2011470 (Refugee) - [2025] ARTA 1220

2011470 (REFUGEE) [2025] ARTA 1220 (13 JANUARY 2025)
DECISION AND
REASONS FOR DECISION
Respondent: Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

Tribunal Number: 2011470
Tribunal:General Member T Ellison
Date:13 January 2025

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

General Member T Ellison
Statement made on 13 January 2025 at 9:45am
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – Protection Visa – Malaysia – borrowed money from an unlicenced money loan scheme – decision without a hearing – not satisfied that the applicant faces a real risk of serious or significant harm – credibility concerns – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024
Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024, ss 9, 106
Migration Act 1958, ss 5, 36, 65, 499
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2
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 7 July 2020 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The applicant applied for review to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the AAT). On 14 October 2024, the AAT became the Administrative Review Tribunal (the Tribunal). This decision and statement of reasons is a review of the delegate’s decision by the Tribunal.
The applicant, a national of Malaysia, applied for the visa on 29 April 2019. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that, in relation to the applicant accessing illegal money lending, effective protection measures were available from Malaysian authorities and she could obtain protection such that there would not be a real risk that the applicant would suffer significant harm.
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, I have concluded that that the decision under review should be affirmed.
CRITERIA FOR A 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 (the Department), and country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
Applicant’s background
The applicant is a [age]-year-old female from Malaysia.
The applicant arrived in Australia on [date] March 2019 on a visitor visa.
Before the Department
The applicant applied for a protection visa on 29 April 2019.
In her protection visa application, the applicant claimed that whilst in Malaysia, she borrowed money from an unlicenced money loan scheme due to debt burden and cost of living being too high. She stated that she received a threat of murder from creditors and her car was ‘deprived’. She stated that a gangster came to her house to collect money and blackmailed her that if she did not pay on time or if she made a report to police they would attack her family members. She stated that she tried to go to another state but the gangster found her.
The applicant further stated that she left Malaysia due to a fear of death threats and could not go back until she finished paying back all the money. She claimed the government could not protect her and her family 24 hours per day.
The applicant has provided a copy of her Malaysian passport, which records her nationality as Malaysian and her place of birth as [a country]. In her protection visa application, the applicant claims to have acquired citizenship in Malaysia in 1992 shortly after she was born, being the citizenship of both her mother and father. The applicant states she has not held citizenship or nationality of any other country.
On 7 July 2020, the delegate refused to grant the applicant a protection visa.
Before the Tribunal
On 10 July 2020, the applicant filed the present application for review with the AAT.
On 15 July 2020, the AAT emailed a letter to the applicant acknowledging receipt of the application for review. The letter advised that if the applicant wished to provide material or written arguments for consideration that she should do so as soon as possible. The letter attached an information sheet entitled ‘Information for refugee review applicants – MR Division’. The information sheet advised that if the applicant had any material not yet provided which supports the application, including a statement setting out why they disagree with the Department’s decision, they should send this as soon as they can.
On the same day, the applicant responded by email and updated her address and phone number.
On 11 December 2020, the applicant emailed the AAT and confirmed her updated address and phone number, and sought a letter confirming her application before the AAT to renew her Medicare.
On 10 January 2022, the applicant sent an email seeking a further letter confirming her application before the AAT to renew her Medicare.
On 14 August 2023, the applicant sent an email further updating her address and sought a further letter confirming her application before the AAT to renew her Medicare.
On 16 October 2024, the applicant was sent an email informing her that her file was being prepared to be given to a Tribunal member. The applicant was provided with a link to a blank pre-hearing information form and was requested to complete the form within 7 days. The form stated: ‘If you have any additional evidence that is relevant to your application, please send it to us as soon as possible.’
On 18 October 2024, the applicant sent an email to the Tribunal stating ‘please find attached the completed Pre-hearing information form’, containing a link to Google Drive. On 12 November 2024 the Tribunal emailed the applicant stating that the Tribunal was unable to access the link and requesting the pre-hearing information form be sent as an attachment to an email.
