2004298 (Refugee)

[2024] AATA 4457

2004298 (Refugee) [2024] AATA 4457 (7 October 2024)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  2004298

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   China

MEMBER:Troy Barty

DATE:7 October 2024

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 07 October 2024 at 4:24pm

CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – China – local government took over land leased by father and his friends with no compensation – father detained and beaten – oral evidence of father’s investment debt – no harm to parents since applicant’s departure – no documentary evidence, no appearance at resumed hearing, and no further information or submissions – responsibility to specify claims and provide evidence – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5AAA, 5H(1)(a), 5J(1)(a), 36(2)(a), (aa), (2B), 65
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2

CASES
Chan Yee Kin v MIEA (1989) 169 CLR 379
MIAC v SZQRB (2013) 210 FCR 505
MIEA v Guo (1997) 191 CLR 559
Prasad v MIEA (1985) 6 FCR 155

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 to refuse the applicant’s claim for a protection visa.

2. The applicant arrived in Australia [in] May 2018 on a student visa. He applied for a protection visa on 2 October 2019, indicating he was a citizen of China. The applicant was invited to provide further information about his claim at an interview scheduled for 17 January 2020 with the Department of Home Affairs (the Department). He did not attend the interview. The Department wrote to him following this and requested more information. The applicant did not provide any further information.

3. On 19 February 2020 a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs refused to grant the applicant a protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act). The delegate referred to the lack of substantiating detail in the applicant’s statement of claims and concluded that his protection claims were not credible and rejected them in their entirety. The delegate was not satisfied the applicant was a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations.

4. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 25 July 2024 and provided oral evidence. The hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Mandarin and English languages. That hearing was adjourned, and the hearing was to resume on 19 September 2024 to enable the applicant to provide further evidence and arguments. The applicant did not attend that hearing. The Tribunal wrote to the applicant on 19 September 2024, advising that if he wished to provide any evidence for the Tribunal to consider before it made its decision, he should do so by 3 October 2024. The applicant did not provide any further evidence.

   CRITERIA FOR A PROTECTION VISA

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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).

8. 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.

9. The criterion in s 5J(1)(a) contains a subjective requirement, that an applicant must in fact hold a fear of being persecuted, while s 5J(1)(b) imposes an objective standard, that there be a real chance the person would be persecuted. A ‘real chance’ is one that is not remote or insubstantial or a far-fetched possibility. A person can have a well-founded fear of persecution even though the possibility of the persecution occurring is well below 50 per cent: Chan Yee Kin v MIEA (1989) 169 CLR 379.

10. 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.

11. In considering complementary protection, section 36(2)(aa) refers to a ‘real risk’ of an applicant suffering significant harm. In MIAC v SZQRB (2013) 210 FCR 505, the ‘real risk’ test was held to impose the same standard as the ‘real chance’ test applicable to the assessment of ‘well-founded fear’.

    Mandatory considerations

12. 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

13. The issues in this review are whether there is a real chance that, if the applicant returns to China, he will be persecuted for one or more of the five reasons set out in s5J(1)(a) for the purpose of s 36(2)(a) of the Act and, if not, whether there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to China, there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm for the purpose of s 36(2)(aa) of the Act.

    The applicant’s evidence

14. The applicant made his application for the protection visa on 2 October 2019. He said that he left China because his father and his father’s friends invested in a [company]. In 2012 they signed a contract with the Fuqing Municipal Government to lease [Land] for a [development]. They obtained development and operation rights, but the government issued a notice and took over the [land]. It cut down trees, destroyed houses and built transmission towers. His father’s company suffered huge losses and was not compensated. His father submitted more than 10 applications for government information and filed two lawsuits. His father was threatened and sent the applicant to Australia to study. His father had a symposium in August 2019 and invited partners from the [work sector 1]. This caused a lot of pressure on the Fuqing government. On 20 August 2019 his father was taken to the Fuqing city detention centre by police and was beaten and kicked. His father suffered various types of torture. He refused to compromise and was kept in custody. His mother visited him and then told the applicant. His mother says he (the applicant) will be arrested as soon as he returns.  His application also said that he speaks with his parents by WeChat every day.

