2013699 (Refugee) - [2025] ARTA 1378

2013699 (REFUGEE) [2025] ARTA 1378 (13 MARCH 2025)
DECISION AND
REASONS FOR DECISION
Respondent: Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

Tribunal Number: 2013699
Tribunal:General Member C Dutkowski
Date:13 March 2025

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

Statement made on 13 March 2025 at 11:13am
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Indonesia – religion – freethinker – beaten and threatened by family members, neighbours and extremists – socio-economic and security conditions, human rights and natural disasters – country information – recent improvement in conditions – not freethinker but Muslim – working in Australia to support family – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5H(1)(a), 5J(1), 36(2)(a), (aa), (2A), 65
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), 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 3 September 2020 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The applicant, who the Tribunal accepts to be a national of Indonesia, applied for the visa on 5 October 2018. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that they were not satisfied about the credibility of the applicant’s claims.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 11 March 2025 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Indonesian and English languages, and the applicant also indicated he understood some of what the Tribunal said in English. The interpreter was present via video link. While there was occasionally a pause in the video quality, the interpreter was able to repeat sentences if necessary, and the applicant did not indicate he had any concerns. The Tribunal is satisfied the applicant was given a reasonable and meaningful opportunity to present his case, make submissions and adduce evidence.
BACKGROUND
The applicant is a [Age]-year-old single man from West Java. He is Javanese and Muslim.
The applicant told the Tribunal during the hearing that he had finished high school in Indonesia, worked for a couple of years in a [workplace 1], and close to two years in a [workplace 2] before coming to Australia. In Australia, he said he has been working hard, with two jobs and 18 hours per day. The jobs are in a [workplace 1a] and [workplace 1b]. He stated that he works hard for his day to day needs and to send money to his family in Indonesia.
The applicant’s family in Indonesia includes his parents and three siblings. He is the oldest sibling. One sibling is [an occupation] in a [workplace], one sibling isn’t working, and the other sibling is a freelancer. His parents are not working, which he said was one of the reasons he came to Australia; the economic circumstances are better here.
The applicant arrived in Australia [in] November 2016 as the holder of a visitor visa. He applied for a protection visa on 5 October 2018.
Evidence before the Department
The applicant’s protection visa application stated that he left Indonesia to see how other countries fare and after coming to Australia he realised it held more promise for him and his future. It stated that the people in Australia have an open belief and are more accepting. They have more rights to express their own belief and were given a chance to participate without segregation or favouritism. Australia holds a beautiful view that everyone has equal opportunity and share the same values. He said wanted to live in a place with people who had manner and good attitude like in Australia.
The protection visa application indicated that the applicant had experienced harm in Indonesia by:
‘being beaten by people who to obseed with their religion (Islam). I even get a dead threat from people at Malaysia because of my different mindest from them. The person responsible for the harm mostly is my family member and neighbour and entire muslim society at Malaysia (most of them had a very bad manner and easy to make their own decision like killing or burning down the house where did I live). It is because I’m a freethinker, I know there is a god, but I didn’t believe in people who said their religion (muslim) are the good peace religion, ironically most of them (muslim) are actually barbarian and like to use force and other means thing just to know that you didn’t believe in their religion. I was being humiliated, given death threat, and even beaten due to my misunderstanding. The people are those who does not want to accept my different point of view, instead use the violence. Due to a different view of belief people around me start to bash me instead of understand, and they just set me aside and ignore me.’
The protection visa application said that the applicant did not seek help after the harm, as it is quite hard to receive help because we are like third mind world class and like to do street judgment. It stated he did not try to move because it is still the same; he would still meet the majority of people with third country mind set. It stated that if he returned to Indonesia, he will be beaten, humiliated and it would be hard to socialise with them and he could be killed. The application said that the authorities could not protect him because the government does not have enough hands to protect their own people, and furthermore in Indonesia, they had a lot of natural disasters like earthquakes and volcanoes and the country seemed chaotic with these events.
