2016849 (Refugee) - [2024] AATA 4209

2016849 (Refugee) [2024] AATA 4209 (11 October 2024)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER: 2016849

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE: China
MEMBER:Lilly Mojsin
DATE:11 October 2024
PLACE OF DECISION: Sydney
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicants protection visas.

Statement made on 11 October 2024 at 10:42am
CATCHWORDS
REFU REFUGEE – protection visa – China – particular social group – victim of loan sharks – threats from debt collectors – physical assault – state protection – fear of killing – return visit to China – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 5(1), 5H, 5J – 5LA, 36, 56, 65, 425, 441, 499
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2
CASES
Kopalapillai v MIMA (1998) 86 FCR 547
MIMA v Rajalingam (1999) 93 FCR 220
Randhawa v MILGEA (1994) 52 FCR 437
Selvadurai v MIEA & Anor (1994) 34 ALD 347
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

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 12 November 2020 to refuse to grant the applicants protection visas under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The first named applicant [applicant] is the wife of the second named applicant.
The applicants, who claim to be citizens of China, applied for the visas on 13 January 2019. The delegate refused to grant the visas on the basis that that the applicants would not suffer serious or significant harm on return to China within a reasonably foreseeable future.
The applicants appealed that decision to this Tribunal attaching a copy of the Department decision to the review application.
By letter dated 24 September 2024 and posted to the applicants, in accordance with section 441G of the Migration Act 1958, the applicants were notified that the Tribunal had considered the material before it but the Tribunal was unable to make a favourable decision on this information alone. The applicants were invited to appear before the Tribunal to give evidence and present arguments relating to the issues arising in relation to the decision under review, at a hearing on 28 October 2024 at 10.30 am.
The applicants were advised that, if they failed to attend the scheduled hearing and an adjournment was not granted, the Tribunal might make a decision on the review without taking any further action to allow or enable them to appear before the Tribunal.
On 8 October 2024, the applicants provided a completed response to the hearing invitation, and signed by the applicant, in which the applicants indicated that they will not participate in the hearing and consented to the Tribunal making a decision on the papers without taking further steps to allow them to appear.
I am satisfied that the applicants have consented to the Tribunal deciding the review without them appearing before it, and I have proceeded to make a decision on the information before the Tribunal and not to offer the applicants a hearing.
In accordance with s. 425(2)(b) I proceed to decide this application on the material before me.
CRITERIA FOR A PROTECTION VISA
See Annexure A
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
The first named applicant [applicant] only made claims for protection.
In the applicants’ PV application, the applicant stated:
· One day the underground bank sent people to her house to collect the money, and forced her parents to pay. They smashed all the goods in her home and beat her and her parents, as they were unable to repay the debt.
· The applicant called the police, but police did not respond to the call.
· The applicant wrote a public letter and distributed it to get attention and help from society.
· The ‘gangdom’ was the protective umbrella of the underground bank. They also colluded with the police.
· When the ‘gangdom’ found out that the applicant had distributed a letter to get the attention of the society, they sent police to catch her.
· Therefore, she escaped from China and fled to Australia. The Chinese government is corrupt and only care about their own benefits.
· If she has to return to China, she will be caught by the police and sent to prison. She will be persecuted and she will die.
On 7 October 2020, the delegate sent the applicant a letter inviting her under s56 of the Act to provide additional information about some of the claims made, clarification on particular points such as dates, locations and to provide supporting documentation. No further information was provided to the Department.
The applicant did not provide any further submissions or clarification of her claims to the Tribunal.
Country Information
The 2021 DFAT Country report on China states:
People who owe money to loan sharks
3.122 Usury has a long history in China. According to the South China Morning Post, ‘demand for private loans’ is strong today. This is due to small businesses in particular being unable to access enough credit from large banks. In modern times, loan sharks might be known by different names such as ‘private finance companies’ and are more likely to be active in poorer, rural areas.
3.123 Some protection is available to debtors. ‘Usurious loans’ are prohibited under China’s Civil Code, which came into force 1 January 2021, but the interest rate considered usurious is not defined in that legislation. The courts have capped interest rates at four times the official rate. A number of highly publicised violent crimes related to debt collection were discussed in the media in 2017 with police making arrests and people being convicted for serious crimes such as assault and sexual assault related to debt collection. DFAT is also aware of a 2018-20 crackdown by authorities on usury, which was highly public and which saw the prosecution of a large number of people.
