1932375 (Refugee) - [2024] ARTA 812

1932375 (REFUGEE) [2024] ARTA 812 (11 DECEMBER 2024)
DECISION AND
REASONS FOR DECISION
Respondent:Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

Tribunal Number: 1932375
Tribunal: General Member Noelle Hossen
Date:11 December 2024

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

Statement made on 11 December 2024 at 1:49pm
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – Protection Visa – Malaysia – race – Chinese ethnicity –Religion – Buddhist – came to Australia to make money – difficult to find work to pay for their family’s needs – did not have any conflict with any Muslims – economic claims – applicant does not have a well-founded fear of persecution –credibility concerns – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024
Migration Act 1958, ss 5, 36, 65, 499
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2
CASES
MIEA v Guo (1997) 191 CLR 559
Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 369 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information.
STATEMENT OF REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 12 November 2019 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The applicant who claims to be a national of Malaysia, applied for the visa on 20 September 2019. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the applicant was not a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 4 December 2024 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Mandarin and English languages.
The applicant provided a copy of his Passport to the Department and the Department accepted that he is a national from Malaysia. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant is a national of Malaysia and that Malaysia is the receiving country.
BACKGROUND
The applicant was born on the [date] in Sarawak, Malaysia.
He was granted a tourist Visa on the 22 March 2018 and arrived in Australia on the April 2018.
He departed Australia on the [date] June 2018.
He returned to Australia on the [date] December 2018.
His valid application for protection was made on the 20 September 2019. The application was refused on the 12 November 2019. He applied for a Review of the Decision of the delegate on the 14 November 2019.
His passport issued on the [date] 2018 from Malaysia.
He has not returned to Malaysia and has not seen his family since the 22 December 2018. He said that his parents are still alive, and they live in Sarawak in a property that is owned by the government. He lived in the property since he was [age] to[age] years of age. He has 3 brothers and one younger sister. His sister is married. His brothers have their own lives and do not live with his parents. His brothers are all employed.
He said that when he lived in Malaysia he worked as a [Occupation 1] for more than 20 years.
He said that he is married but that he has separated from his wife and that the separation happened before he came to Australia.
He has a [age]-year-old daughter who lives with her mother and her parents.
He said that he sends $1000 AUD per month to his former spouse and his daughter.
He sends $1000 AUD to his parents each month.
The Tribunal accepts the facts as set out in the last 13 paragraphs.
Evidence before the Department
The delegate summarised the applicant’s claims as set out in his Protection Application as follows:
They are Chinese Malaysians and follow the Buddhist Religion. During the Islamic fasting month, they were involved in a conflict with a group of Muslim people.
They were having lunch in a common area and a group of Malay Muslims saw them eating and told them to stop eating. They were accused of disrespecting Muslims.
An argument erupted and they, the applicant ran away to avoid conflict. However, they were chased, hit and their motor bike destroyed. They were all gangsters.
They reported the incident to the police, but no action was taken.
They did not attempt to relocate within Malaysia because the Malay extremists are a large group in Malaysia and are able to locate them. As they have their personal details including their identification.
If they return to Malaysia and take violent actions against them. They will be harmed and maybe tortured.
The delegate made an assessment and stated the following:” The applicant is of Chinese ethnicity and Buddhist religion and claims fear of harm based on their race and religion. The Malaysian constitution forbids discrimination against citizens based on gender, religion, and race. I accept the applicant may face low levels of discrimination on return to Malaysia because of their race. However, having considered the country information above, I find this does not reach the threshold to constitute persecution under s5J of the Act.
There is no evidence before me to suggest the applicant would face serious harm in Malaysia because of their race or religion or that they would be denied state protection for the same reasons. I am not satisfied there is a real chance the applicant will face serious harm in Malaysia for reasons of their race and religion.re no laws or constitutional provisions that directly discriminate against Chinese Malaysians.”
In respect of the Complementary protection the delegate stated as follows: “Considering the country information discussed above, I find there is no real risk of the applicant facing significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal from Australia to Malaysia for any of the reasons claimed in relation to their race and religion.”
