2017423 (Refugee) - [2024] ARTA 663

2017423 (REFUGEE) [2024] ARTA 663 (14 NOVEMBER 2024)
DECISION AND
REASONS FOR DECISION
Respondent: Minister for Home Affairs

Tribunal Number: 2017423

Tribunal:General Member Wearne
Date:14 November 2024

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

Statement made on 14 November 2024 at 4:35pm
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – China – corruption – criminal gangs – attack on business and home – state protection – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024, ss 9, 106
Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and transitional Provisions No1) Act 2024
Migration Act 1958, ss 5(1), 5AAA, 5H, 5J – 5LA, 24, 36, 65, 499
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2
CASES
Luu v Renevier (1989) 91 ALR 39
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Guo & Anor (1997) 191 CLR 559
Prasad v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1985) 6 FCR 155
Randhawa v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1994) 52 FCR 437
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 December 2020 to refuse to grant the applicants protection visas under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The applicants, who claim to be nationals of China, applied for the visas on 25 September 2018. The second named applicant (the second applicant) did not make her own claims for protection. They were not offered an interview by the Department. However, they were sent a letter on 2 November 2020 inviting them to provide additional information about their claims. This letter advised them that their statement of claims lacked substantiating details such as dates and locations and supporting documentation. The letter also noted that to assist the delegate in deciding whether to accept that the claims were genuine they were invited to provide more information about what happened in China, including dates and locations of events. As at the date of the delegate’s decision, no further information had been provided by the applicants.
The visas were refused because the delegate was not satisfied the first named applicant (the applicant) was a refugee as defined by s 5H(1) of the Act, or that there are substantial reasons for believing that there is a real risk he will suffer significant harm as defined in s 36(2)(aa). It followed that the second applicant was also refused the visa. Specifically, the delegate found that the claims lacked detail and corroborative evidence, and the applicants had not responded to the invitation to provide further information. The delegate also considered that the applicants were able to obtain Chinese passports and depart the country lawfully without any apparent problem despite their protection claims, which would make them of adverse interest to Chinese authorities. The delegate considered country information and was not satisfied they had a profile that would be of adverse interest to the Chinese authorities.
The applicants lodged an application for review of the delegate’s decision with the former Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the AAT) on 3 December 2020. On 14 October 2024 the AAT was abolished and replaced with the Administrative Review Tribunal (the ART). Under the transitional provisions in the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 (the Transitional Act), applications for review to the AAT that were not finalised before 14 October 2024 are taken to be an application for review to the Tribunal. The Transitional Act gives the Tribunal the authority to continue and finalise any aspect of the review not already completed by the AAT. This decision and statement of reasons is made by the Tribunal.
On 5 August 2024 the Tribunal wrote to the applicants advising that their file was being prepared to give to a Member, and requested they complete the attached pre‑hearing information form. This form also asked the applicants whether they wished to provide any more information about their claims for protection and whether they wish to submit any further evidence. No response was received from the applicants.
The applicants were invited to a hearing on 23 October 2024 to give evidence and present arguments. The hearing invitation noted that the Tribunal had considered the material before it but was unable to make a favourable decision on that information. The hearing was an opportunity for the applicants to further present their claims and evidence.
On 22 October 2024 the applicants emailed their Response to hearing invitation stating that they would not be participating in the hearing and consented to the Tribunal making a decision on the papers without taking further steps to allow them to appear. This form noted that if the applicants did not want a hearing the decision will be made based on the information and evidence before the Tribunal. The applicants also submitted a full 2019 China Human Rights Report.[1] No explanation was made of how or which section on the Report related to their claims. No other evidence to that already provided was submitted, included or referred to.
[1] The Country Report on Human Rights for 2019, China (includes Tibet, Hong Kong and Macau), United States Department of State, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor.
Unfortunately, in making the above response, the applicants used an email address not registered at the Tribunal and this together with a system fault delayed their email request reaching the Member until 7 November 2024. The initial dismissal decision made on 23 October 2024 was made in ignorance of their request made before the hearing date for the decision to be made on the papers. Under provisions of the Transitional Act, proceedings must be continued in an efficient and fair manner.[2] I think that the fair and efficient course is to ignore my flawed initial dismissal decision and consider the applicants’ request to decide the proceedings on the information before me.