The delegate refused to grant the visa on 3 September 2020.
Evidence before the Tribunal
The applicant applied for review on 7 September 2020.
On 6 December 2024, the applicant completed and returned to the Tribunal a ‘pre-hearing information form’. Among other things, this form asked the applicant if he wanted to give any more information about his claims for protection, and if there were any other reasons why he was afraid to return to Indonesia. The applicant wrote:
When a few years ago it was yes! Didn’t want to return to Indonesia because the situation and circumstances there did not allow such as natural disasters and riots between groups in several cities or regions in Indonesia. After I noticed on social media all platform the situation and conditions had improved and actually, I wanted to go there or vacation to my country after I lived in Australia for almost eight years then I really missed my homeland, parents, family and other things. Could my request be granted by the government department of home affairs and can I return to this country, namely before I did the same thing as being able to work, live, vacation and also hopefully my request for this one can be approved and get the answer I expect.
The applicant also handed up an identical copy of this form to the Tribunal at the hearing.
Other correspondence on the Tribunal file pertains to a document which was sent to him in error. This is irrelevant to the application under review.
The applicant’s oral evidence at hearing is discussed in the Tribunal’s reasons and findings below.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
Criteria for protection visa
The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s 36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations). An applicant for the visa must meet one of the alternative criteria in s 36(2)(a), (aa), (b), or (c). That is, he or she is either a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion, or on other ‘complementary protection’ grounds, or is a member of the same family unit as such a person and that person holds a protection visa of the same class.
Section 36(2)(a) provides that a criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee.
A person is a refugee if, in the case of a person who has a nationality, they are outside the country of their nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country: s 5H(1)(a). In the case of a person without a nationality, they are a refugee if they are outside the country of their former habitual residence and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to return to that country: s 5H(1)(b).
Under s 5J(1), a person has a well-founded fear of persecution if they fear being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, there is a real chance they would be persecuted for one or more of those reasons, and the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of the relevant country. Additional requirements relating to a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ and circumstances in which a person will be taken not to have such a fear are set out in ss 5J(2)-(6) and ss 5K-LA, which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
If a person is found not to meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), he or she may nevertheless meet the criteria for the grant of the visa if he or she is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that he or she will suffer significant harm: s 36(2)(aa) (‘the complementary protection criterion’). The meaning of significant harm, and the circumstances in which a person will be taken not to face a real risk of significant harm, are set out in ss 36(2A) and (2B), which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
Mandatory considerations
In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.84, made under s 499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken account of the ‘Refugee Law Guidelines’ and ‘Complementary Protection Guidelines’ prepared by the Department of Home Affairs, and country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.
REASONS AND FINDINGS
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
Early in the hearing, the Tribunal discussed with the applicant his statement in the ‘pre-hearing information form’ he sent to the Tribunal in December 2024, and again at the hearing. The Tribunal indicated that it understood from this statement that the applicant desired to return to Indonesia and asked the applicant to explain whether this was the case. The applicant said he wanted to return to Indonesia because he misses his homeland and family. However, he sees that the economy in Indonesia is not good and was hoping to go there then come back to Australia to work.
The Tribunal queried if the applicant’s fears in returning to Indonesia were about the economy and work. The applicant agreed, and said in the past he had wanted the situation to improve, as a long time ago there were riots, earthquakes and tsunamis, so he had summoned up the courage to come to Australia and live here for a long time.