Evidence before the Tribunal
The Tribunal sent a Pre- hearing form to the applicant on the 28 August 2024. He completed it and returned it on the 29 August 2024 but did not set out any further claims in the Form.
The Tribunal sent a Hearing Invitation to the applicant on the 1 October 2024 and the applicant returned it duly completed on the 7 October 2024. He stated that he did not intend to forward any further documents to the Tribunal.
The hearing
At the outset the Tribunal asked the applicant why he had travelled to Australia in 2018. He replied that he needed to find a job. He said that after arriving he had to leave as he needed to take care of something before, he could come back to Australia. He said that he comes from a poor family, and he came to Australia to make money.
He has not seen his family since the [date]/ 12/ 2018. He said that his parents are still alive. He said that his parents live in a village on land that is owned by the government. His parents built a house on the land, and he recalls that he has lived in the home since he was [age] to [age] years of age. His parents live alone in Sarawak.
He has 3 brothers and one sister. He said that his brothers have their own lives and that they all have jobs. His younger sister is married and lives with her family. His siblings do visit his parents in the village.
He was asked what job he did in Malaysia. He said that he worked as a [Occupation 1] for 20 years on cars. He also worked as a [occupation].
He has been employed in Australia. He said that he could not tell the Tribunal how much he earned annually. He did buy a [vehicle] for $4000. He expects that he has savings in Australia of $6000.
He was married in 2012 and he separated in 2018. He pays money to his wife each month. The Tribunal pointed out to him that in his application for protection he had stated that he was never married. He said that this was an error.
He said that he had contact with an agent who advised him that he could arrange for him to get a job in Australia. The agent was from Sarawak. He was able to help him by getting him a job in Australia on a farm. He also received help to apply for protection, and he paid $2000. He said that the information in the Form is incorrect as the agent did not ask him to specify his personal information.
After the form was lodged during the first year, he did not get a reply, but he did receive notification to go for an interview. He said that when he was interviewed all he was asked was about the fact that he had done military training. He had not received military training.
He said his whole reason for being in Australia was because he needs money for him and his family to keep their life going. He said that he was employed in Malaysia, but the salary was not high.
He was asked about his claim that he had a conflict with Muslims as set out in his Application for Protection. He said that he did not have any conflict with any Muslims and that the only fear that he has is going back to Malaysia as he would not earn enough money in his job. He did not agree with the statements made in the claims section of his Application for Protection as he did not instruct the agent to write those details.
He said that his claim is an economic claim. The Tribunal asked him to confirm that there was no truth in the claims that was written in his Application. He repeated that he had concerns regarding his ability to provide adequately for his family. The Tribunal pointed out that if he returned to Malaysia he could live with his parents. He said that the house does not have running water and electricity. He said that they do not own it.
He said that he could live with his parents when he returns as they can remain living in the home until their death. He wishes to remain living in Australia as he has a profitable job. He said that he applied for a work visa in the last 2 years, but it was not approved.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
Criteria for protection visa
The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s 36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations). An applicant for the visa must meet one of the alternative criteria in s 36(2)(a), (aa), (b), or (c). That is, he or she is either a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion, or on other ‘complementary protection’ grounds, or is a member of the same family unit as such a person and that person holds a protection visa of the same class.
Section 36(2)(a) provides that a criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee.
A person is a refugee if, in the case of a person who has a nationality, they are outside the country of their nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country: s 5H(1)(a). In the case of a person without a nationality, they are a refugee if they are outside the country of their former habitual residence and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to return to that country: s 5H(1)(b).
Under s 5J(1), a person has a well-founded fear of persecution if they fear being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, there is a real chance they would be persecuted for one or more of those reasons, and the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of the relevant country. Additional requirements relating to a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ and circumstances in which a person will be taken not to have such a fear are set out in ss 5J(2)-(6) and ss 5K-LA, which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
If a person is found not to meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), he or she may nevertheless meet the criteria for the grant of the visa if he or she is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that he or she will suffer significant harm: s 36(2)(aa) (‘the complementary protection criterion’). The meaning of significant harm, and the circumstances in which a person will be taken not to face a real risk of significant harm, are set out in ss 36(2A) and (2B), which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
Mandatory considerations
In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.84, made under s 499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken account of the ‘Refugee Law Guidelines’ and ‘Complementary Protection Guidelines’ prepared by the Department of Home Affairs, and country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.
