2017928 (Refugee) - [2024] ARTA 544

2017928 (REFUGEE) [2024] ARTA 544 (11 NOVEMBER 2024)
DECISION AND
REASONS FOR DECISION
Respondent: Minister for Home Affairs

Tribunal Number: 2017928
Tribunal:General Member M. Moustafine
Date:11 November 2024
Decision:The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

Statement made on 11 November 2024 at 4:57pm
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – China – son of local official sought share of business without contributing money – harassed, fined, arrested and beaten, and business suspended – obtained passport and departed unhindered – applicant and husband no longer own business – application made after unable to pay tuition fees – vague, unsubstantiated and speculative claims and evidence – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5H(1)(a), 5J(1)(a), 36(2)(a), (aa), (2A), 65
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2
CASES
Luu v Renevier (1989) 91 ALR 39
MIEA v Guo (1997) 191 CLR 559
Prasad v MJEA (1985) 6 FCR 155
Randhawa v MIEA (1994) 52 FCR 437
Yao-Jing Li v MIMA (1997) 74 FCR 275
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 15 December 2020 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The applicant, who claims to be a national of China, is [Age] years old. She arrived in Australia [in] August 2019 as the holder of a Student visa valid until June 2021. On 15 January 2019 she applied for a Protection visa.
On 15 December 2020 the delegate refused to grant the visa as he was not satisfied that the applicant was a person in respect of whom Australia had protection obligations under either refugee or complementary protection criterion.
On 15 December 2020 the applicant applied to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) for a review of that decision.
On 14 October 2024, the AAT became the Administrative Review Tribunal (the Tribunal). 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.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 31 October 2024 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Mandarin and English languages.
BACKGROUND
Evidence before the Department
According to the Protection visa application form, the applicant was born in [Year] in [Town], Wuji county, Hebei province, China and lived in [Village], [Town], Wuji county, Hebei province until she left for Australia, where she arrived [in] August 2018. The applicant identified her ethnicity as Han and did not indicate any religion. She speaks, reads and writes in Mandarin. She completed three years of middle school [and] worked as a farmer from 2004 to 2015 and owned a restaurant in [Town] from 2015 to 2018. Her husband, whom she married [in] July 2010, [and children] were living in [Village], [Town], Hebei province and she contacted them once a week by WeChat. The applicant stated that she left China legally from Beijing airport on her Chinese passport, a copy of which was submitted with her application.
In summary, the applicant’s protection claims as set out in a statement submitted with her application were as follows:
a.She started running a restaurant named [Business name] in [named Road], [Town] in March 2015. In February 2018, [Mr A], the son of the town [official], tried to get some shares in her business when he saw it was profitable, without contributing any money to the business. When she rejected his request, he threatened to shut down her business.
b.One day in March, two young people came to the restaurant. After finishing more than half the dishes, they said the dishes did not taste good and required them to be changed. After an altercation with one of them, in which plates were smashed, she called the police, but the police let them go. She demanded the police to get compensation for her loss, but they persuaded her not to pursue it.
c.After that, officers from the Health Bureau came to her restaurant several times and issued her fines for different reasons. Other ‘rogues’ came to her restaurant to make trouble, eating and refusing to pay and deliberately harassed other customers, which seriously affected her business.
d.After the wife of the town [official] complained to the Health Bureau about a fly in her dish on May 8, the officers suspended her business for failing to meet hygiene standards. When she argued with police, they accused her of obstructing governmental administration and arrested her. She was held for 7 days at the [Town] Police Station because she refused to transfer the restaurant. She was beaten by several prisoners and shouted for help, but no guards turned up.
e.After the applicant reported the [Town] leaders to the Wuji County Discipline Inspection Commission for abuse of power and bullying civilians, the glass in her place was smashed in the middle of the night and she never got a reply on her reporting. [Mr A] told her triumphantly that her report letter was in the hands of his father, and she could do nothing about him. She went to the Petition Bureau of Shijiazhuang, but her petition letter was transferred to Wuji County.
f.One night in July, five masked people broke into her place with sharp knives, threatened to kill her if she did not stop petitioning and stabbed her. Her husband begged them to leave her alone and promised she would never petition any more, then took her to hospital for treatment.
g.Later, the village leaders, under the instruction of [Mr A], sent people to demolish her house. The four corners of her house were demolished, and the windows broken. Her husband begged them to stop. The village leaders blackmailed them for 30,000 Yuan.
h.They could not figure out why government officials could be so arrogant and corrupt and why no one came to punish them. She just wanted to run her business in a down-to-earth way but was driven desperate. In order to survive, she decided to flee China and came to Australia hoping for protection.