[2] Section 24(2).
Accordingly, the issues in this case are as follows:
·Should the Tribunal proceed to decide the matter without holding a hearing? If so,
·whether there is a real chance, if the applicants return to China, either of them would be persecuted for one or more of the following reasons: race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion; And, if not,
·whether there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of them being removed from Australia to China, there is a real risk that either of them will suffer significant harm.
Reaching a decision without a hearing
For the reasons that follow, I have decided to make a decision without a hearing. Section 106 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth) (the ART Act) sets out the circumstances in which the Tribunal may reach a decision without a hearing.
Section 106(1) states that the Tribunal may make a decision relating to the application after considering documents given to the Tribunal without holding a hearing if any of ss (2) to (5) apply. Relevant to this review, s 106(3) provides that a decision can be made without a hearing if:
·    the only parties to the proceeding are the applicant and a non-participating party to the proceeding; and
·    the applicant requests the Tribunal to make its decision without holding a hearing; and
·    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 matter, the applicants were invited to attend a hearing to give evidence and present arguments. The hearing invitation noted that the Tribunal had considered the material before it but was unable to make a favourable decision on that information. This hearing was an opportunity for the applicants to further present their claims and provide further evidence. In response, the applicants consented to a decision being made without appearing. I consider that this is effectively a request to make a decision without holding a hearing. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the information provided in the Response to hearing invitation form indicates the applicants have made a request to make a decision without holding the hearing of a proceeding.[3]
[3] Within the meaning of s 106(3)(b)(ii) of the ART Act.
Having considered all the documents given to the Tribunal, I am also satisfied that the only parties to the proceeding are the applicant and a non-participating party to the proceeding.[4]
[4] Section 106(3)(a) ART Act.
‘Adequately determined’ is not defined in the ART Act and to there is not yet any relevant court authority about the meaning of this phrase in the Act. The Macquarie Dictionary defines ‘adequate’ as ‘equal to the requirement or occasion; fully sufficient, suitable or fit’ and in a legal context as ‘reasonably sufficient for starting legal action’ in the sense of ‘adequate grounds’.[5] Given the alternate inclusion of s 106(3)(b)(i) contemplates a decision being made wholly in favour of the applicant, it appears that ‘adequately determined’ in s 106(3)(c) does not mean a decision favourable to the applicant.
[5] Macquarie Dictionary – Accessed 9 November 2024.
In considering the issue of reaching a decision without a hearing, I am guided by s 9 of the ART Act which provides that the Tribunal must pursue the objective of providing an independent mechanism of review that:
·is fair and just; and
·ensures that applications to the Tribunal are resolved as quickly, and with as little formality and expense, as a proper consideration of the matters before the Tribunal permits; and
·is accessible and responsive to the diverse needs of parties to proceedings; and
·improves the transparency and quality of government decision-making; and
·promotes public trust and confidence in the Tribunal.
Bearing in minds ss 9, 106(1) and (3) of the ART Act and the ordinary meaning of the term, ‘adequately determined’ can be taken to mean that in appropriate circumstances the Tribunal may make its decision without holding a hearing, in order to resolve the proceeding quickly, if it also appears to the Tribunal that this can be done in a fully sufficient, suitable or fit manner based on all the evidence before it and where it would be reasonable in all the circumstances to do so.
I have also considered that the applicants have been provided with several opportunities, as set out above, by the Department and Tribunal to provide further evidence and information about their claims. They were invited to attend a hearing to give evidence and present arguments. The hearing invitation noted that the Tribunal had considered the material before it but was unable to make a favourable decision on the information before it. This was an opportunity for them to further present their case and to provide further evidence. They have submitted the Human Rights Report, referred to above. I have also considered s 5AAA of the Act which states that it is the responsibility of an applicant to specify all particulars of their claims and to provide sufficient evidence to establish them. I have considered the statutory objectives of the ART as outlined above. For these reasons, I find that the issues for determination in the proceeding can be adequately determined in the absence of the parties to the proceeding.