REASONS AND FINDINGS
Refugee Criterion
Section 5J of the Act states, that for the purposes of application under the Act a person has a well-founded fear of persecution, if the person fears being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of particular social group or political opinion and that there is a real chance that they will be persecuted for one or more of these reasons in the event they are returned to their receiving country.
The applicant claimed that there is a real chance that they will be seriously harmed if they are returned to Malaysia by reason of the fact that they will find it difficult to find work to pay for their family’s needs.
The applicants confirmed that they did not write the claims that it was an economic claim, in their original application for protection. The applicant said at the end of the hearing that he came to Australia to make money as in Malaysia they could not earn enough money to provide a better life for his family.
The Tribunal does not accept that he will have difficulty finding work in Malaysia because he was previously employed in Malaysia and has had a lot of work experience whilst living in Australia. Accordingly, based on the applicant’s own evidence, the Tribunal finds that there is not a real chance that the applicant will be seriously harmed due to economic issues if he returns to Malaysia as he lived in Malaysia and was employed prior to his arrival in Australia in 2018.
The Tribunal accepts that the country information reports that Malaysia is a developed country with a growing economy. The country information states that Malaysia is an upper-middle-income country. At Paragraph 2.7 The world Bank classifies Malaysia as an upper middle income, export-oriented economy. In 2022 its real GDP growth was 8.7 per cent, while per capita GDP was USD 11,993 (approx. AUD 18,000). Malaysia has transformed since independence from a commodity-based economy, focused on producing rubber and tin, to a leading producer of electronic parts and electrical products, oil and natural gas, and a variety of other manufactured products Malaysia has also developed its service sector, which now contributes half of the country’s economic growth.
Para 2.8 Malaysia’s strong economic performance over the last few decades has led to a significant reduction in poverty, with the share of households living below the national poverty line (MYR2,589 (AUD864) per month) falling from over 50 per cent in the 1960’s to less than 6.2 per cent in 2022.
Para 2.10 In April 2023, the Malaysian Department of Statistics reported an overall unemployment rate of 3.4 per cent, the lowest since the Covid -19 pandemic.[1]
[1] DFAT report Malaysia June 2024
The Tribunal read out the country information to the applicant. He said that he would prefer to live in Australia. The evidence is that he can work and function.
However, based on the available country information the Tribunal does not accept that he will be unable to access paid employment. The applicant was able to access paid employment in Malaysia when he lived in Malaysia. The applicant said that he always had work in Malaysia. He also said that he would return to live with his parents. He was able to save money, provide for himself, purchase a motor vehicle, and send funds to Malaysia to support his family whilst working in Australia. If he sells his motor vehicle and together with his savings, he should be able to buffer his return to economic prosperity in Malaysia.
The prospect of finding work in Malaysia based on the applicants’ circumstances does not amount to the applicant facing a harm that can be considered serious harm pursuant to section 5J (5) of the Act. That is, the Tribunal finds that any economic hardship the applicant will incur will not amount to serious harm in the sense that it would threaten his capacity to subsist. The Tribunal finds that given his work experience and motivation for work the applicant will not be denied the capacity to earn a living that would threaten his capacity to subsist, nor would they be denied basic services where such denial would threaten his capacity to subsist. The applicant can return to live with his family who live in a home at no cost. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that there is no real chance the applicants would be seriously harmed if he returned to Malaysia by reason of the economic circumstances.
Does the applicant satisfy the complementary protection criterion for protection?
The Tribunal also considered whether the applicant meets the complimentary protection criterion under section 36 (2) (aa). The real risk test imposes the same standard as the real chance test applicable to the assessment of well-founded fear. MIAC v SZQRB (2013) FCAFC 33.