On 11 November 2020 the applicant was invited by the Department to provide additional information to substantiate her claims, including the dates and locations of various events, as well as supporting documentation, but failed to do so. She was not invited to attend an interview.
On 15 December 2020 the delegate refused to grant the applicant a Protection visa as he was not satisfied that the applicant was a person in respect of whom Australia had protection obligations under either refugee or complementary protection criterion.
The delegate found that the applicant’s claims lacked detail or supporting evidence, yet she failed to respond to the invitation to provide further information, details and evidence to support her claims. Further, the delegate noted that the applicant was able to obtain a Chinese passport and depart the country lawfully without any apparent problem despite her protection claims, which according to country information would make her of adverse interest to Chinese authorities. Given these factors, the delegate was not satisfied that the applicant participated in the claimed activities or suffered the kinds of adverse treatment or harassment in China as claimed. Nor was he satisfied that the applicant had any profile that would be of adverse interest to the Chinese authorities or anyone else if she returned to China in the foreseeable future.
Evidence before the Tribunal
On 15 December 2020 the applicant applied to the AAT for a review of the Department’s decision, a copy of which she provided for the purpose of the review. No other written material or evidence was provided to the Tribunal in support of the applicant’s claims for protection.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 31 October 2024 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Mandarin and English languages. The Tribunal discussed with the applicant her migration history, background in China and claims for protection. She told the Tribunal that her application form had been prepared by a lawyer but that she was aware of everything in it. Asked if she wished to add or change anything, the applicant said she wanted to clarify that the demolition of her house happened when she was really young. Where relevant the applicant’s evidence at the hearing is referred to 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.
Credibility
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. It remains for the applicant to satisfy the Tribunal that all of the statutory elements are made out: MIEA v Guo & Anor (1997) 191 CLR 559 at 596. Although the concept of onus of proof is not appropriate to administrative inquiries and decision-making (Yao-Jing Li v MIMA (1997) 74 FCR 275 at 288), the relevant facts of the individual case will have to be supplied by the applicant himself or herself, in as much detail as is necessary to enable the examiner to establish the relevant facts. A decision-maker is not required to make the applicant's case for him or her: Prasad v MJEA (1985) 6 FCR 155 at 169-70; Luu & Anor v Renevier (1989) 91 ALR 39 at 45. Nor is the Tribunal required to accept uncritically any and all the allegations made by an applicant: Randhawa v MIEA (1994) 52 FCR 437 at 451.
REASONS AND FINDINGS
The issue in this case is whether the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the refugee criterion or the complementary protection criterion.
Country of reference
On the basis of her Chinese passport provided to the Tribunal, and, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Tribunal accepts that the applicant is a national of China and considers China as the country of nationality and the receiving country for the purpose of assessing her claims against the refugee and complementary protection criteria, respectively.
The applicant’s claims
The applicant’s key claims are that because she refused to give a share of her restaurant business to the [official]’s son, his family sent the Health Department to investigate her. As a result, she was detained for eight days at the police station, where she was beaten and ill-treated. Because she subsequently petitioned the authorities about official corruption, she was stabbed by unknown masked men, resulting in her hospitalisation for abdominal injuries. The applicant also claimed in her application form that her family’s house was demolished in relation to her petitioning but later shifted her evidence to say this occurred when she was [Age] years old.
The Tribunal found the applicant’s claims vague, speculative and unsupported by evidence. For reasons outlined below, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
At the hearing the applicant told the Tribunal that she came to Australia on a Student visa in August 2018 to [study]. Her plan was to study for a year and then get a job in Australia. However, on arrival in Australia she discovered that, although she had paid for years’ tuition, the agent who arranged her visa had lied to her and had only paid for three months’ tuition. She was unable to continue studying, as she did not have enough money to pay more fees. As she did not want to go back to China but to stay in Australia, she applied for a Protection visa after three months. She is working as [an occupation]. In 2019 her husband came to Australia on a tourist visa to take care of her and has also applied for a Protection visa, while their [children] have remained in China with their grandparents.
