2001250 (Refugee)

[2022] AATA 1784

2001250 (Refugee) [2022] AATA 1784 (27 April 2022)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  2001250

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Thailand

MEMBER:Alison Murphy

DATE:27 April 2022

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 27 April 2022 at 10:39am

CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Thailand – fear of harm from gang after traffic altercation – threats and attacks – no action by police – credibility – inconsistent claims and evidence – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5H, 5J(1)(b), 36(2)(a), (aa), 65
Migration Regulation 1994 (Cth), 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 dependants.

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 23 January 2020 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).

2. The applicant, who claims to be a citizen of Thailand, applied for the visa on 15 February 2018. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that they were not satisfied the applicant is a person owed protection by Australia.

3. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 16 March 2022 (by video) and 4 April 2022 (in person) to give evidence and present arguments. At the commencement of the first hearing, the Tribunal noted that while COVID-19 had restricted the Tribunal’s capacity to undertake in person hearings, in person hearings were expected to resume shortly. The Tribunal asked the applicant if he would prefer to proceed by video as scheduled or to adjourn the review for an in person hearing at a later date. The applicant indicated that he wished to proceed with the video hearing and the hearing commenced on that basis. Approximately two hours into the video hearing, the applicant started to experience audio issues and at the applicant’s request the hearing was adjourned to resume in person in the Tribunal’s Melbourne offices.  At the commencement of the second hearing the Tribunal confirmed with the applicant his oral evidence at the first hearing. The Tribunal hearings were conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Thai and English languages.

   CRITERIA FOR A PROTECTION VISA

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

5. 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.

6. 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).

7. 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.

8. 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

9. 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

10. The issue in this case is whether the applicant is 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. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.

    Country of nationality

11. The applicant travelled to Australia on an apparently genuine Thai passport, a copy of which is contained on the Departmental file. He has at all times stated that he is a citizen of Thailand and he has been assessed on that basis by the Department. The Tribunal finds the applicant is a Thai citizen and has assessed his claims against Thailand as the country of nationality and the receiving country.

    The applicant’s personal background

12. The applicant is a [Age]-year-old male from [City 1], Thailand. At hearing he gave evidence that his parents had separated and he had no contact with his father or stepbrother. His mother remains living in Thailand with her relatives.

13. The applicant went to university in [City 1], completing a Bachelor of [Subject 1]. After completing his studies in October 2012, he worked as [an Occupation 1] for [Employer] until travelling to Australia in May 2015.

14. Since arriving in Australia he has worked in [an] industry and has completed a Certificate III in [Subject 2] and worked as [an Occupation 2] in [Work sector] and a [Workplace].

15. The applicant entered Australia [in] May 2015 as the holder of a tourist visa that expired [in] August 2015. He lodged the application for the protection visa on 15 February 2018.

16. I accept the above matters to be true.

    The applicant’s claims for protection

17. In his protection visa application, the applicant stated that he left Thailand after having problems involving a gang called ‘[Gang name]’ in [City 1]. He stated his problems started after he accidentally cut into their lane while driving. He stated that he didn’t know that he had made them angry until he saw their posts on [Social media] and they followed him and attacked him. If he returns to Thailand they will harm him because they hold a grudge and they will try to kill him if they find him.

18. He claims the gang hurt him after following him from his workplace, but he managed to escape back home. A few of them tracked him down at his house while holding guns and knives. He made a police report after they posted a video of this on [Social media] and called the police after they tried to harm him at home with guns. He tried to move back to stay with his family in his hometown, but then decided to come to Australia to seek safety and so as not to involve his family in his case.

19. In response to the Department’s invitation to provide further information in writing, the applicant provided a further written statement stating that in March 2015 he was badly hurt after being punched, kicked, pushed to the ground and repeatedly beaten by a gangster, seeking medical help on [date] March and [date] March 2015. He reported it to the police but nothing happened and when he followed up the police said they had never received his complaint at all. The applicant stated that the [gang] is a big and powerful group of people in his area who are connected to the local police, with one working as a police driver. The police took no action against them and the gang seemed to know what the applicant was doing. It does not matter where he lives in Thailand as the gang would find him eventually and hurt him like they did before. After the assault the applicant became distressed and paranoid and the doctor recommended he see a psychologist, which he did not have a chance to do before he travelled to Australia.