The Tribunal asked the applicant about the claims in his protection visa application. He said a friend helped him to complete it. The Tribunal outlined the claims as including past harm, including beatings and death threats, from people obsessed with their Islamic religion, with the persons responsible for the harm including his family members, neighbours, and the entire Muslim society at Malaysia. The Tribunal sought to understand why the applicant had referred to harm from Malaysians. The applicant said he has some Malaysian friends in Indonesia, and that the border between Indonesia and Malaysia is not very far and there were different provinces like North Sumatra. The Tribunal accepts this is the case and asked if the applicant had experienced any harm from Malaysians, or if his friends had. The applicant said that he was just discussing the issue in relation to his religion. The Tribunal asked if he feared harm in Indonesia on the basis of his religion, Islam. The applicant indicated he did not; the circumstances have improved in his country. There was no conflict in his religion. He follows one of the official religions, Islam, as set out in the Pancasila. The Tribunal notes this is the official, foundational ideology of the Republic of Indonesia that dates from the time of independence and that it comprises the following five principles: belief in one God; just and civilised humanity; national unity; democracy under the wise guidance of representative consultations; and social justice for all Indonesians.[1] The Tribunal asked the applicant if he had experienced any harm at all, such as death threats, from anyone in Indonesia in the past. The applicant said no, and his family had not either. He said he had just seen the situation in Indonesia so that was why he went to Australia at the time.
[1] DFAT Country Information Report Indonesia, 24 July 2023 at [2.29].
As the above demonstrates, the applicant’s evidence at hearing (and in his written statement in the pre-hearing information form) indicated that he did not presently have fears returning to Indonesia apart from concerns about the economy. To the contrary, he wished to return there, and then come back to Australia to keep working here. The Tribunal explained to the applicant that the Tribunal’s role was to assess whether he met the criteria for a protection visa, and explained what that entailed, including that the applicant would need to face a real chance of serious harm, or a real risk of significant harm.
The Tribunal finds that the applicant is of Javanese ethnicity, Islamic faith, and has concerns about working due to the economic situation.
As put to the applicant, he is Javanese and Muslim, and the country information did not suggest that the applicant would be at risk of harm as a result of his ethnicity and/or religion. Rather, 40% of the population is Javanese,[2] and Islam is the dominant religion.[3] The applicant responded that perhaps now that was not the case, but in the past there was an ‘incident’ which was part of the reason he ‘summoned up the courage to come to Australia for a long time’. The Tribunal asked the applicant to what incident he referred, and he said that around six years ago there was an incident in North Sulawesi; there were racist people and beatings and killings involving Muslims and Christians. The Tribunal asked if he was referring to the terrorist attack in 2020 on several homes and a Salvation Army church in Central Sulawesi by the East Indonesia Mujahidin (MIT)[4] and the applicant agreed. The Tribunal accepts that the MIT, an Islamist militant group which pledged allegiance to the Islamic Group terror organisation, was active in the Sulawesi region between 2010-2022. The MIT has been effectively disbanded due to the Indonesian government’s counterterrorism efforts, including the killing of the group’s leader in 2016.[5] The Tribunal also notes that the Sulawesi region has historically experienced conflict between Muslims and Christians, such as the Poso Riots. More than 1000 people were killed between 1998 and 2001.[6]
[2] DFAT Country Information Report Indonesia, 24 July 2023, at [3.2].
[3] DFAT Country Information Report Indonesia, 24 July 2023, at [3.18].
[4] DFAT Country Information Report Indonesia, 24 July 2023, at [3.40].
[5] ABC News, 19 July 2016, ‘Santoso, Indonesia’s Most Wanted Islamist Militant, killed in firefight, police say’, Benar News, 2 December 2020, ‘How a Christian-Muslim Conflict in Eastern Indonesia Birthed the MIT Militant Group, ttps://
However, as put to the applicant, the past situation in the Sulawesi region did not appear to pose a risk to him now, or in the reasonably foreseeable future. The applicant’s home area of West Java is geographically distant from Sulawesi, the terror threat from there currently appears minimal, and the applicant is Muslim, rather than Christian. The Tribunal also put country information to the applicant about the situation generally in relation to terrorism in Indonesia. DFAT advises the following:
There have been fewer terrorist attacks in Indonesia in recent years, compared to during the first two decades of the 21st century. Attacks have not generally been as sophisticated, in large part due to efforts by authorities to detect and disrupt terrorist groups. Nevertheless, attacks can occur, including by individuals with links to, or inspired by, ISIS. In March 2021, for example, two married suicide bombers attacked a Catholic cathedral in Makassar, killing themselves and injuring 20 bystanders. In May 2021, police disrupted plans to kill a Catholic bishop in the Papua provinces and attack several churches.[7]
[7] DFAT Country Information Report Indonesia, 24 July 2023, at [2.33].