The Tribunal has considered whether as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm of any kind. The Tribunal has made earlier findings that the applicant does not face a real chance of serious harm arising from an economic claim if he is returned to Malaysia. Based on the applicant’s own claims and in the absence of any independent evidence to support his claim that he will be harmed if he is returned to Malaysia the Tribunal finds that the applicant will not suffer significant harm. As such, it is found that there was not a chance that the applicant will be seriously harmed if returned to Malaysia. As the” real risk test” is the same as the “real chance” standard, it follows that the Tribunal does not accept that there are substantial grounds for believing as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia that there is a real risk of significant harm, including torture, being subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment, or being subjected to degrading treatment or punishment.
The applicant will not face a real risk of significant harm arising from his economic circumstances and his ability to find employment in Malaysia. Significant harm is different from the concept of serious harm as required by section 5J (4)(b) in the context of section 36 (2)(a).
The Tribunal has already made a finding that the applicant has the capacity and inclination to find work anywhere in Malaysia. While the Tribunal acknowledges the applicant will face difficulties and challenges arising from finding work to support himself it does not accept, he will not be able to find paid employment anywhere in Malaysia in circumstances where he has been previously employed. For the reasons expressed above and based on the available country information, the Tribunal has found that the applicant will be able to find employment in Malaysia. As a result, the Tribunal finds that there is no real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm if he is returned to Malaysia as a result, the Tribunal finds that there is no real risk that the applicants will suffer by reason of their inability to earn a living to support himself or family. Given his work experience and based on the available country information the Tribunal finds that as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia the applicant will not be significantly harmed as required by section 36(2) aa of the Act.

At no stage has the applicant advanced any other reason in his written or oral claims that he is owed Australia’s protection obligations. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that there are no more claims, including based on the applicant’s accepted circumstances to be considered. As such having regard to all the circumstances and findings above considered individually and cumulatively, the Tribunal finds that as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Malaysia there is no real risk the applicant will suffer significant harm if they are returned to Malaysia pursuant to section 36 (2) aa of the Act.
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).
CONCLUDING PARAGRAPHS
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).
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).
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
The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.
Date of Hearing: 4 December 2024
ATTACHMENT - Extract from Migration Act 1958
5 (1) Interpretation
…
cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment means an act or omission by which:
(a)     severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person; or
(b)     pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person so long as, in all the circumstances, the act or omission could reasonably be regarded as cruel or inhuman in nature;
but does not include an act or omission:
(c)     that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(d)     arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
degrading treatment or punishment means an act or omission that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation which is unreasonable, but does not include an act or omission:
(a)     that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(b)     that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
torture means an act or omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person:
(a)     for the purpose of obtaining from the person or from a third person information or a confession; or
(b)     for the purpose of punishing the person for an act which that person or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed; or
(c)     for the purpose of intimidating or coercing the person or a third person; or
(d)     for a purpose related to a purpose mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c); or
(e)     for any reason based on discrimination that is inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant;
but does not include an act or omission arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
receiving country, in relation to a non-citizen, means:
(a)     a country of which the non-citizen is a national, to be determined solely by reference to the law of the relevant country; or
(b)     if the non-citizen has no country of nationality—a country of his or her former habitual residence, regardless of whether it would be possible to return the non-citizen to the country.
…
5H    Meaning of refugee
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person in Australia, the person is a refugee if the person is:
(a)     in a case where the person has a nationality – is outside the country of his or her nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country; or
(b)     in a case where the person does not have a nationality – is outside the country of his or her former habitual residence and owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to return to it.
Note:     For the meaning of well-founded fear of persecution, see section 5J.
…
5J     Meaning of well-founded fear of persecution
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person has a well-founded fear of persecution if:
(a)     the person fears being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion; and
(b)     there is a real chance that, if the person returned to the receiving country, the person would be persecuted for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(c)     the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of a receiving country.
Note:     For membership of a particular social group, see sections 5K and 5L.
(2)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country.
Note:     For effective protection measures, see section 5LA.