20. In support of his claims, the applicant provided a number of documents to the Department including:

    ·A translated police report dated [date] March 2015;

    ·Two translated follow up letters from the applicant to the police dated [date] March 2015 and [date] April 2015 and Thai domestic post receipts;

    ·Medical certificates dated [date] March 2015 and [date] March 2015;

    ·Screenshots of [Social media] posts by [Mr A] and other photographs obtained by [Social media].

21. At the two Tribunal hearings the applicant elaborated on his claims, giving evidence the incident that started his dispute with the [gang] took place on [date] March 2015 while he was driving past a village on the main road. When a motorcycle cut in front of him without signalling, the applicant beeped his horn. The motorcyclist rode a bit further down the road before signalling for the applicant to stop. When the applicant stopped his car, the motorcyclist started punching him and he and the applicant were involved in a fight. The applicant got out of his car and was bigger and stronger than the motorcyclist and so won the fight.

22. The next morning the applicant looked on [Social media] to see that the motorcyclist and his friends were members of the [gang] and had posted a video of the incident and were looking for the applicant and asking around about where he lived. The motorcyclist was called [Mr B] while the author of the [Social media] posts was another member of the [gang], [Mr A]. The applicant reported the incident to the police who did not follow it up.

23. The [gang] members used his car registration number and the make of his car to find out where the applicant lived. He believes that they have connections with the police and one of its members is a driver for the police as evidenced in the [Social media] posts.

24. In early April 2015 he saw members of the gang while he was [doing a job task] and they were sitting drinking alcohol. He ran away from them and they tried to stop him but he kept going.  Later that day they came to his house and fired shots at it. He heard the gunshot out the front of his house and escaped out the back door without seeing them. A week later he moved into his workplace temporarily and made plans to come to Australia. The only direct interactions he had with the gang members were during the original incident on [date] March 2015 and in early April when he saw them while he was [doing a job task].

25. However for the following reasons, I do not accept the applicant’s claims as to the harm he experienced in Thailand in 2015 to be true.

26. Firstly, the documents submitted by the applicant are not consistent with his oral evidence. I have considered the police report and follow up letters submitted by the applicant and note:

    ·Only the original police report purports to be an official document of the Royal Thai Police. It indicates that at 6:30pm on [date] March 2015 the applicant came into the [Sub-district] police station and requested an incident be recorded in the daily case report. The applicant is recorded as reporting that [Mr A] had broadcast a message and video on [Social media] and records the contents of that message. The report states that the applicant claimed to be afraid that the [Social media] message would be harmful to his life, body, property and family and therefore came to see an inquiry officer to have the incident recorded and used as evidence. However that police report does not mention the serious assault the applicant claims to have suffered only the day before the incident the applicant claims led to the [Social media] post. When I discussed this with the applicant at hearing, he agreed he did not report the assault to the police, but said he later mentioned it to them verbally. I note the applicant stated in his written response to the Department that he was badly hurt after being ‘punched, kicked, pushed to the ground and repeatedly beaten’ during the assault on him on [date] March 2015. Given the applicant’s evidence that the [Social media] posts were made solely on the basis of the claimed altercation the previous day, I consider it implausible that the applicant would not mention the assault in his police report if that assault had in fact occurred;

    ·The [Social media] posts of [Mr A] refer to some kind of altercation on the road with another party, but do not refer to the applicant. The post suggests that the other party followed the motorcyclist home and punched him and states that the camera had not captured the registration number of the car. When I discussed with the applicant that the [Social media] posts suggested he was the aggressor and that the gang had not been able to trace him through his car registration plate as he had claimed, the applicant stated that he did not know why [Mr A] had written about the incident in that way and that he thought the gang may found him because he parked his car outside his home and there were not many white cars in his home town. The applicant’s evidence as to how the gang located him is inconsistent with both his oral and written statements that he had been tracked down by his car registration;