Finally, I have considered whether it would be more reasonable to invite the applicants to a further hearing to give them another opportunity to provide specifics of their claims and to substantiate them; and/or to invite the applicants to make further submissions to elaborate on their claims. The Tribunal has already written to them inviting them to provide further evidence as to their claims, as did the Department. It advised the applicants in the hearing invitation that the Tribunal had considered the material before it but was unable to make a favourable decision on the information before it. The hearing was an opportunity for them to further present their claims and evidence. The applicants have not engaged with the Department. They have not engaged with the Tribunal except to request Medicare letters,[6] consent to a decision being made on the papers and provide the Human Rights Report referred to above. I am accordingly of the view that to undertake any further outreach to the applicants is counter to the objectives of the ART to provide a mechanism for review which ensure matters can be resolved as quickly, and with as little formality and expense, as a proper consideration of the matters before the Tribunal permits.
[6] 14 September 2021, 7 October 2022 and 31 October 2023.
I have decided that the issues in this proceeding can be adequately determined in the absence of the parties[7] and make a decision without holding the hearing in accordance with the applicants’ request.
[7] Section 106(3)(c) of the ART Act
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.
CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
The application form indicates the applicant is [an age]-year-old[8] man born in Fujian, China. He departed China on [a day in] July 2018 on a Chinese passport valid to 2025. The second applicant is his wife. They married in November 1989. She is [age] years old,[9] also born in Fujian. She departed China on the same day on a Chinese passport valid to 2027. They provided details of the parents, education and employment.
[8] Born in [specified year]
[9] Born in [specified year]
In the reasons for claiming protection, the applicant claims:
·He was the [manager] of a [specified] department before he came to Australia, and purchasing [supplies] was one of his duties. The son of the local government officer wanted him to purchase supplies from the son’s company. After refusing the son many times, the applicant was threatened and told he would be forced to cooperate.
·After that, gangsters often came to his work and home to cause trouble. They threw furniture, knocked at the door and threw stones at the windows. He was scared. He and his wife could not sleep. He called the police but no one came to help as they did not want to go against the local government officer.
·He felt his life would be dangerous if he lives in China, so he fled to Australia.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
REASONS AND FINDINGS
Nationality
On the basis of their Chinese passports,[10] I accept that the applicants are nationals of China and consider that China is the country of nationality and the receiving country is China for the purpose of assessing their claims against the refugee and complementary protection criteria respectively.
Consideration of the claims
[10] Copies of the biodata pages of their Chinese passports are held on the Department file.
The applicant claimed that he was being pressured by the son of the local government officer to purchase supplies from his company; the applicant refused to do so and was targeted by the son and gangsters. Stones were thrown at windows, furniture was thrown and there were knocks at the door. He claims the police did not assist him as they did not want to go against the local government officer.
I note that judicial authority indicates that a decision-maker is not required to make the applicant’s case for them[11] and they are not required to accept uncritically all or any claims made by an applicant.[12]
[11] Prasad v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1985) 6 FCR 155, 169–70; Luu v Renevier (1989) 91 ALR 39, 45.
[12] Randhawa v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1994) 52 FCR 437, 451; Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Guo & Anor (1997) 191 CLR 559, 596.
The applicants made these claims for protection in their application dated on 25 September 2018. They have not provided details of times, locations or any corroborative evidence of these claims despite being given the opportunity to do so both by the Department and the Tribunal. They have not indicated how the Human Rights Report submitted is relevant to their claims. The only information available to me about the claims is the applicant’s own claims about what occurred in China.
I have considered the claims, but on the very limited information before me, I am not satisfied that the claimed past events in China occurred. I am not satisfied that the applicants departed China for the reasons claimed. It follows that I do not accept that there is a real chance the applicants will face serious harm in connection with these events if they return to China now or in the reasonably foreseeable future. I find that the applicants do not meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a) of the Act.

Having concluded that the applicants do not meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), I have considered the alternative criterion in s 36(2)(aa). For the same reasons set out in the preceding paragraphs, 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 they will suffer significant harm. Accordingly, I dind that they do not meet the criterion in s 36(2)(aa) of the Act.
For the reasons given above, I am not satisfied that either of the applicants is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations. Therefore, the applicants do not satisfy the criterion set out in s 36(2)(a) or (aa) for a protection visa. It follows that they are also unable to satisfy the criterion set out in s 36(2)(b) or (c) and cannot be granted the visa.
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decisions not to grant the applicants a protection visa.
General Member Wearne
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.
…