1924709 (Refugee)

[2020] AATA 5519

1924709 (Refugee) [2020] AATA 5519 (18 November 2020)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:1924709

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   China

MEMBER:Angela Cranston

DATE:18 November 2020

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 18 October 2020 at 15.43pm

CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – China – Federal Circuit Court remittal – employment – land resumption – inadequate compensation – physical assault – detention – delay in applying for protection – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 5(1), 5H, 5J, 36, 65
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2

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

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection on 20 January 2014 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2.    The Tribunal’s consideration of claims and evidence is at paragraph 20. The claims and evidence are directly below. 

3.    The applicant who claims to be a citizen of China, applied for the visa on 9 August 2013. The applicant stated as follows:

My name is [name]. I was born at [her home village in] Fuping City, Fujian Province on [date]. I came to Australia with a student visa [in] October 2007. Because my father has been persecuted by the Chinese Government, Im scared to go back to China. I think I’m qualified to apply for the refugee protection visa, so I’m applying to the Australian Government for protection.
I was born in a happy family. I have a brother who’s one year younger than me. My parents were very hard working people. In the early of 2006, my parents contracted a fruit bearing forest and started plant fruit trees. With the hard-working of my parents, we got big harvest and our fruits of very good quality. So our fruits were quite welcomed by the local wholesalers. Later my parents started our fruit process factory in which we could process the fruits we [planted]. In this way, we minimised the waste and made great profit. In June 2007, we extended our factory and  employed more staff. Our family business was becoming bigger and better. I had been looking forward to studying overseas. So my parents helped me apply for the studying abroad application in October in 2007. Unfortunately our happy life was totally destroyed by the forceful dismantle of the village.
Unfortunately our happiness was broken by the inhumane dismantle. In July 2010, my father got a notice from the village committee that the village was going to carry out a new plan of land utilisation. They said the land on which my parents built the factory illegally occupied by my parents so that they were going to dismantle the factory. They also said they could compensate my parents 500 RMB per square metre. Everyone knew the money they compensated my parents was much lower than the market value. So my parents had a disagreement with them. But they said we must dismantle the factory otherwise the factory would be dismantled by force. Besides, at that time the compensation would be less. My father could not agree with them. So he went to appeal to the county dismantle office. But no one there looked after him. So he decided to appeal to the city government. The village committee got the news and went to my parents’ factory on [a day in] July 2010. They tried to force my father to dismantle the factory immediately and warned my father if he kept appealing they would end up with no compensation at all.
When my father tried to reason with them, they started to beat him. My father was injured badly. Finally they smashed our machines in the factory and destroyed the fruits in there. Luckily my brother was not in the factory that day. The police took my father to the police station on the accusation of damaging social stability and disturbing public security. In the police station, they tortured him to force him to sign the dismantle agreement and promised not to appeal anymore. My father was detained for [number] days. My brother who’s studying in another province told me and my mother what happened to my father. Finally, after my brother paid a fine of [amount] RMB and my father signed the dismantle agreement, my father was set free after being detained for [number] days.
However the dismantle problem was still not solved. The factory had to be closed because they cut off the electricity and water supply. The village committee sent policeman to our place from time to time and threatened him to do according to what he was told, otherwise he would be responsible for what might happen. He was both angry and scared. There is no human right and citizen right at all. But he could do nothing but keep appealing. My mother was in Australia at that time, she had to remain and did some casual jobs for my study. On November she could not worry free of my father had to go back.
Because I knew if I went back to China, I  would be persecuted by the government and would be treated unfairly and my parents insisted on my not returning. On July 2013 my friend told me that I would be qualified to apply for objection. I feel trembled. I do hope the Australian government could consider my situation and protect me.

4.    The delegate refused to grant the visa and the applicant applied for review.

5.    The Tribunal (differently constituted) affirmed the delegate’s decision, and that decision was set aside by the Court. The matter is now before the Tribunal pursuant to an order of the Court.

6.    The review applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 9 November 2020 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Mandarin and English languages.

7.    The applicant stated that he came to Australia in 2007 on a student visa that ceased in 2011 and did not hold a visa after that date. He applied for a protection visa in 2013 and stated his Chinese statement had been translated by the agent it into English and had been verbally interpreted back to him even though he did not see the written English. He stated it was correct.

