1924551 (refugee) - [2024] ARTA 695

1924551 (REFUGEE) [2024] ARTA 695 (28 NOVEMBER 2024)
DECISION AND
REASONS FOR DECISION
Respondent: Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

Tribunal Number: 1924551

Tribunal:General Member Edis
Date:28 November 2024

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

Statement made on 28 November 2024 at 1:10pm
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Taiwan – political opinion – pro-democracy protest – Democratic Progressive Party activist – physical assault – fear of killing – arrest – state protection – return visit to Taiwan – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and transitional Provisions No1) Act 2024
Migration Act 1958, ss 5(1), 5H, 5J – 5LA, 36, 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 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 (now known as the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs) to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The application was initially lodged with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT).
On 14 October 2024, the AAT became the Administrative Review Tribunal (the Tribunal). Under the transitional provisions in the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 (the Transitional Act), applications for review to the AAT that were not finalised before 14 October 2024 are taken to be an application for review to the Tribunal.[1]
[1] The Transitional Act gives the Tribunal the authority to continue and finalise any aspect of the review not already completed by the AAT.
BACKGROUND
The applicant is [an age]-year-old single woman from Taiwan.
She has previously held two 12-month Subclass 417 Working Holiday Visas (WHVs). The first WHV was granted on 22 March 2016.
She applied for a protection visa on 19 January 2019. She currently holds a bridging visa granted in connection with her pending protection visa application.
The applicant’s claims are to the effect that she is at risk of being persecuted for her political opinion if she returns to Taiwan. She is a supporter of democracy and freedom. When she took part in a protest in June 2014, she was harassed and hurt by members of political party who held opposing views to hers. She is fearful that she will not be able to stand up for her beliefs without being harmed again.
The applicant was not asked by the Department to provide more information about her claims, nor was she invited to attend an interview with a Departmental case officer.
The delegate made the refusal decision on 19 August 2019. The applicant sought review of that decision via the lodgement of the application to the AAT on 2 September 2019.
On 28 August 2024 the AAT Registry contacted the applicant to inform her that she may be eligible for free legal help with the review proceedings.
On 7 October 2024 the AAT Registry contacted the applicant to invite her to a Tribunal hearing on 27 November 2024. Among other matters, the hearing invitation informed her that the case could not be determined favourably based on the available information.
On 9 October 2024, the applicant emailed the AAT to confirm her intention to appear at the hearing. She attached a number of documents to that email in support of her case. They comprised a total of 7 documents, mostly news articles, published between August 2022 and Oct 2024.
A Tribunal hearing took place on 27 November 2024 before me. The applicant attended in person and gave evidence. She was assisted by a Mandarin interpreter.
I have considered the applicant’s evidence and information, and assessed the protection claims she has made. I accept the applicant genuinely does not wish to return to Taiwan.
However, for the following reasons, I am not satisfied the applicant meets the protection visa criteria and I therefore affirm the decision under review.
RELEVANT LAW
The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s 36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994.[2] An overview of these criteria was explained to the applicant at the outset of the Tribunal hearing.
[2] The key provisions are extracted and set out in an attachment to this Statement of Reasons.
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.
Refugee criterion
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).
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.
Complementary protection criterion
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 there are 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 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). Pursuant to s 36(2A), a person will suffer significant harm if they will be arbitrarily deprived of their life; or the death penalty will be carried out on the person; or the person will be subjected to torture, or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment, or to degrading treatment or punishment.
OUTLINE OF EVIDENCE
I set out below an outline of the evidence presented by the applicant,[3] which I accept.
[3] Derived from the visa application form, the documents given by her to the Tribunal, and the oral evidence.
Personal particulars
The applicant holds a valid passport issued by the Republic of China – Taiwan in February 2016, which she used to travel to Australia.[4] There is no dispute she is a Taiwanese citizen.
[4] The applicant produced the original document to the Tribunal Registry on the day of the hearing.
She was born in New Tapei City in Northern Taiwan. Her parents still live there, in the same household as her [sibling].
She does not have a close relationship with her family. She told me that she contacts them once a year. She said the last time she was in touch with her family was in January 2024.
She grew up in Tapei. She completed all of her schooling and went to university thereafter. She completed a [specified qualification] in [year].
She worked in [a specified] industry in Tapei between the time she finished her tertiary studies and the time of her departure for Australia in July 2016.
She returned home from July 2017 to January 2018, between her first and second WHVs. She did not work during that period of time.
She is not married or in a de facto relationship.
She does not identify with any particular ethnicity other than ‘Asian’ and she has ‘no religion’.