(3)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if the person could take reasonable steps to modify his or her behaviour so as to avoid a real chance of persecution in a receiving country, other than a modification that would:
(a)     conflict with a characteristic that is fundamental to the person’s identity or conscience; or
(b)     conceal an innate or immutable characteristic of the person; or
(c)     without limiting paragraph (a) or (b), require the person to do any of the following:
(i)alter his or her religious beliefs, including by renouncing a religious conversion, or conceal his or her true religious beliefs, or cease to be involved in the practice of his or her faith;
(ii)conceal his or her true race, ethnicity, nationality or country of origin;
(iii)alter his or her political beliefs or conceal his or her true political beliefs;
(iv)conceal a physical, psychological or intellectual disability;
(v)enter into or remain in a marriage to which that person is opposed, or accept the forced marriage of a child;
(vi)alter his or her sexual orientation or gender identity or conceal his or her true sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.
(4)If a person fears persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a):
(a)     that reason must be the essential and significant reason, or those reasons must be the essential and significant reasons, for the persecution; and
(b)     the persecution must involve serious harm to the person; and
(c)     the persecution must involve systematic and discriminatory conduct.
(5)Without limiting what is serious harm for the purposes of paragraph (4)(b), the following are instances of serious harm for the purposes of that paragraph:
(a)     a threat to the person’s life or liberty;
(b)     significant physical harassment of the person;
(c)     significant physical ill‑treatment of the person;
(d)     significant economic hardship that threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(e)     denial of access to basic services, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(f)     denial of capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist.
(6)In determining whether the person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a), any conduct engaged in by the person in Australia is to be disregarded unless the person satisfies the Minister that the person engaged in the conduct otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening the person’s claim to be a refugee.
5K    Membership of a particular social group consisting of family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person (the first person), in determining whether the first person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for the reason of membership of a particular social group that consists of the first person’s family:
(a)     disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced, where the reason for the fear or persecution is not a reason mentioned in paragraph 5J(1)(a); and
(b)     disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that:
(i)the first person has ever experienced; or
(ii)any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced;
where it is reasonable to conclude that the fear or persecution would not exist if it were assumed that the fear or persecution mentioned in paragraph (a) had never existed.
Note:     Section 5G may be relevant for determining family relationships for the purposes of this section.
5L    Membership of a particular social group other than family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person is to be treated as a member of a particular social group (other than the person’s family) if:
(a)     a characteristic is shared by each member of the group; and
(b)     the person shares, or is perceived as sharing, the characteristic; and
(c)     any of the following apply:
(i)the characteristic is an innate or immutable characteristic;
(ii)the characteristic is so fundamental to a member’s identity or conscience, the member should not be forced to renounce it;
(iii)the characteristic distinguishes the group from society; and
(d)     the characteristic is not a fear of persecution.
5LA Effective protection measures
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country if:
(a)     protection against persecution could be provided to the person by:
(i)the relevant State; or
(ii)a party or organisation, including an international organisation, that controls the relevant State or a substantial part of the territory of the relevant State; and
(b)     the relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (a) is willing and able to offer such protection.
(2)A relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) is taken to be able to offer protection against persecution to a person if:
(a)     the person can access the protection; and
(b)     the protection is durable; and
(c)     in the case of protection provided by the relevant State—the protection consists of an appropriate criminal law, a reasonably effective police force and an impartial judicial system.
…
36     Protection visas – criteria provided for by this Act
…
(2)A criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is:
(a)     a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee; or
(aa) a non-citizen in Australia (other than a non-citizen mentioned in paragraph (a)) in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the non-citizen being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that the non-citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b)     a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:
(i)is mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant; or
(c)     a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:
(i)is mentioned in paragraph (aa); and
(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant.
(2A)A non‑citizen will suffer significant harm if:
(a)     the non‑citizen will be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life; or
(b)     the death penalty will be carried out on the non‑citizen; or
(c)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to torture; or
(d)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or
(e)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment.
(2B)However, there is taken not to be a real risk that a non‑citizen will suffer significant harm in a country if the Minister is satisfied that:
(a)     it would be reasonable for the non‑citizen to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b)     the non‑citizen could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(c)     the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the non‑citizen personally.
…