8.    The applicant stated his father used to be a farmer but had done nothing since he was injured in July 2010.  Before that he produced [fruit] and worked in a family  factory with fruit that came from their farm and other farms which he did for about 7 years. Before that he worked as a casual in the applicant’s [relative’s business].

9.    The applicant stated his father was injured by government officials who intended to take his factory at below market compensation. He also stated his father tried to appeal his case before July however the applicant did not know who his father appealed to. The applicant stated he thought his father appealed several weeks before he was physically harmed. He stated that his father received threats and harassment about further appeals. The applicant also stated that after his father was injured, he appealed again and was detained by the local authorities and his other brother paid money to get his father released.

1. The applicant stated that after his father was released, his father was constantly harassed and threatened and so long as his father did not take further action and did not insist on appealing, he was alright. The applicant also stated his father was not compensated for the land. The Tribunal put to him that was not in his written statement. He stated he had never read his English statement and that it was in the original Chinese version. The Tribunal also put him that his written statement said that his father appealed to the county dismantling office and to the city government but the applicant had not mentioned that at hearing. The applicant stated he had difficulties naming the government levels.

2. The Tribunal put to the applicant that his timeline suggested that the village committee harmed his father on [a day in] July 2010 but in the same month his father had received the village committee notice about his land’s acquisition and had also appealed to two different organisations. The Tribunal also asked how his father expected two separate organisations to resolve a land issue in what seemed to be less than 10 days. He stated they ignored the issue and his family appealed step-by-step. The Tribunal put to him that it did not understand how his appeal could be ignored in less than 10 days. He stated it was not like in Australia where people followed the law and they were already knocked back before documents were submitted. The Tribunal put to him that his father seemed incredibly organised if he knew in early July that he was going to lose his land and managed to twice appeal before the village committee reacted on [the day in] July. The applicant stated it was quite normal and everyone would try everything to protect their property. The Tribunal also put to him that he said that his parents had the factory for about seven years and he agreed. The Tribunal put to him that his statement suggested that they obtained it in early 2006 which meant they only had it for 4 ½ years. He stated they only sold the [fruit] in the early years and did not process the product. The Tribunal also put to him that his statement said his parents started planting trees in 2006 so it was difficult to understand how they started selling the fruit from those trees in the early years. He stated they obtained the fruit every year and sometimes they also obtained the fruit from other locals.

3. The applicant stated he came to Australia to study and for no other reasons. When asked why he could not return to China he said they had lost all of their family income and he had to work in Australia to support his family financially. The Tribunal put to him it was not sure that made him a refugee and he stated he understood but that he did not know how to live in China after his father’s experiences. When asked why it took so long for him to apply for a protection visa he stated he was unaware of that option until 2013. The Tribunal put to him that would be something he would explore given that his student visa had ceased and he faced been sent back to China. He stated he had to work to support himself and his family. He stated his family couldn’t help him apply for another visit to study here.

4. The Tribunal put him it had to think about whether he was telling the truth and what would happen if he returned to China and asked for his comments. The applicant stated he did not have any comments in that regard but queried why his application had taken such a long time and said that he did not attend the departmental interview because he had not received notification about that interview from his agent.

CRITERIA FOR A PROTECTION VISA

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

2. 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.

3. 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).

4. 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.

5. 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

1. 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

Initial issue

1. The Tribunal exercised its discretion (and pursuant to Covid-19 Practice Direction for Migration and Refugee Division dated 27 April 2020) to hold the hearing by telephone. The hearing was held during the Covid -19 pandemic. The Tribunal determined it was reasonable to hold a hearing by telephone, having regard to the nature of this matter. The Tribunal also had regard to the Tribunal's objective of providing a mechanism of review that is fair, just, economical and quick and the delay to the matter if the hearing was not to be conducted by telephone.

2. While the Tribunal spoke to the applicant by telephone, the Tribunal's observations were that the review applicant was given ample opportunity to submit all the evidence that he wanted the Tribunal to consider. The Tribunal considers that in these circumstances, it has given the applicant a fair opportunity before and during the hearing to provide all the evidence and arguments and evidence that he wanted the Tribunal to consider.