No response having been received, on 4 December 2024 the Tribunal sent the applicant a notice of hearing to take place on 16 January 2025 and asked the applicant to complete a ‘response to hearing notice’ form. The notice of hearing stated ‘Please use the ‘Response to hearing notice’ form attached to this letter or attach additional information if you have any requests or any new information which you wish us to consider.’ The notice of hearing also informed the applicant:
What if I want the Tribunal to make a decision without holding a hearing
You can use the enclosed ‘Response to hearing notice’ form to request the Tribunal to
make a decision without a hearing. However, you may still be required to attend the
hearing if the Tribunal is unable to determine the issues in your absence. If you
request the Tribunal to make a decision without a hearing, and we still require you to
attend, we will inform you of this before the hearing date.
Please note that if you request the Tribunal to make a decision without a hearing, and
the Tribunal proceeds to make a decision because it considers the issues can be
determined in your absence, this does not guarantee you will receive a favourable decision.
On 9 December 2024 the applicant provided a completed ‘response to hearing notice’ form. The form asked whether the applicant would take part in the hearing scheduled for 16 January 2025. The applicant selected ‘No, I will not participate in the hearing, and request the Tribunal to make a decision on the papers without holding a hearing’. The applicant also was asked whether she intended to rely on any documents at the hearing or requested the Tribunal take oral evidence from a person or persons. To both questions the applicant answered ‘no’.
On 10 December 2024 the Tribunal sent an email to the applicant acknowledging her request that the Tribunal make its decision without holding the hearing and informing her that the hearing had been cancelled. The applicant was invited to provide any further information she would like the Tribunal to consider by 18 December 2024. As at the date and time of this decision, no further information has been received.
Decision without a hearing
Section 106(1) of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth) (the ART Act) provides that the Tribunal may make a decision in the proceeding in relation to the application after considering the documents and things given to the Tribunal and without holding the hearing of the proceeding if any of subsections (2) to (5) applies.
Relevant to this case, subsection 106(3) applies if 3 requirements are satisfied.
a.First, the only parties to the proceeding are the applicant and a non-participating party to the proceeding…;
b.Second, either the decision is wholly in favour of the applicant or the applicant requests the Tribunal to make its decision without holding the hearing of the proceeding; and
c.Third, it appears to the Tribunal that the issues for determination in the proceeding can be adequately determined in the absence of the parties to the proceeding.
In this case, the respondent, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, is a non-participating party under s 348A(1) of the Act.
The applicant has requested the Tribunal make its decision without holding the hearing of the proceeding. On 9 December 2024 the applicant provided a completed ‘response to hearing notice form’ and selected ‘No, I will not participate in the hearing, and request the Tribunal to make a decision on the papers without holding a hearing’. On 10 December 2024 the Tribunal sent an email to the applicant acknowledging her request that the Tribunal make its decision without holding the hearing and informing her that the hearing had been cancelled. No further correspondence has been received from the applicant.
The issues for determination in this proceeding are 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: s 36(2) of the Act. Before the Tribunal is the Department’s file which includes a copy of the applicant’s protection visa application containing biological information and her claims for protection, a copy of her Malaysian passport and driver’s licence and the delegate’s written reasons for refusal. Based on this information, the Tribunal is able to determine the applicant’s identity and receiving country. It is also able to determine whether, based on that information, the applicant meets the criteria in s 36(2) of the Act, without obtaining further evidence or submissions from the applicant.
I am satisfied that the applicant has had ample opportunity to provide all of the evidence she wishes to provide and does not wish to provide further evidence. Further, proceeding to a decision without holding a hearing would further the Tribunal’s objectives of providing an independent mechanism of review that ensures applications are resolved quickly, and with as little formality and expense, as a proper consideration of the matters before the Tribunal permits.[1]
[1] s 9 of the ART Act.
For those reasons, I consider that subsection 106(3) applies and I have decided to make a decision in the proceeding without holding the hearing of the proceeding under s 106(1) of the ART Act.
Analysis, reasons and findings
The applicant claims to be a citizen of Malaysia and has provided a copy of her Malaysian passport indicating her nationality is Malaysian. I accept the applicant is a national of Malaysia and that Malaysia is her receiving country as that term is used in the Act.