15. At the hearing on 25 July 2024 (the first hearing), the applicant provided the Tribunal with some background information. He said that he was born in Fujian province (Fuqing county, Haikou town) and lived all his life there. His parents still live there. His older sister lives in Melbourne too and he shares a house with his her, her husband and their child. He did not complete school in China. When he came to Australia, he attended [College] for two years to learn English. He then worked with his brother-in-law in [work sector 2]. He had some time off for a period and has resumed [work].

16. He said that he found out about protection visas from a friend when his student visa expired. He said that he completed the application with assistance from a friend. He was told that he could apply for a protection visa and stay here.

17. When asked why he left China he said because at home he was asked to pay back money.  When asked who he owed money to, he said that his father owed the money because his investment failed and because of his father’s debt, they asked him for the money.

18. When the Tribunal questioned that he would only have been 17 or 18 years of age at the time, he agreed and said that the lenders went through him to find his family. In response to the Tribunal’s questions about the debt, he said that his father had paid back some of the loan.  

19. The Tribunal asked why the lender would not find his father, obtain the money from him, or threaten or harm him rather than the applicant. The applicant said that they would not go to his family. If they see him on the street, they would ask him. When asked whether his father and mother are at risk given that they live there, he said that if his parents go out, they would be found. When asked what would happen to his parents, he said they would force them to pay back the money.

20. When asked how much his father borrowed for the travel company, the applicant said he did not know the exact figure, but it was more than 1 million RMB. When asked who lent the money to his father, he said it was his father’s friend, and he thought that the relationship would not be good now.

21. When asked why he cannot return to China now or in the foreseeable future, the applicant said they still know him and if he went back, they could find him.

22. Before the hearing on 25 July 2024 was adjourned, the Tribunal read to the applicant some specific aspects of his claim, in particular, that his father and his friends signed a contract, that the Government issued a notice, his father made more than 10 applications for government information and filed 2 lawsuits, and that his father held a symposium and invited partners from [work sector 1]. He was asked whether he had documentary evidence of any of those things, and he said that he did not, because he was only young. When asked whether his father would have documents, the applicant responded that he only knows about the event but not the details.

23. The Tribunal noted that the Department had also requested evidence of his claims and that he had not provided any further evidence previously. The Tribunal discussed that it would assist his case if he could provide documents or evidence to support his claims.

24. The next hearing was listed for 19 September 2024. The applicant was sent a notice of that hearing on 26 July 2024. When he did not attend the resumed hearing at the scheduled time, the Tribunal called him on his nominated mobile phone number. The applicant did not answer. The Tribunal wrote to the applicant on 19 September 2024 and invited him to provide written submissions or information by 3 October 2024. Nor further information or submissions were received.

    The Tribunal’s analysis and conclusions

25. The applicant has consistently stated he is a citizen of China and has provided a copy of his People’s Republic of China passport and ID card to the Department. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Tribunal finds that he is a citizen of China. The Tribunal accepts that China is the applicant’s country of nationality and receiving country.

26. The Tribunal does not accept the applicant’s claims and evidence to be credible, reliable or truthful, and for the following reasons the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.

27. The Migration Act places an obligation on protection visa applicants to present their case. It is the responsibility of an applicant to specify all particulars of their claim to be a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations and to provide sufficient evidence to establish the claim: s 5AAA. The mere fact that a person claims fear of persecution for a particular reason does not establish the genuineness of the asserted fear, that it is ‘well-founded’, or that it is for the reason claimed. Similarly, that an applicant claims to face a real risk of significant harm does not establish that such a risk exists, or that the harm feared amounts to ‘significant harm’. The Tribunal is not required to accept uncritically any and all the allegations made by an applicant (MIEA v Guo (1997) 191 CLR 559 at 596, Prasad v MIEA (1985) 6 FCR 155 at 169-70.)