In response, the applicant said the situation was stable, with no terrorism, and has been totally cleaned up by government and police. The applicant did not express current fears about terrorism or his faith or his ethnicity. Nonetheless, the Tribunal finds, based on the country information, and the applicant’s own ethnicity and Islamic faith, that he does not face a real chance of serious harm, nor a real risk of significant harm, should he return home, now or in the reasonably foreseeable future, because of ethnicity, religion, terrorism and/or conflict between Muslims and Christians.
The Tribunal has also considered the applicant’s written claims, in his protection visa application, about having or expressing a different view to other Muslims which caused him harm in the past, including beatings, humiliation, rejection and death threats, from people including family members, neighbours and Malaysians. As outlined above, when queried about these claims, the applicant referred to having Malaysian friends, and was very clear with the Tribunal that he did not have fears regarding his Muslim religion and had not experienced any past harm in Indonesia. He did not articulate having any views about Islam which may be viewed unfavorably by others. The Tribunal, relying on the applicant’s clear oral evidence, finds that the applicant has never experienced harm on the basis of his religion, and had not expressed, does not possess, and would not in the future express, views about Islam which would attract adverse attention or cause him any harm. The Tribunal is also conscious of the general claims in the protection visa application about Australians having a greater ability to express beliefs than in Indonesia. During the hearing, the applicant did not express any concerns to the Tribunal in this regard, such as about his freedom of speech being curtailed. The applicant did not indicate he had any political opinions he wished to express and the Tribunal has found that he did not wish to express any views about Islam. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant faces a real chance of serious harm, or a real risk of significant harm, in the nature of restrictions on his freedom of speech or expression. The applicant also mentioned past worries about natural disasters but did not indicate this was a present fear or claim. Nonetheless, the Tribunal is not satisfied he faces a real chance or risk of this harm, and nor is the Tribunal satisfied that being a victim of a natural disaster satisfies the discriminatory element of persecution or is for one of the five refugee grounds in s 5J(1)(a), nor that it meets the definition of ‘significant harm’.

In relation to the applicant’s claim about the economic and employment situation in Indonesia, the Tribunal discussed the applicant’s employment history, and apparent resourcefulness in being able to sustain a life and work in Australia, and put to him the following country information:[8]
2.10 According to Statistics Indonesia, the unemployment rate was 5.8 per cent in August 2022. Many Indonesians work in the informal sector, including in small and medium enterprises, as contractors, or in the ‘gig economy’, for example driving cars or motorcycles hired through a mobile phone application.
2.11 Jakarta is the largest city with the most employment opportunities. In country sources told DFAT that informal work can be obtained without much difficulty in other big cities (for example, Makassar, Surabaya, or in the tourism industry in Bali). Personal connections, for example through family, previous work or within one’s own ethnic group, are helpful, but not essential, for finding informal employment.
[8] DFAT Country Information Report Indonesia, 24 July 2023.
In response, the applicant said that he hopes he gets a favourable decision as he would like to stay in Australia and would like a visa such as a PR or TR.
The accepts the applicant’s desire to obtain a visa allowing him to work in. However, the applicant has also demonstrated his ability to work in Indonesia and Australia and could use his experience and skills to find other work if needed. The Tribunal finds that the applicant would be able to support himself and would not suffer significant economic hardship that would threaten his capacity to subsist or anything that would otherwise amount to serious harm or significant harm.
While the applicant effectively only had present claims concerning the economy, the Tribunal is also not satisfied that the applicant faces a real chance of serious harm, or a real risk of significant harm, on the cumulative basis of the economy, security situation, natural disasters, ethnicity and religion.
For the above reasons, 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).
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.
…