1931594 (Refugee)

[2023] AATA 1015

1931594 (Refugee) [2023] AATA 1015 (27 February 2023)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1931594

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Fiji

MEMBER:Katherine Harvey

DATE:27 February 2023

PLACE OF DECISION:  Adelaide

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

Statement made on 27 February 2023 at 4:53pm

CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Fiji – political opinion – advocate for human and Indigenous rights – fear and depression because of government suppression – required religious observance in workplace – multiple return visits – no political profile – change of government – physical health and recommended surgery – country information – availability and standard of healthcare – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5H, 5J, 36, 65, 411
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2

CASE
CHB16 v MIBP [2019] FCA 1089

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

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 22 October 2019 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).

2. The applicant claims to be a citizen of the Republic of Fiji (Fiji) and is [age] years old. She travelled to Australia nine times between [year] and 2018, and most recently arrived in Australia [in] January 2019 travelling on a Fijian passport as the holder of a visitor visa.

3. On 11 March 2019, the applicant applied for a protection visa.

4. On 22 October 2019, a delegate of the Minister refused to grant the visa.

5. On 6 November 2019, the applicant applied for a review of that decision. She provided the Tribunal with a copy of the delegate’s decision. The Tribunal is satisfied that the decision is reviewable under s 411(1)(c) of the Act.

6. On 9 November 2022, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant advising that it had considered all of the material before it relating to the application but was unable to make a favourable decision on that information alone.

7. The Tribunal invited the applicant to give oral evidence and present arguments at a hearing on 9 December 2022 and to provide all documents she intended to rely on to support her case by 2 December 2022. The invitation stated that if she did not attend the hearing, the Tribunal may make a decision on the case without further notice.

8. The applicant contacted the Tribunal on 2 December 2022 and requested a postponement of the hearing as she was having an operation on 9 December 2022.

9. The Tribunal considered the request and rescheduled the hearing to 6 February 2023.

10. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 6 February 2023 to give evidence and present arguments. She submitted a three-page gynaecology clinic note from [Dr A], Medical Officer: Gynaecology at [Hospital 1] dated 30 January 2023 and a single page CALHN request for admission cover sheet.

11. The applicant was invited to provide any other evidence that she wished to rely on by 20 February 2023. The Tribunal did not receive any additional evidence by the due date nor by the time of this decision. 

12. The applicant was unrepresented in relation to the review.

    CRITERIA FOR A PROTECTION VISA

13. 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.

14. 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.

15. 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).

16. 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.

17. 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

18. 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

19. The issue in this case is whether the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution for a refugee nexus reason, or if she is owed complementary protection, or if she is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who is a refugee or is owed complementary protection.

20. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.

    Background

21. The applicant’s personal details were set out in her application for a protection visa. She is [age] years old and was born in Suva, Fiji and lived in [Town 1], a small town near Suva. At the time she made her application, she stated that she was divorced and unemployed. She stated that she had previously worked as [an Occupation 1] in [Employer 1] for nine years, then as [various occupations].

22. In her application, the applicant provided details about her father, sister and brother, who live in Suva, Fiji, and a cousin who lives in Australia. At the hearing, the applicant stated that her mother had died in 2017 and her brother in 2014. Her two younger sisters are married with children and live in [Town 1] with her father.

    Country of reference

23. The applicant claims that she was born in Suva, Fiji and is a citizen of Fiji. She provided a copy of the biodata page from her Fijian passport.

24. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant is a citizen of Fiji and that Fiji is the receiving country for the purpose of s 36(2)(a) and s 36(2)(aa) of the Act.

    What are the applicant’s claims?

25. The applicant’s claims are set out a statement attached to her application for a protection visa.

26. She claimed to have been living with fear and depression in Fiji. She claimed that she was psychologically stressed and depressed by the way the Fijian government had suppressed their voice.

27. She claimed that coming to Australia had been a great healing process, that she is slowly becoming better and improving and the psychological stress is getting healed.

28. She claimed that she was taught the values of Fijian traditional culture and it drives her crazy seeing what is happening to these traditional values and not being able to do anything. She claimed that she thought she was going mentally ill and was stressed and very depressed. She claimed that if she returns she could end up killing someone or committing suicide, because this was on her mind all the time when she was in Fiji.

29. She claimed that if she goes back to Fiji, the problems she faced there will continue and be worse because there are more restrictions on people and people are living in fear and cannot trust one another for fear of being reported.