3.124 Loan shark operations may be large-scale, but police operations are also large scale. In 2019, 253 suspects were arrested in a campaign against loan sharks in Lanzhou. The gang had over 1,300 mobile phone applications and websites to facilitate usurious moneylending. The Chinese Government claims that 41,000 suspects have been detained in 2021, but it is not clear if this is only during the recent crackdown, or if it includes previous arrests.
3.125 DFAT assesses that loan sharks are active in China, but assesses that state protection is available. DFAT considers that victims of loan sharks have a plausible fear of violence but that overall the risk is low.
Police
5.1 The Ministry of Public Security oversees the police force, which is organised into specialised police agencies and local, county, and provincial jurisdictions. These agencies often collectively and individually called the local ‘Public Security Bureau’ (PSB). The People’s Armed Police (PAP) is a paramilitary force organised under the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) responsible for internal security and stability (such as combatting riots and terrorism, but also domestic monitoring of perceived security threats), maritime security and support of the PLA. The PAP is also active in Xinjiang. Regular police generally do not carry firearms and gun crime is rare in China.
5.2 Police maintain public order and social stability, which are overriding priorities for the CCP. Loyalty to the Party is important among police ranks, as it is in all government positions. Police, including at lower levels, can be investigated for corruption (which is a threat to stability and Party legitimacy) and loyalty offences.
5.3 Police carry out day-to-day crime fighting activities and investigate crimes. Day-to-day crime rates are low in China but where crime does occur, DFAT understands that police investigate thoroughly and prosecute alleged criminals.
5.4 Police are subject to little oversight, having the ability to issue their own warrants without the involvement of a court (or ignoring regulations where this is required), for example. According to the US Department of State Human Rights Report, while investigations into police killings are often announced, the findings of those investigations are often not announced. DFAT is not able to verify this. Freedom House’s 2021 Freedom in the World report describes police impunity as ‘the norm’.
5.5 Police have access to enormous amounts of data and other evidence. Social media is monitored and an unprecedented number of closed-circuit television cameras have been rolled out during the COVID- 19 pandemic as part of efforts to control the virus.
REASONS AND FINDINGS
The applicants’ identities have been accepted by the Department in their visa application. On the basis of their Chinese passports I accept that the first applicant and the second applicant are nationals of the PRC and not nationals or citizens of any other country. I accept that they do not have a right to enter and reside in any country other than China. Therefore, I find that the applicants are not excluded from Australia's protection by subsection 36(3) of the Act. I also find that China is the applicants’ “receiving country” for the purposes of s.36(2)(aa).
I note that the benefit of the doubt should be given to asylum seekers who are generally credible but unable to substantiate all of their claims. The Tribunal must bear in mind that if it makes an adverse finding in relation to a material claim made by the applicant but is unable to make that finding with confidence it must proceed to assess the claim on the basis that it might be possibly true (see MIMA v Rajalingam (1999) 93 FCR 220). However, the Tribunal is not required to accept uncritically any or all of the allegations made by an applicant. Further, the Tribunal is not required to have rebutting evidence available to it before it can find that that the particular assertion by an applicant has not been made out (see, Randhawa v MILGEA (1994) 52 FCR 437 at 451 per Beaumont J; Selvadurai v MIEA & Anor (1994) 34 ALD 347 at 348 per Heerey J and Kopalapillai v MIMA (1998) 86 FCR 547).
The mere fact that a person claims fear of persecution for a particular reason does not establish either the genuineness of the asserted fear or that it is “well-founded” or that it is for the reason claimed. Similarly, that the 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”. It remains for the applicant to satisfy the Tribunal that all of the statutory elements are made out.
The applicant claims that she and her family had borrowed money from an underground bank who in order to collect their money, smashed all the goods in her home and beat her parents, as they were unable to repay the debt. The applicant called the police, but police did not respond to the call. The applicant wrote a public letter and distributed it to get attention and help. Had the applicants attended a hearing, information could have been obtained from the applicant as to when the money was borrowed, how much was borrowed and from whom. Information could have been obtained about the public letter and where and when it was distributed and to whom it was distributed and why a complaint was not made to the police. The independent evidence, cited above, indicates that the police can and do take action against usuaries.
