted to the openness of the Christian church – the singing at the first one, the warmth of welcome from fellow Iranians at the second one – and stayed. The Tribunal finds that the church became the hub of her social life but it also gives weight to the testimony of the pastors who were decisive in stating that the applicant studied and understood the tenets of the faith and was committed in her adherence to Christianity. The Tribunal notes that the applicant has been assiduous in her attendance for five years and has married within the church. The Tribunal finds that her conversion to Christianity is genuine and not done for the purposes of strengthening her refugee claim.

    Country information

26. If the applicant were to return to Iran, she would be an apostate. The Tribunal notes the following information from the latest DFAT report:

    Apostasy is not specifically codified as a crime in Iran, however, is nonetheless a crime under Sharia law, which is enforceable under the constitution. Both moharebeh or ‘enmity against God’ and fisad fil-arz (corruption on earth) are codified in law and can include apostasy, according to the 2021 US Department of State Human Rights Report. According to the Iran Human Rights Documentation Centre, person can be found guilty of the crime of apostasy based on the testimony of two male witnesses, the knowledge of a judge or a confession. The death penalty is a potential punishment but very rare in practice. (DFAT, Country Information Report: Iran, July 2024 at para. 2.65).

27. Even if the applicant did not announce her Christianity if she returned to Iran, news of this conversion may get out. She had already come to adverse attention at her work, partly because of her un-Islamic behaviour whilst on work trips outside Iran: the workplace is owned by her maternal uncle and even though he is not close to his sister – the applicant’s mother – there is a real chance that he could have heard news of her through the family grapevine. There is a real chance that the uncle and his ex-basij  offsider (the one who informed on the applicant prior to her departure) would be prepared to be the two male witnesses who attest to her apostasy, as indicated in the country information above.

28. There is another consideration: the Tribunal has accepted that the Christian church in Australia has became a major focus of the applicant’s life here, providing not only her marriage partner and a network of close friends, but also spiritual learning and comfort through very regular attendance. If she were to return to Iran, she would be denied this as she would not be able to attend a Christian church, as indicated below:

    Protestant (including Evangelical) and Pentecostal churches, which some asylum seekers join while they are in Western countries like Australia, are not legal. Conversions that took place after 1979 or conversions that take place outside Iran are not recognised by the government. A person who claims to be Christian, however cannot prove that their family was Christian before 1979, would be considered Muslim by the government and thus subject to apostasy laws. (DFAT, op.cit., para. 2.80)

29. The applicant’s only option would be to worship alone at home, thereby denying her the fellowship of church membership and church rituals such as communion, or to attend a ‘house church’, described  below. There are some recognised churches in Iran such as the Armenian and Assyrian ones but they

    must be registered with the authorities, and only recognised Christians can attend church. Security officials closely monitor registered churches to verify that services are not conducted in Farsi (they must be performed in the traditional language of the Church and not the vernacular) and perform regular identity checks on worshippers to confirm that non-Christians or converts do not participate in services. Churches that do not comply face closure. (DFAT, op.cit., para. 2.81).

    Iranian Christians who are not members of recognised churches generally practise in underground ‘house churches’. House churches are usually Evangelical Protestant and are found throughout the country, but especially in more affluent and cosmopolitan areas. Numbers of house church adherents are not known because these churches are secret and illegal.  … Authorities interpret the growth in house churches as a threat to national security and periodically carry out raids against them. Congregants regularly change houses to avoid detection. Raids focus particularly on house churches that actively proselytise or seek out new members. Sources told DFAT authorities do not actively look for house churches. Rather, raids –where they occur – are usually the result of tip-offs by Muslim neighbours. Other sources say the government sends people posing as converts to infiltrate house churches. (DFAT, op. cit., paras. 2.83 and 2.85)

30. Whether the applicant chose to worship privately or to join a house church, the punishment for converting to Christianity from Islam is severe.

    Prison or the death penalty are possible outcomes for Christians meeting in house churches, both leaders and everyday adherents. DFAT understands that while not a common punishment, prison or the death penalty for apostasy is possible. Years or even decades-long prison sentences are also possible. Changes were made to the Islamic Penal Code in February 2021 that mean that those guilty of ‘deviant psychological manipulation’ or ‘propaganda contrary to Islam’ could be found to be members of a ‘sect’, which can lead to imprisonment, fines, flogging or the death penalty. (DFAT, op. cit., para. 2.86)

    DFAT assesses that Muslim converts to Christianity risk arrest and detention if their conversion is revealed. Christians found to be proselytising face a high risk of arrest, prosecution and imprisonment. DFAT assesses Christian converts face a high risk of societal discrimination in the event their conversion becomes widely known, particularly if they are from more religiously-minded Muslim family backgrounds. This may involve ostracism from one’s family and discrimination in employment. (DFAT, op. cit., para. 2.88)

    Well-founded fear

31. The Tribunal finds that the applicant is a genuine convert to Christianity and that she will continue to practise as a Christian in the reasonably foreseeable future. If she returned to Iran, she would continue to be a Christian. She would not attend mosque. There is a real chance that this information may become known by people such as her uncle, as already discussed, or even friends or neighbours through chance sightings of the wedding photographs, or other photos or information from Australia. Anyone may pass this information on to the authorities. The Tribunal is satisfied that there is a real chance that serious harm may befall the applicant for reason of her religion.

1. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution for one of the reasons set out in s 5J(1)(a) of the Act.

2. The Tribunal notes that the applicant has also expressed fear of harm in Iran for reasons other than religion – for example, her real or imputed political opinion expressed both in Iran while working in her uncle’s company and in Australia through attendance at political rallies protesting at human rights violations in Iran. However, as the Tribunal is satisfied that she fulfils the definition of refugee on one of the five grounds, it is superfluous to canvass these other grounds.

3. For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(a).

   DECISION

4. The Tribunal remits the matter for reconsideration with the direction that the applicant satisfies s 36(2)(a).

   Sue Zelinka
   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.

   …