30. She claimed that her life span will be shortened because of her fear.

31. She claimed that she did not ‘feel safe going back to Fiji because the current government is taking away from us our rights as indigenous and last settlers of Fiji’. She claimed that she is a strong advocate of human rights and a proud Fijian who strongly advocates for traditional values to be maintained. She claimed that the government maintaining that they are all equal and taking away their rights as traditional custodians of the land increases her stress and psychological negatively affects her, making her angry, depressed and aggressive.

32. She claimed that coming to Australia has greatly improved her health condition. Meeting new people and getting great counselling have reduced the psychological stress.

33. She claimed that she cannot seek assistance from her relatives in Fiji because they would also be implicated.

34. She claimed that she cannot move because wherever she goes the Government will continue what they are doing now to her and her family and her problem will continue to increase.

35. She claimed that the problem is a major problem and it is the government that is a threat to her and her family. She claimed that she does not have anywhere to move because if she moves to her village, the whole village would be implicated and she could be seen as the one causing trouble. She claimed that she does not want her village to suffer and be stigmatized.

36. She claimed that the military and government will know her whereabouts regardless of where she goes and that the country is too small for one to hide.

37. She claimed that no assistance is available in Fiji and that the NGOs fear for their safety and provide no assistance. She claimed that it is only the church, her extended family and close friends who were able to assist her to not get worse. She claimed that the psychological and mental stress has affected her health and she started becoming suspicious of everyone and was easily angered.

38. She claimed that she cannot go back to Fiji because her lifespan will be shortened. She claimed to be afraid for her safety and that she did not want her family to suffer any more.

39. She claimed coming to Australia has helped a lot and the democratic environment had had a positive impact on her health. She claimed that thinking of returning to Fiji is a major challenge and means going back to a worse situation where human rights are suppressed. She claimed her only option is to relocate overseas.

    Assessment of claims and evidence

40. At the hearing, the applicant said that now the government in Fiji has changed, she does not fear returning and would be happy to do so once her medical treatment was finished. As detailed in the gynaecology clinic note from [Hospital 1] dated 30 January 2023, which the applicant supplied at the hearing, it has been recommended that the applicant have a hysterectomy.

41. The applicant was asked if she had experienced harm in the past. She said that she was terminated from [Employer 1] in [year] for not turning up to work. She said that they were forcing their religion on her. She said that the [management] was dictating which church people needed to go to. She said he was dictating that, when officers answered the phone, they had to say ‘amen, praise the Lord’. She said this was a new denomination called [Denomination 1] and that was not her religion, as she is a [Denomination 2]. She said she did not go to work because she did not agree with the [management]. She said that this led to her role being terminated. The applicant confirmed that she had not put anything in writing. She said the system in Fiji is verbal but she did not speak up as she was scared. The applicant said that she did not have a political profile in Fiji.

42. The applicant was asked if she feared harm in Fiji. She said she did not fear harm because the government has changed and she can speak freely. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant does not have a political profile in Fiji but she does hold a political opinion. Given that the government has changed, that it would be purely speculative to consider whether the former government would be re-elected at any future elections and the applicant did not raise this as a possibility, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant will face a real chance of serious harm into the reasonably foreseeable future for reason of her political opinion.

43. The Tribunal also considered the applicant’s religious claims. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant experienced religious discrimination in her employment in [year]. The Tribunal also accepts that she did not experience religious discrimination when seeking and gaining subsequent employment prior to leaving Fiji, and it considers that there is nothing to suggest that such discrimination would happen again in the reasonably foreseeable future. Given the change of government, the Tribunal accepts that the applicant could speak freely about her [faith]. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant will face a real chance of serious harm into the reasonably foreseeable future for reason of her religion.

44. The applicant said that the only risk she now faces is with her health condition and the standard of healthcare in Fiji. She thinks Australia is the best place to be treated. As discussed at the hearing, the country information for Fiji says that ‘healthcare is generally available for those who need it’, that the ‘quality is better in urban areas’ and ‘specialist healthcare is generally available, including cardiology, oncology, radiology and maternal health, particularly in large hospitals.’[1] The Tribunal asked the applicant if she would be denied healthcare in Fiji for any reason. She was not aware of any reason that she would be denied healthcare. The Tribunal asked the applicant if she would be treated differently from someone else seeking healthcare. She did not believe so. The applicant explained that with Medicare she was not paying anything for her health care, but in Fiji she thought she would have to go to a private hospital for her treatment, which she would need to pay for. The Tribunal asked if there was any reason she would be denied healthcare at a public hospital. The applicant said no. The Tribunal considered the applicant’s claims against the codified refugee criteria. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant faces a real chance of systematic and discriminatory conduct as there is no persecutor or agent of harm. The Tribunal then considered her claims against the complementary protection criteria and whether there was a real risk that the applicant would suffer significant harm. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant would suffer significant harm because there is no deliberate act or omission, as required in s 36(2A)(a), nor an intentional element, as required in ss 36(2A)(b)–(d) of the Act.