28. The applicant’s claim for the protection visa included claims about his father’s involvement in complex business dealings, and that following a symposium arranged by his father, his father was detained and tortured. The applicant was provided with the opportunity to provide evidence which would substantiate his claims on numerous occasions. Firstly by the Department’s delegate and secondly by the Tribunal.  Each hearing invitation sent to the applicant included a Response to hearing invitation form which asks whether the applicant intends to rely on any documents at the hearing or whether they had any witnesses. The applicant did not complete and return those forms. The first hearing was adjourned and at the conclusion of the hearing, the Tribunal discussed with the applicant that the adjournment provided him with the opportunity and time to obtain documentary evidence which would support his claims. Despite all of those opportunities, no documentary evidence was provided by the applicant, and the applicant failed to attend the resumed hearing. As a result, the only evidence before the Tribunal is the claims contained in the protection visa application and the applicant’s evidence at the first hearing.

29. His claim for the protection visa included information about what happened to his father and family in China, and stated that his mother told him that he (the applicant) would be arrested on return to China. Despite the applicant being given the opportunity to make submissions to the Tribunal before it made its decision, he did not provide any further information and the Tribunal had no evidence before it about why he would be arrested. There was nothing in any of the applicant’s evidence at the first hearing about his fear of the authorities, including any risk of being arrested or otherwise harmed. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant is at risk of any harm from the authorities if he returned to China now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.  

30. At the first hearing, the applicant claimed he would be at risk of harm because of his father’s debt related to a failed business venture. However, the Tribunal found this fear illogical and farfetched given that his father (the debtor) and the applicant’s mother remain living in the same location and there is nothing to suggest they have been harmed or at risk of harm from a creditor in the years since the applicant left China. When the Tribunal raised this issue of why he would be targeted on return rather than his parents who remain in China, the applicant’s response was indirect, not logical and not persuasive.

31. In addition, the loan and other activities set out by the applicant in his visa application would have generated a considerable volume of documents. The documents described by the applicant included a contract with the Fuqing Municipal Government (including a 30-year lease), a notice by the government to takeover [Land], his father’s 10 applications to the government, 2 lawsuits, and information about and invitations to a symposium. Despite the delegate of the Department and the Tribunal requesting evidence and providing the applicant with an opportunity to provide evidence to support his claims, either in person or in written submissions, no further evidence was provided. When asked about documentary evidence at the first hearing, the applicant was evasive and did not provide any reason he would not be able to obtain such documents from his parents. The fact that he was young when these events occurred has no impact on the existence of documents. There is nothing to suggest any barrier to obtaining information from his parents. Evidence of all or some of these events could have provided support for the applicant’s claims of his father’s business activities and involvement with the Chinese authorities, but none was produced.

32. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant’s claims and his evidence as a whole lacked substance. In the absence of any evidence to support his claims the Tribunal does not accept the events occurred as claimed. The Tribunal finds the applicant’s evidence is not credible or reliable and his claims are not truthful.

33. The Tribunal finds that the applicant fabricated the narrative about his father’s business activities and the conflict and litigation associated with that. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant or his family were pursued, threatened or harmed by a business creditor or the Chinese authorities and it does not accept that any individual or group would harm or threaten the applicant upon his return to China.

34. Having considered all of the applicant’s claims, the Tribunal finds that there is no real chance he would be persecuted for one of more of the reasons in s 5J(1)(a) of the Act if he were to return to China now or in the reasonably foreseeable future. The Tribunal is not satisfied he has a well-founded fear of persecution for the purposes of s36(2)(a).

35. The Tribunal also considered the complementary protection criterion. The Tribunal is not satisfied there are substantial grounds for believing there is a real risk that the applicant would be subjected to any form of harm that would meet the definition of significant harm in s36(2A) as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to China and he therefore does not meet the criterion in s36(2)(aa).  

    CONCLUSIONS

36. 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).

37. 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).

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

    DECISION

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

   Troy Barty
   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.

   …