There is no verifiable evidence before the Tribunal to support the claim that the applicant and/or her family owned a house and borrowed any money. Without further information from the applicant providing details of the loan and an explanation why the loan was not able to be repaid I do not accept that the applicant and/or her parents borrowed money from an underground bank who attacked and harmed them resulting in the applicant writing a public letter. Therefore it follows I do not accept that the ‘gangdom’ sent police to catch her.
Additionally, as outlined in the Department decision, attached to the review application, the applicants came to Australia in July 2018 and then departed Australia on 3 October 2018 and returned again to Australia [number] days later. Had the applicant attended hearing I would have been able to explore how and why the applicants were able to return China after claiming to have escaped from the police in China and then leave China again returning to Australia. Without further information from the applicants I do not accept that the applicant escaped from the police in China and fled to Australia.
I have considered the claims of the applicant individually and cumulatively. The applicants, Buddhist Chinese, have made no other claims of harm. I am satisfied that the applicants did not suffer serious harm in China, prior to their departure to Australia.
I am required to consider whether there is a real chance the applicants will suffer serious harm for a refuge reason on their return to China, within a reasonably foreseeable future.
The applicant claims that she fears harm from the gangdom, underground bank and police if the applicants return to China. I have found above that the applicants did not suffer serious harm in China therefore as the applicants did not attend the hearing and I have been unable to explore the applicant’s claims with her, I am not satisfied there is a real chance that the applicants will suffer serious harm upon their return to China, for reasons of their race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, within the reasonably foreseeable future.
I have considered the claims of the applicants individually and cumulatively. I am satisfied that the applicants do not have profiles that would cause them to be of any interest to the authorities or non-state agents, in the reasonably foreseeable future, if they return to China.
For the reasons given above, I am not satisfied that the applicants are persons in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(a).
The applicants are Buddhist Chinese. The applicants’ claims for complementary protection are the same as those put forward in relation to their refugee claims. I do not accept that the applicants were now, or ever were, of adverse interest to the Chinese authorities. The applicants do not claim to have been charged with any offences whilst living in China. Therefore I do not accept that the police will arrest, imprison or harm them on their return to China.
The Department's Complementary Protection Guidelines state that there must be a real and personal risk to the individual, saying that where the threat is from non-state actors, decision-makers should be satisfied that there are 'extremely widespread conditions of violence, coupled with a particular risk to the individual in question' before reaching a conclusion that there is a real risk that an applicant will be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life.
There is no evidence that there is a widespread condition of violence in China. I have found that the applicants did not suffer harm when they lived in China, I do not accept that there is a real risk of harm from non-state actors.
There is no evidence before the Tribunal to suggest that the applicants have committed any offence in China that would attract the death penalty.
I have considered the applicants’ claims singularly and cumulatively. As ‘real chance’ and ‘real risk’ involve the same standard, it follows that based on the same information, and for the reasons stated above, I am also satisfied there is not a real risk of significant harm to the applicants if returned to China within a reasonably foreseeable future.
I am not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicants being removed from Australia to China there is a real risk that the applicants will suffer significant harm i.e. that there is a real risk that they will be arbitrarily deprived of life, that the death penalty will be carried out on them, that they will be subjected to torture, that they will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment or that they will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment.
Accordingly, I find that the applicants do not satisfy the requirements of s.36(2)(aa) of the Act.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicants are persons in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(a).
Having concluded that the applicants do 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 applicants are persons in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(aa).
There is no suggestion that the applicants satisfy 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 applicants do not satisfy the criterion in s.36(2).
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicants protection visas.
Lilly Mojsin
Member

ANNEXURE A
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.
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.
…