Protection visa application – January 2019
The applicant last arrived in Australia [in] January 2018, while holding her second WHV.
The protection visa application was lodged approximately 12 months later, at around the time the WHV was due to expire. She explained to me that it did not occur to her to seek protection sooner because she held a valid visa and so there was no need as such.
She personally completed the application form on IMMIAccount. She confirmed to me at the hearing that the information entered on the section of the form headed ‘Reasons for claiming protection’ was true and correct. In that regard, the applicant wrote (verbatim):
·I cannot go back to Taiwan because of the political persecution. The applicant join[ed] the Democratic Progressive Party in year 2009. After few years, the applicant became a team leader of the applicant's district. However, the Kuomindang Party, which is the other main party in Taiwan is getting power. In order to win the election in Taiwan in 2019, they are getting their evil hands on the opposite parties.
·I have been arrested in [a named] police station in June 2014, because of the disagreement between the two parties. The applicant was beat by the police officer, who are under control of Kuomindang Party.
·The applicant tried to move to Taichong, another city in Taiwan. However, the applicant was followed by the local people in Kuomindang and threaten the applicant to kill [her] if [she] was still in democratic party.
I have inferred the references to the ‘Kuomindang Party’ on the application form are intended to be references to the Kuomintang Party, being the main opposition party in Taiwan and known as the KMT.[5]
[5] See the International Foundation for Electoral Systems Guide for Taiwan which identifies the 3 main parties as the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), the KMT and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP): IFES Election Guide | Elections: Taiwanese Presidency 2024 General.
I asked the applicant to provide further information to me about what happened to her in June 2014. She recounted that she participated in a political protest, and was demonstrating her support for the democratic party, when she became surrounded by KMT Party members. A group of 5 people became verbally abusive and then started hitting her. One of them was wearing a police uniform. She was taken to a local police station and accused of being violent herself. She asked for an independent officer to help but her request was denied. She was eventually released from the police station much later that day, without facing any charges.
The applicant expounded that she became very afraid after what had happened to her. She said the people who harmed her knew where she lived and worked. That is why she moved to Taichong and stayed there for around 6 months. She wanted to get away from them. But she did not feel safe in Taichong either. She felt the KMT Party members ‘still had an impact on [her]’ and that she could not exercise her ‘real freedom’ to openly express her political opinion, without exposing herself to the risk of harm by them.
I asked the applicant if she experienced any other instances of harm in Taiwan. She said that she did not.
The reasons why the applicant fears returning to Taiwan – November 2024
The applicant confirmed she has not returned to Taiwan, or indeed left Australia, since January 2018. She also confirmed that she is aware the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), which she supports, is the ruling party in Taiwan.
I asked the applicant – given the passage of over 10 years since the June 2014 incident, together with the DPP’s governance of Taiwan – on what basis she still does not want to return to Taiwan. She answered to the effect that she continues to be afraid that she cannot say what she thinks, and she is worried the next time she says something, ‘bad things could happen’.
I clarified with the applicant what she meant. She said it is because she supports freedom and democracy, and there remains an opposing group of people who may threaten her, hit her, or have her arrested, as before. She said she is just a ‘normal person’ and cannot be protected.
The applicant spoke to me about the news articles that she had given to the Tribunal prior to the hearing. They included the following on-line articles published by the Taiwan News entitled:
·‘Map shows paths of Chinese missiles fired around Taiwan on Day 1’, 5 August 2022;
·‘US think tanks say China may try to coerce Taiwan into signing “peace” deal by 2028’, 21 May 2024;
·‘US Navy prioritises readiness for war with China by 2027’, 20 September 2024;
·‘Foreign ministry says Taiwan is not subordinate to China’, 3 October 2024; and
·‘Representative to US says Taiwan ready to face China if conflict breaks out’, 6 October 2024.
These articles are concerned with the escalating situation between China and Taiwan in recent years, including the ‘military build-up’ associated with mainland China’s intentions to seek ‘reunification’ with Taiwan. She said she provided them as evidence of the increased tension and heightened ongoing conflict within Taiwanese politics since she left Taiwan. She claimed ‘the [political] situation is getting worse’.
I made the observation to the applicant that, based on the news articles, the current President of Taiwan and the members of the DPP hold the same political views as her, which would tend to suggest she would not be harmed for her political opinion if she returned to Taiwan. She replied, somewhat obliquely, that she could only talk about her own experience and not about others. She reiterated she is afraid to go home because of what had happened to her.
I invited the applicant to comment on country information that Taiwanese democracy is reported to be robust; the elections are fair and free; protests and public political debate occur regularly and freely; and protests regularly occur, and rarely become violent.[6]
[6] Freedom in the World 2023 Taiwan', Freedom House, July 2023, A2 & B1, 20230725102014; 'BTI 2022 Country Report - Taiwan', Bertelsmann Stiftung, 22 February 2022, pp.8-9, 20220224094729; ‘Taiwan Country Security Report’, Overseas Security Advisory Council, US Department of State, last updated 10 September 2024.
