1922281 (Refugee) - [2024] ARTA 630

1922281 (REFUGEE) [2024] ARTA 630 (11 NOVEMBER 2024)
DECISION AND
REASONS FOR DECISION
Respondent: Minister for Home Affairs

Tribunal Number: 1922281
Tribunal:Michael Simmons
Date:11 November 2024

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

Statement made on 11 November 2024 at 5:18pm
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – Protection Visa – Fiji – race – ethnic Fijian – applicant doesn’t fear harm –mother and sole carer of an Australian citizen child – strong compassionate circumstances – Ministerial intervention requested – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 5, 36, 65, 351, 499
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2
Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 369 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information.
STATEMENT OF REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 2 August 2019 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).The applicant who claims to be a national of Fiji, applied for the visa on 2 October 2018.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal via video conference on 7 November 2024 to give evidence and present arguments. Also present on the call was a new Tribunal Member who observed the hearing for training purposes, which the applicant consented to.
Present during the hearing was an interpreter in the Fijian and English languages, however the applicant elected to speak with me in English and did not rely on the interpreter. I explained to the applicant at the outset that it was my preference for the interpreter to remain on the call in the event we needed to revert to his assistance, and she seemed to indicate she was agreeable to this. She did not convey to me during the hearing that she had any concern with the interpreter remaining on the call, or that she otherwise felt her ability to participate in the hearing was impinged. It was my impression that throughout the hearing we understood each other and communicated effectively in English, and no concerns suggesting otherwise were raised.
Prior to the end of the hearing I afforded the applicant a short break to collect her thoughts and carefully consider whether she had provided all the pertinent details she wished to share. I confirmed with her a number of times that she had told me everything she wished me to know when assessing her matter, and she indicated that she had. I also explained that any further information received before a decision is made will be considered.
On 8 November 2024, the Tribunal registry received a call from the applicant in which she indicated she felt uncomfortable during the hearing because the interpreter was present and expressed that she had a lot more to say but was unable to do so during the hearing. The registry staff asked her to provide any information she wished to submit in writing as soon as possible.
Later that day, the Tribunal received an email from the applicant later that day in which she indicated she felt uncomfortable, speechless and forgetful due to the interpreter’s presence. She also raised the following points for the Tribunal’s consideration:
·She does not have any financial savings;
·Her son’s education is important but she will not be able to afford to support this in Fiji;
·She does not trust the systems in Fiji for receiving child support payments and is unclear about the process;
·If the Australian government can support her and her son (an Australian citizen) in Fiji then she is happy to go back there;
·As a single mother without work rights living off Centrelink she has struggled, and she will not be able to afford to ship her furniture and possessions to Fiji.
I note that during her oral evidence the applicant raised similar points, indicating she was open to returning to Fijian, but that she felt unsure as to how she would financially support herself and her son once there.
BACKGROUND
The applicant came to Australia in 2012 with her then husband as the holder of a temporary partner visa. Her marriage ended and she was unsuccessful in securing a permanent partner visa. In 2015 she gave birth to her son, who is a Australian citizen through descent as his father is an Australian citizen. The applicant does not have an ongoing relationship with her son’s father.
Evidence before the Department
·Protection visa application lodged 18 October 2018.
Evidence before the Tribunal
·Hearing conducted 7 November 2024.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
Criteria for protection visa
The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s 36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations). An applicant for the visa must meet one of the alternative criteria in s 36(2)(a), (aa), (b), or (c). That is, he or she is either a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion, or on other ‘complementary protection’ grounds, or is a member of the same family unit as such a person and that person holds a protection visa of the same class.
Section 36(2)(a) provides that a criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee.
A person is a refugee if, in the case of a person who has a nationality, they are outside the country of their nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country: s 5H(1)(a). In the case of a person without a nationality, they are a refugee if they are outside the country of their former habitual residence and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to return to that country: s 5H(1)(b).
Under s 5J(1), a person has a well-founded fear of persecution if they fear being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, there is a real chance they would be persecuted for one or more of those reasons, and the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of the relevant country. Additional requirements relating to a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ and circumstances in which a person will be taken not to have such a fear are set out in ss 5J(2)-(6) and ss 5K-LA, which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
If a person is found not to meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), he or she may nevertheless meet the criteria for the grant of the visa if he or she is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that he or she will suffer significant harm: s 36(2)(aa) (‘the complementary protection criterion’). The meaning of significant harm, and the circumstances in which a person will be taken not to face a real risk of significant harm, are set out in ss 36(2A) and (2B), which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