    [1] DFAT Country Information Report Fiji, 20 May 2022, 7.

45. At the hearing, the applicant was asked about her mental health claims. She said that, in Fiji, they just push you aside if you have mental health issues. She said that she feels great in Australia. She said that she did not need to see a mental health practitioner in Australia because when she left Fiji her problems ‘just fell away’. The applicant did not provide any evidence about a current mental health diagnosis or treatment. The Tribunal accepts the evidence from the applicant that she has no current mental health issues.

46. The applicant said that she was concerned that, if she returned to Fiji, she would be unemployed, she did not know how she would support her father and she would be a burden on her family. She was concerned that she would not be employed by [Employer 1] because of her age and that she does not have any other qualifications. The Tribunal discussed that she had worked as a [Occupation 2] and [Occupation 3] before coming to Australia and worked as [an Occupation 3] at [locations] in Australia and asked why she could not do similar work in Fiji. The applicant said it would be hard going back to look for work. The Tribunal discussed that 40 per cent of Fijians work in the tourism industry and asked why she could not get a job in tourism. The applicant said that she would have to start again and did not know when she would get a job. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant is of working age, that she has experience working in Fiji and Australia and that she has family in Fiji who could support her while she was looking for a job. The Tribunal notes that [Dr A] advised that the applicant would require six weeks off work for post-operative recovery. Based on the information before it, the Tribunal does not consider that there is a real risk of harm as it considers that the applicant would be able to find employment in Fiji and that there is nothing to suggest that she would be discriminated against when seeking employment based on her past experiences.

47. In her application, the applicant said that she feared she may commit suicide if she returned to Fiji. At the hearing, she said that after her job with [Employer 1] was terminated, she thought about killing herself because she was not helping with food and was seeing her mum and dad struggling. The Tribunal considered this claim in light of the Federal Court finding that it does not consider that self-inflicted harm constitutes ‘harm’ for the purpose of ss 36(2)(aa) and 36(2A).[2] The Tribunal finds that voluntary suicide is not serious harm for a Convention reason for the purpose of s 36(2)(a) nor significant harm for the purposes of s 36(2)(aa) or s 36(2A).

    [2] CHB16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCA 1089 at [65]–[68].

    Conclusion

48. For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant will face a real chance of serious harm for reason of her race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(a).

49. Having concluded that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), the Tribunal has considered the alternative criterion in s 36(2)(aa). The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(aa).

50. 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

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

    Katherine Harvey
    Senior Member

    
    

    Attachment  -  Extract from Migration Act 1958

    5 (1) Interpretation

    …

    cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment means an act or omission by which:

    (a)     severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person; or

    (b)     pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person so long as, in all the circumstances, the act or omission could reasonably be regarded as cruel or inhuman in nature;

    but does not include an act or omission:

    (c)     that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or

    (d)     arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.

    …

    degrading treatment or punishment means an act or omission that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation which is unreasonable, but does not include an act or omission:

    (a)     that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or

    (b)     that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.

    …

    torture means an act or omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person:

    (a)     for the purpose of obtaining from the person or from a third person information or a confession; or

    (b)     for the purpose of punishing the person for an act which that person or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed; or

    (c)     for the purpose of intimidating or coercing the person or a third person; or

    (d)     for a purpose related to a purpose mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c); or

    (e)     for any reason based on discrimination that is inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant;

    but does not include an act or omission arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.

    …

    receiving country,  in relation to a non-citizen, means:

    (a)     a country of which the non-citizen is a national, to be determined solely by reference to the law of the relevant country; or

    (b)     if the non-citizen has no country of nationality—a country of his or her former habitual residence, regardless of whether it would be possible to return the non-citizen to the country.

    …

    5H    Meaning of refugee

    (1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person in Australia, the person is a refugee if the person is:

    (a)     in a case where the person has a nationality – is outside the country of his or her nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country; or

    (b)     in a case where the person does not have a nationality – is outside the country of his or her former habitual residence and owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to return to it.

    Note:     For the meaning of well-founded fear of persecution, see section 5J.

    …

    5J     Meaning of well-founded fear of persecution

    (1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person has a well-founded fear of persecution if:

    (a)     the person fears being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion; and

    (b)     there is a real chance that, if the person returned to the receiving country, the person would be persecuted for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (a); and

    (c)     the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of a receiving country.

    Note:     For membership of a particular social group, see sections 5K and 5L.