In her protection visa application, the applicant claimed that due to the burden of debt, she borrowed from an unlicenced money loan scheme. The applicant has not provided any evidence as to the circumstances of why and how she became burdened with debt and how much debt she was burdened with. In her protection visa application, the applicant claims to have never been employed and to have resided at one residence [from] 1992 to 2019. I infer she has resided with family given the time spent at the residence and that she listed her activities as ‘just stay home with family’. Further, under a question about her family support she stated ‘family hold all my expenses’ I hold significant doubts as to how and why she could have become burdened with debt in those circumstances.
The applicant has claimed that she cannot get approval of money from the government. The applicant has not provided any evidence as to whether she made attempts to obtain such approval and why she did not meet the requirements of the government, nor what those requirements are.
The applicant claims that she borrowed from an unlicenced money loan scheme. The applicant has not provided any evidence as to the name of the unlicenced money loan scheme, how much money she borrowed and at what terms, nor any documentary evidence of the loan. As stated above, in her protection visa application she stated that ‘family hold all my expenses.’ It is unclear why it is then that the applicant would have needed to borrow from an unlicenced money loan scheme herself. This causes me significant doubt as to whether the applicant borrowed from an unlicensed money loan scheme.
The applicant further claims that she received a murder threat and her car was ‘deprived’. She further claims that a gangster was sent to her house to collect the money and blackmail her that if she does not pay on time, and that if she made a report, they would attack her family members. If the applicant was threatened, blackmailed and deprived in that way, I would expect the applicant to have provided clear details as to the circumstances of those events which she has not done.
The applicant has further claimed that she was trying to go to another state but the gangster found her ‘anywhere’. The applicant has not provided any information about what state she tried to move to, when, and how she thinks a gangster would be able to find her in another state. Having regard to the fact that Malaysia has an estimated population of around 32.9 million people,[2] I do not find such a claim persuasive or believable. As noted above, the applicant stated that she has only lived at one address, from 1992 to 2019. This causes me doubts as to whether the applicant made any attempt to move to another state.
[2] DFAT, DFAT Country Information Report Malaysia, 24 June 2024, [2.6].
The applicant further claims that she cannot return to Malaysia until she finishes paying back all the money that she borrowed. The applicant has not provided any evidence as to the amount of the loan, the amount she (or any family) has paid back, and whether the loan has now been paid back, noting the loan must have been taken out before 4 March 2019.
In assessing the applicant’s claims, the Tribunal is not required to accept uncritically any or all of the claims made by an applicant,[3] nor have rebutting evidence available before it can find that a particular factual assertion by an applicant has not been made out.[4]
[3] Randhawa v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1994) 52 FCR 437, 451.
[4] s 5AAA(2) of the Act; Selvadurai v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs & Anor (1994) 34 ALD 347, 348.
For the above reasons, I do not accept that the applicant became burdened with debt. I do not accept the applicant needed to, or did in fact borrow any money from an unlicenced money loan scheme. I do not accept that the applicant could not borrow money from the government or would not meet their requirements.
As I do not accept the applicant borrowed any money from an unlicenced money loan scheme, I do not accept the applicant was subjected to a murder threat, deprived of her car, or blackmailed by a gangster at her house or anywhere else. I do not accept any gangster or anyone else threatened to harm her family for reason of a loan or otherwise. I do not accept that the applicant tried to move to another state to avoid gangsters. I do not accept gangsters found her in another state.
As I do not accept the applicant ever borrowed money from an unlicensed money loan scheme, if she is returned to Malaysia, I do not accept the applicant would be contacted, approached, threatened or harmed by any operator of a unlicenced money loan scheme, a gangster or anyone else relating to the lending of money.
For these reasons, I am not satisfied that there is a real chance that the applicant would be persecuted for any of the reasons in s 5J(1) of the Act now or in the reasonably foreseeable future. I am not satisfied the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution. I am also not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Malaysia, there is a real risk that she will suffer significant harm.

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) or (aa) of the Act.
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 under review.
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.
…