Mandatory considerations
In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.84, made under s 499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken account of the ‘Refugee Law Guidelines’ and ‘Complementary Protection Guidelines’ prepared by the Department of Home Affairs, and country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.
Protection claims
In the visa application, the applicant raised protection claims related to Fiji’s 2006 military coup. She indicated her family suffered as a result of the coup and that her experience during the coup period made her appreciate the democratic life in Australia. She fears that should she return to Fiji she will be a victim of the political upheavals that have been happening in Fiji and which have harmed her psychologically and mentally.
The applicant is an ethnic Fijian is psychologically harmed as the government does not want to recognise the ethnic Fijians as the first people of Fiji. Indigenous rights are not recognised in Fiji and the cultural and traditional values are not respected.
The applicant fears that she would be deprived of her basic human rights. She has experienced having her rights respected in Australia and this has resulted in her becoming healthier mentally and physically. Should she return to Fiji, she would be unable to discuss her problems as a youth would not be able to criticise the government as there is no freedom of speech and the media is controlled by the government.
The applicant fears that she will be harmed and mistreated by the government if she returns to Fiji. She can now criticise the government and is able to speak freely while she resides in Australia. She fears that she would not be able to do this on return to Fiji.
REASONS AND FINDINGS
The issue in this case is whether the applicant faces a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm were she to return to Fiji. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
Identity and background
The applicant provided a copy of the biodata pages of her Fijian passport issued to her in 2018. This document corroborates her claimed identity and nationality. I accept that the applicant is who she claims to be, and that she is a national of Fiji. Fiji is the receiving country for the purpose of this assessment.
Past harm and future fear
Throughout the hearing the applicant gave direct, frank and seemingly spontaneous responses to my questions. I appreciated her being forthcoming with information including providing what appeared to be honest and sincere responses, even where doing so may not have assisted her in securing the migration outcome she desires.
At the outset of the hearing the applicant advised that protection claims advanced on her behalf are not related to her personal situation. She indicated that the visa application was prepared by a Fijian lady who her aunty helped her to connect with. This lady prepared the visa application without consulting the applicant in respect of the protection claims raised within it.
I explained to the applicant both the refugee and complementary protection criteria. She indicated that she understood these, but that she did not believe she satisfies either criterion.
When asked whether she believes anyone would seek to harm her in any way for any reason were she to return to Fiji, she replied that has been in Australia for ten years and does not know what will happen. She then indicated that she does not believe anyone would harm her in Fiji. I also note that in her email following the hearing, the applicant confirmed that she would be happy to return to Fiji if she felt secure in her ability to support herself and her son financially.
I raised with the applicant the claims that were made on her behalf for her comment. In respect of the 2006 coup, the applicant indicated that she does not know if this ever caused any problems for her or her family.
The applicant told me she has never been involved in Fijian politics, either while in Australia or Fiji. Her evidence was that she does not believe anyone in her family has ever been involved in politics. She told me that she “does not know about politics”.
In relation to the situation for indigenous Fijians, the applicant indicated she has no views on the treatment of indigenous peoples. I asked whether she thought there were any problems for indigenous Fijians in Fiji and she did not engage with this question.
The applicant also gave evidence that she “saw some things on social media in Fiji that was scary, like killing and fighting”. I asked her what the circumstances of the killing and fighting were. She replied “I am just thinking if I go back to Fiji things may happen, I don’t know” without expanding any further. She has not submitted any corroborative material in support of these claims, such as from social media
I asked the applicant if she was aware of anyone in Fiji who has been involved in violence. She indicated that last week her cousin’s husband was violent towards her cousin and attacked her, leading to her hospitalisation.
We discussed the applicant’s passport renewal in 2018. She indicated that she did not fear that the Fijian authorities may threaten or harm her when she renewed this document.
The applicant confirmed that she went back to Fiji in 2016 or 2017 for her grandfather’s funeral. She had no problems in Fiji during this visit at all.
Does the applicant satisfy the refugee criterion for protection?
The applicant squarely told me she does not believe anyone would seek to harm her for any reason were she to return to Fiji. She in fact visited Fiji in 2016 or 2017 and told me that during this visit she had no problems at all. She confirmed that the claims expressed in her visa application in respect of the coup, indigenous rights, human rights and Fiji politics advanced in her visa application were presented without her knowledge and do not relate to her personal situation. I do not accept that the applicant saw “killings and violence” on social media and fears such treatment in the future in Fiji. Notably she has not provided any relevant social media evidence. Moreover, when asked to elaborate on this claim she replied, “I don’t know”. I am not satisfied she faces a real chance of any harm in the foreseeable future in Fiji for these reasons.