    (2)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country.

    Note:     For effective protection measures, see section 5LA.

    (3)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if the person could take reasonable steps to modify his or her behaviour so as to avoid a real chance of persecution in a receiving country, other than a modification that would:

    (a)     conflict with a characteristic that is fundamental to the person’s identity or conscience; or

    (b)     conceal an innate or immutable characteristic of the person; or

    (c)     without limiting paragraph (a) or (b), require the person to do any of the following:

    (i)alter his or her religious beliefs, including by renouncing a religious conversion, or conceal his or her true religious beliefs, or cease to be involved in the practice of his or her faith;

    (ii)conceal his or her true race, ethnicity, nationality or country of origin;

    (iii)alter his or her political beliefs or conceal his or her true political beliefs;

    (iv)conceal a physical, psychological or intellectual disability;

    (v)enter into or remain in a marriage to which that person is opposed, or accept the forced marriage of a child;

    (vi)alter his or her sexual orientation or gender identity or conceal his or her true sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.

    (4)If a person fears persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a):

    (a)     that reason must be the essential and significant reason, or those reasons must be the essential and significant reasons, for the persecution; and

    (b)     the persecution must involve serious harm to the person; and

    (c)     the persecution must involve systematic and discriminatory conduct.

    (5)Without limiting what is serious harm for the purposes of paragraph (4)(b), the following are instances of serious harm for the purposes of that paragraph:

    (a)     a threat to the person’s life or liberty;

    (b)     significant physical harassment of the person;

    (c)     significant physical ill‑treatment of the person;

    (d)     significant economic hardship that threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;

    (e)     denial of access to basic services, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;

    (f)     denial of capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist.

    (6)In determining whether the person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a), any conduct engaged in by the person in Australia is to be disregarded unless the person satisfies the Minister that the person engaged in the conduct otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening the person’s claim to be a refugee.

    5K    Membership of a particular social group consisting of family

    For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person (the first person), in determining whether the first person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for the reason of membership of a particular social group that consists of the first person’s family:

    (a)     disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced, where the reason for the fear or persecution is not a reason mentioned in paragraph 5J(1)(a); and

    (b)     disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that:

    (i)the first person has ever experienced; or

    (ii)any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced;

    where it is reasonable to conclude that the fear or persecution would not exist if it were assumed that the fear or persecution mentioned in paragraph (a) had never existed.

    Note:     Section 5G may be relevant for determining family relationships for the purposes of this section.

    5L    Membership of a particular social group other than family

    For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person is to be treated as a member of a particular social group (other than the person’s family) if:

    (a)     a characteristic is shared by each member of the group; and

    (b)     the person shares, or is perceived as sharing, the characteristic; and

    (c)     any of the following apply:

    (i)the characteristic is an innate or immutable characteristic;

    (ii)the characteristic is so fundamental to a member’s identity or conscience, the member should not be forced to renounce it;

    (iii)the characteristic distinguishes the group from society; and

    (d)     the characteristic is not a fear of persecution.

    5LA Effective protection measures

    (1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country if:

    (a)     protection against persecution could be provided to the person by:

    (i)the relevant State; or

    (ii)a party or organisation, including an international organisation, that controls the relevant State or a substantial part of the territory of the relevant State; and

    (b)     the relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (a) is willing and able to offer such protection.

    (2)A relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) is taken to be able to offer protection against persecution to a person if:

    (a)     the person can access the protection; and

    (b)     the protection is durable; and

    (c)     in the case of protection provided by the relevant State—the protection consists of an appropriate criminal law, a reasonably effective police force and an impartial judicial system.

    …

    36     Protection visas – criteria provided for by this Act

    …

    (2)A criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is:

    (a)     a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee; or

    (aa)  a non-citizen in Australia (other than a non-citizen mentioned in paragraph (a)) in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the non-citizen being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that the non-citizen will suffer significant harm; or

    (b)     a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:

    (i)is mentioned in paragraph (a); and

    (ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant; or

    (c)     a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:

    (i)is mentioned in paragraph (aa); and

    (ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant.

    (2A)A non‑citizen will suffer significant harm if:

    (a)     the non‑citizen will be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life; or

    (b)     the death penalty will be carried out on the non‑citizen; or

    (c)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to torture; or

    (d)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or

    (e)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment.

    (2B)However, there is taken not to be a real risk that a non‑citizen will suffer significant harm in a country if the Minister is satisfied that:

    (a)     it would be reasonable for the non‑citizen to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or

    (b)     the non‑citizen could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or

    (c)     the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the non‑citizen personally.

    …