Asked if she suffered serious or significant harm in China, the applicant told the Tribunal of two instances. Firstly, her family house was demolished around 2002 or 2003 when she was [Age] years old, leaving her and her single mother helpless. The harm she suffered as a result, was that to this day she cannot believe anyone. Secondly, she claimed she suffered serious harm when the son of the [official] wanted her to sign over a share of the profitable restaurant she ran with her husband and his mother called the Public Health department to investigate the health standards in their restaurant in May 2018. This resulted in her being detained for eight days at the local police station, where she had to sleep near the toilet and was verbally abused. When she wrote a petition to the authorities about the abuse of power her petition ended up in the hands of the [official]. In July 2018 she was stabbed by someone who broke into her house. Her husband took her to hospital where she stayed for half a month and reported it to the police, but they took no action. Her husband tried unsuccessfully to find the person who stabbed her. As strange people kept coming to their restaurant to cause trouble, they transferred the business to someone, but not the [official]’s son. She left China for Australia legally without impediment.
The Tribunal asked the applicant why she now feared returning to China, given that five years had passed since she allegedly experienced trouble in China and she and her husband no longer owned the restaurant that was at the centre of her alleged troubles. She responded vaguely that she would face the same issues as before if she looked for a job or tried to start a new business because people with government connections had the advantage and she did not have strong connections in the government. She claimed that ‘some people from the town’ would cause trouble for them again because their restaurant business had been quite profitable.
As discussed with the applicant, the Tribunal found her evidence regarding key aspects of her claims for protection vague, unsubstantiated and speculative. She has provided no evidence that would demonstrate that she and her husband ever owned a restaurant in China, such as registration papers or a business license, nor that she had problems as a result, including being detained by police in May 2018. Neither has the applicant provided a copy of her petition to the authorities, medical reports or discharge records to support her hospitalisation after a stabbing incident or the report her husband made to the police. Further, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the alleged demolition of the applicant’s family house in China ever happened, given the disparity in the alleged timing between her application form (after she petitioned authorities in 2018) and her clarification at the hearing that it took place in 2002 or 2003.
Significantly, as put to the applicant, in the Tribunal’s view, none of the alleged experiences of harm she claims to have suffered in China or the harm she fears she may face on return there, amount to serious or significant harm as defined in the legislation. The applicant responded that she understood. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant came to Australia because she wanted to study and work here and considers that, when she was unable to pay for her tuition fees, she fabricated her protection claims in order to achieve a migration outcome.
Having considered all of the applicant’s claims, individually and cumulatively, and all the evidence before it, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant ever had a restaurant in China, of which the [official]’s son wanted a share; nor that his family created problems for her with the health department, which resulted in her being detained at the local police station, where she had to sleep near the toilet, was beaten or verbally abused, as claimed. Nor is the Tribunal satisfied that the applicant petitioned higher authorities regarding the corrupt behaviour of local officials, which led to her being stabbed by unknown masked men and her hospitalisation for treatment of abdominal injuries, as claimed. It follows that the Tribunal is not satisfied that if she returns to China now, the applicant will face the same issues as before if she looks for a job or tries to start a new business or that ‘some people from the town’ will cause trouble for her because her previous restaurant business was quite profitable. Further, the Tribunal shares the Department’s view that, as the applicant was able to leave China legally without impediment, she does not have a profile that would be of adverse interest to the Chinese authorities if she returns to China in the foreseeable future.

Accordingly, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a real chance that, if the applicant were to return to China now or in the reasonably foreseeable future, she would face serious harm for any of the reasons contemplated by s.5J(1)(a) of the Act or that the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution. For the same reasons, on the evidence before it, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to China, there is a real risk that she will suffer significant harm.
CONCLUSIONS
For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(a).
Having concluded that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), the Tribunal has considered the alternative criterion in s 36(2)(aa). The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(aa).
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 not to grant the applicant a protection visa.
Date of hearing:       31 October 2024
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.
…