I can accept that the applicant’s cousin was recently the victim of intimate partner violence. There is no suggestion that this would create any future prospect of harm to the applicant were she to return to Fiji, and I am not satisfied that a real chance of harm arises for her on this basis.
I reiterated to the applicant towards the end of the hearing that for her to receive a protection visa I needed to be satisfied that she faced either a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm in the future in Fiji, and based on the evidence before me at that stage it would not seem that she faced any such future harm. I invited her to provide any comments or further information she wished, and she replied, “I have got nothing about harm back in Fiji, the only thing I am worried about for me if my son”.
The applicant confirmed that she does not believe anyone would seek to harm her son. She suggested that it would be hard for her to be a single parent in Fiji. She expressed that receiving child support payments from her son’s father may be challenging were she in Fiji, though she did not indicate that this would be impossible. Similarly, in note that in her email to the Tribunal after the hearing the applicant indicated she was concerned about the cost of moving back to Fiji, how she would support herself and her son there financially, and how she may be able to receive child support payments there. In that email she indicated she was unclear how she may be able to continue to receive child support payments while in Fiji. She has not submitted any supporting materials related to her financial situation. Notably, Services Australia indicates that Fiji is a reciprocating jurisdiction for child support arrangements.[1]
[1] Services Australia, ‘Reciprocating jurisdictions and residency for child support - Child support assessment’ >
In our discussion the applicant indicated that she and her son would be able to live with her parents were they to return to Fiji. She also indicated she has four siblings in Fiji, two of who live in [the same city as] her parents. The applicant told me that when she had work rights she was able to secure a job in Sydney but has not worked since then. She suggested she did not know what she would do for work if she went back to Fiji. I note her evidence was that three of her siblings are employed in Fiji currently. Given her familial support, that she has some prior employment experience, and that she is currently receiving child support payments and intends to move to a reciprocating jurisdiction, I do not consider the applicant and her son would face a real chance of their capacity to subsist being threatened. Nor am I satisfied that their financial situation otherwise attracts a real chance of anyone seeking to inflict serious harm upon them for any reason.
On the evidence before me I am not satisfied the applicant faces a real chance of serious harm in the reasonably foreseeable future for any reason were she to return to Fiji. This includes for any reason related to the 2006 coup, indigenous rights, human rights, Fijian politics, due to her financial situation or as a single parent to her son.
The applicant does not have a well-founded fear of persecution for any s.5J(1)(a) reason. The applicant is not a refugee per s.5H.
I am not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(a).
Does the applicant satisfy the complementary protection criterion for protection?
Having concluded that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion, and as a result does not meet s 36(2)(a), I have considered the alternative criterion in s 36(2)(aa).
A ‘real risk’ and ‘real chance’ involve the same standard.[2] I have found above that the applicant does not face a real chance of any harm in Fiji in the foreseeable future. For the reasons set out above the applicant also does not face a real risk of any harm, including treatment amounting to significant harm, for any reason were she to return to Fiji.
[2] MIAC v SZQRB (2013) 210 FCR 505.
I am not 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 she will suffer significant harm.
Ministerial Intervention referral
The applicant discussed with me that her son is an Australian citizen who was born in Australia and has only lived here. He is [age] years old. She previously asked her son if he would want to live in Fiji, to which he back upset and started crying indicating that he would miss his school and his friends.
I explained to the applicant that pursuant to s 351, following a decision of the Tribunal the Minister may consider intervening to make a more favourable decision in certain, limited situations. I noted that the Tribunal is able to refer a matter for consideration under s 351, as is the applicant herself. When I asked her, the applicant told me that she would like the Tribunal to consider making this referral .
The applicant is the mother and sole carer of an Australian citizen child who is [age] years old. The applicant indicated that her son does not have a relationship with his father. Her son was born and raised in Australia and has only lived here. I consider it is open on the material before me to conclude that these are strong compassionate circumstances that if not recognised would result in serious, ongoing and irreversible harm and continuing hardship to an Australian citizen or an Australian family unit, where at least one member of the family is an Australian citizen or Australian permanent resident. I am satisfied that these are circumstances which warrant the matter being referred to the Minister for consideration.
Having regard to the applicant’s circumstances and having considered the ministerial guidelines relating to the Minister’s discretionary power under s 351, set out in departmental policy ‘Minister’s guidelines on ministerial powers (s351, s417, and s501J)’ the Tribunal considers this case should be referred to the Department to be brought to the Minister’s attention.
Conclusions

I am not satisfied the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations. Therefore, the applicant does not satisfy the criterion set out in s 36(2)(a) or (aa) for a protection visa.
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. It follows that she is also unable to satisfy the criterion set out in s 36(2)(b) or (c) and cannot be granted the visa. Accordingly, the applicant does not satisfy the criterion in s 36(2).
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.
Hearing date:  7 November 2024
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.
…