She responded that, in her opinion, ‘according to the official information, it appears normal’ when in actual fact ‘the freedom and democracy is just an appearance’ in Taiwan. Her viewpoint is the information that I put to her does not reflect the reality of the situation, being that you cannot speak freely about politics in Taiwan.
I queried the applicant about the basis of her knowledge of the current ‘reality of the situation’ in Taiwan given she had not lived there for over 6.5 years. She acknowledged that ‘without being back, [she] could not tell’; she was only able to rely on the published news. She also admitted she had not spoken to her family members in Taiwan about these matters and had not obtained any information from them about the ‘reality’ of life in Taiwan.
CONSIDERATION OF PROTECTION CLAIMS AND FINDINGS
As noted, I accept the above evidentiary matters.
For the avoidance of doubt, I specifically find the applicant is a DPP supporter and she was physically harmed when she participated in a political protest in June 2014 in Tapei and the protest became violent due to the involvement of KMT Party supporters. I also accept the applicant was taken to a police station, and remained in custody for an extended period on that day. Further, I find that she relocated to Taichong for a period of 6 months, because she did not feel safe in Tapei directly after her ordeal. I find she did not experience any other incident of harm thereafter, either in Taichong or Tapei.
The applicant’s past experiences are consistent with country information about activism and protests against the KMT which took place during 2014.[7] The KMT was in power at that time and had been for several years. I consider the applicant’s past experiences have formed the basis of her scepticism insofar as the country information is concerned and they explain why she holds a persistent fear about voicing her political opinions in Taiwan.
[7] See, for example, ‘Occupy Taiwan’ by Mark Harrison, published in Shared Destiny, edited by Geremie R Barmé, Linda Jaivin and Jeremy Goldkorn, published 2015 by ANU Press.
Nevertheless, I am satisfied the political landscape in Taiwan has changed dramatically since 2014. Very significantly, the DPP has been the ruling party since January 2016.[8]
[8] U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, Issue Brief, 28 January 2016, ‘Taiwan Opposition Party Wins Presidency and Legislative Majority in Historic Elections’: Taiwan's Elections Issue Brief_0.pdf. See also the ‘Political status of Taiwan’ and the references cited therein: Political status of Taiwan - Wikipedia
I note the applicant provided the Tribunal with two documents which reiterate the shift in the political circumstances and effectively run directly counter to her claims.
Firstly, she provided a Research Briefing entitled ‘Taiwan: Relations with China’ published by the House of Commons Library (UK Parliament) on 14 August 2023 which includes a section on party politics in Taiwan. It refers to the DPP and the KMT as the two main political parties in Taiwan and says: ‘the KMT is now committed to democratic politics.
Secondly, she provided an article entitled ‘Why China-Taiwan relations are so tense’ dated 8 February 2024[9] which said as follows under the heading ‘Has Beijing undermined Taiwan’s democray?’:
Despite Chinese threats, Taiwan appears to have so far bucked the trend of backsliding afflicting democracies around the world. In 2020, the Economist’s Democracy Index labelled Taiwan a “full democracy” for the first time. In 2022, the index named Taiwan the world’s tenth-most-democratic country, ranking it higher than its Asian neighbors (Japan ranked sixteenth and South Korea ranked twenty-fourth) and the United States, which was thirtieth. Recent elections have seen high voter turnout.
[9] Published by the Council on Foreign Relations.
I accept the information in these documents, together with the following relevant statements contained in the most recent ‘Taiwan Country Security Report’, prepared and published by the Overseas Security Advisory Council, United States Department of State:
·There is minimal risk from political violence in Taiwan.
·Taiwan enjoys a vibrant democracy.
·Protests and demonstrations occur on a regular basis in major cities, particularly during elections.
·Demonstrations rarely turn violent, although they may become confrontational between opposing groups.
·Protest organizers must obtain permits from the police.
·Police often set aside areas for demonstrators, and police presence is clearly visible.[10]
[10] Last updated on 10 September 2024.
On the basis of these factual findings, I cannot be satisfied the applicant faces a real chance of persecution[11] or a real risk of significant harm[12] by reason of her political opinion if she returns to Taiwan now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.
[11] Per the ‘meaning of well-founded persecution’ at s 5J of the Act.
[12] Per the exhaustive definition of ‘significant harm’ set out in s 36(2A) of the Act.
On the basis of the information and evidence presented by the applicant, I am satisfied she had not made any other protection claims (either expressly or impliedly).
CONCLUSION
It follows that I am not satisfied:
·the applicant meets the definition of a refugee,[13] which means that she is not a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(a) of the Act; nor
·that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed to Taiwan, there is a real risk the applicant will suffer significant harm, which means that she is not a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations as provided for in s 36(2)(aa) of the Act.
[13] Per s 5H of the Act.

The applicant has not claimed, and there is no evidence to the effect, that she is a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfies s 36(2)(a) or (aa) of the Act, and who holds a protection visa. Accordingly, I find ss 36(2)(b) and (c) of the Act are not applicable.
I therefore conclude the applicant does not meet any of the criteria to be eligible for the grant of a protection visa.
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.
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.
…