Substantive issue

1. The issue in this case is whether the applicant has a well-founded fear of being persecuted for one or more of the five reasons set out in the Refugee definition in China and, if not, whether there are substantial grounds for believing that as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of his being removed from Australia to China, there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm.

2. In his protection visa application, the applicant stated that he knew that if he returned to China, he would be persecuted by the government and that he would be treated unfairly and his parents insisted on his not returning. The applicant also stated that because his father had been persecuted by the Chinese government, the applicant was scared to return to China, that in early 2006 his parents contracted a fruit bearing forest and started planting trees, that they got big harvests and later his parents started a fruit processing factory but that in July 2010 his father got a notice that their factory would be dismantled and the compensation money was lower than the market value and as a result, his father appealed to the county dismantling office and then the city government but when the village committee knew, they went to his parent’s factory on [a day in] July 2010 and warned his father that if he kept appealing he would end up with no compensation and would be injured. He also stated his father was taken to the police station, forced to sign a dismantling agreement and promised not to appeal anymore and that he was detained for [number] days after which time his son paid a fine and his father was set free. He also stated that after the factory was closed, the village committee sent police to his father’s place threatening him from time to time to do as he was told.

3. The applicant gave a quick moving succession of alleged events in early July 2010 that involved not only the village committee’s dismantling notice to the applicant’s father but also the applicant’s father appeal to two different government offices and the village committee’s knowledge of those appeals all before visiting him on [the day in] July 2010. While the Tribunal accepts that the applicant’s detailing of a quick moving succession of events between early July and [the later day in] July 2010 does not necessarily mean that the applicant is not telling the truth, the applicant's retelling of some of the main events does not, in the Tribunal's view, ring true. For example, at hearing the applicant did not know details such as who his father allegedly appealed to and said he had difficulties naming the level of governments even though those details were in his written statement. He also said that his father was not paid compensation however that was not in his statement. This detail is not insignificant and if the applicant’s father had not been paid compensation, then the Tribunal assumes that this would have been included in his written statement. When this was put to the applicant at hearing, he said he never read his English statement however he also initially stated at hearing that his statement had been read back to him in Mandarin and was correct.

4. The Tribunal also finds that the applicant's delay in applying for a protection visa in August 2013 more than two years after his student visa ceased [in] May 2011 and even though he claimed he feared harm because his father had been persecuted by the government in 2010 is not be consistent with his alleged fear of returning to China. While the applicant has stated that he was not aware that a protection visa was an option until 2013, the Tribunal does not accept that someone who has been in Australia since 2007 would then be unable to ascertain his options including that he could apply for a protection visa especially after he became unlawful and was subject to return to China if he in fact feared returning to China and did not know how to live there after his father’s experiences in 2010.

5. In sum, the Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant has been telling the truth about what has happened to his family in China. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant’s father’s farm and factory was dismantled in 2010, nor that he appealed, nor that the village committee beat him, nor that he was in prison and only released upon payment of a fine.  Neither does the Tribunal accept that the applicant’s father did not receive compensation, nor that the village committee and police continued to threaten his family and his family insisted on the applicant not returning.  The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant’s family has lost their family income, nor that the applicant does not know how-to live-in China after his father’s experiences nor that the applicant has an adverse political profile nor an imputed adverse political profile. Accordingly, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or because of his membership of a particular social group if he returns to China in the foreseeable future.

1. For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(a).

2. Having concluded that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a), the Tribunal has considered the alternative criterion in s.36(2)(aa).

3. The Tribunal has rejected the applicant’s claims of past harm to his family. Neither is the Tribunal satisfied that the applicant does not know how-to live-in China after his father’s experiences nor that the applicant has an adverse political profile nor an imputed adverse political profile. Given this, the Tribunal is not satisfied that as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to China that there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm.

4. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(aa).

5. There is no suggestion that the applicant satisfies s.36(2) on the basis of being a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfies s.36(2)(a) or (aa) and who holds a protection visa. Accordingly, the applicant does not satisfy the criterion in s.36(2).

DECISION

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

Angela Cranston
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.

…

1. Protection visas – criteria provided for by this Act

…

1. 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 reharrial 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.

…