    ·At the hearings the applicant confirmed several times that he had not seen or spoken with any of the gang members except for on the night of the assault on [date] March 2015 and again at some time in April 2015 when he came across them in the street while he was [doing a job task]. However in the follow up letter to the police dated 10 April 2015, he states that [Mr B] and his associates had also threatened and intimidated him by telephone, demanding that he stop any legal action against them or face being harmed and killed. When I discussed the apparent inconsistency with the applicant at hearing, he stated that the telephone threats were in fact delivered through a friend of his who phoned him and warned him he needed to watch out for himself. I do not accept the applicant’s explanation to be credible;

    ·I have considered the various screenshots of vans, motorbikes and groups of people submitted by the applicant, including one photograph of a person in a police car. At hearing the applicant said he had downloaded these pictures from [Social media] to show that there actually was a gang of people working together and they were connected to the police. He acknowledged that none of those screenshots refer to the applicant or any of the events described in his claims. Given my overall concerns about the credibility of the applicant’s evidence I am not satisfied the people in those screenshots are connected with the applicant in any way.

27. The applicant’s oral evidence was also inconsistent in some respects with his earlier written claims. In his protection visa application, the applicant stated that his problems started after he accidentally cut into [the Gang name] lane while driving, but he didn’t know that had made them angry until he saw their posts on [Social media] and they followed him and attacked him. However at hearing he gave evidence that the motorcyclist he cut off stopped him and punched him further down the road immediately after the accident, the day before the [Social media] posts were made. In his written claims he also states the gang hurt him after following him from his workplace, but he managed to escape back home. However at hearing he stated that he managed to escape from the gang both while he was working and when they came to his house without being harmed.

28. Further to the matters mentioned above, I am also concerned about other aspects of the applicant’s evidence. The applicant initially gave evidence that he came to Australia in May 2015 and he was not intending to stay, rather he just wanted to have a holiday and research further study options. He said he only decided to stay after hearing that someone in Thailand was looking for him. This is inconsistent with his claims in his visa application and at hearing that he decided to come to Australia to seek safety from the [gang] and so as not to involve his family in his case.

29. I have had regard to the two medical reports submitted by the applicant concerning treatment he claims to have required following the assault on him on [date] March 2015. While those reports record a number of injuries, neither report suggests the injuries were caused by an assault. In view of my overall serious concerns about the credibility of the applicant’s evidence, I am not satisfied that applicant received those injuries in the manner he claims.

30. Finally I am concerned about the applicant’s delay in lodging his application for a protection visa. As set out in the delegate’s decision, a copy of which was provided to the Tribunal by the applicant, the applicant arrived in Australia [in] May 2015 on a tourist visa which ceased [in] August 2015. The applicant remained in Australia unlawfully until 15 February 2018 when he applied for the protection visa. I have considered the applicant’s explanation that he overstayed because of the fear and distress at the thought of returning to Thailand and his lack of knowledge about protection visas. However given my overall concerns about the applicant’s credibility, I do not accept that to be true.

31. For all of the above reasons, I do not accept the applicant’s account of the events he claims led to his departure from Thailand in 2015. In particular I do not accept he was involved in an incident with a member of the [gang] while driving on [date] March 2015, nor do I accept that he was assaulted by the other driver or his associates on that date. I do not accept that members of the [gang] tried to track the applicant down using [Social media], nor that they otherwise threatened, harmed or harassed him before he travelled to Australia in May 2015. I do not accept that members of the [gang] were seeking to harm the applicant at the time he came to Australia, nor that they would seek to threaten, harm or harass him if he were to return to Thailand, now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.

32. It follows that I do not accept the applicant faces a real chance of harm from members of the [gang] if he returns to Thailand now or in the reasonably foreseeable future, rather I consider that risk to be remote. Therefore, he does not meet the criteria set out in s 5J(1)(b) of the Act and it follows he does not meet the criteria set out in s 36(2)(a).

33. For the same reasons I do not accept there to be a real risk the applicant will be subjected to significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being returned to Thailand. Therefore, he does not meet the criteria set out in s 36(2)(aa) of the Act.

    CONCLUSIONS

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

3. 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 any of the criteria in s 36(2).

   DECISION

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

   Alison Murphy
   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.

   …