2100039 (Refugee) - [2025] ARTA 1077

2100039 (REFUGEE) [2025] ARTA 1077 (14 JANUARY 2025)
DECISION AND
REASONS FOR DECISION
Respondent: Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

Tribunal Number: 2100039
Tribunal:General Member M. Moustafine
Date:14 January 2025

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

Statement made on 14 January 2025 at 8:44am
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – China – house demolished for apartment construction with no compensation – beaten, arrested and warned – found by police after relocating – no appearance at hearing, application dismissed, application for reinstatement and consent to decision without hearing – vague claims and evidence – unhindered departure on own passport – country information – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5H(1)(a), 5J(1)(a), 36(2)(a), (aa), (2A), 65, 379A(5)
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2
Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth), s 106(1), (3)
CASES
Luu v Renevier (1989) 91 ALR 39
MIEA v Guo (1997) 191 CLR 559
Prasad v MIEA (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 14 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, arrived in Australia [in] November 2017 as the holder of a Visitor visa and applied for a Protection visa on 21 February 2018. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that 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 3 January 2021 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 ART), here forward ‘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.
On 22 October 2024 the applicant was invited to appear before the Tribunal on 14 November 2024 at 10:30 am to give evidence and present arguments relating to the issues arising in his case. The hearing notice stated that the Tribunal had considered the material before it but was unable to make a favourable decision on that information alone. The applicant was requested to provide all documents he intended to rely on to support his case ahead of the hearing. Another copy of the hearing notice was emailed to the applicant on 13 November 2024 after he notified the Tribunal of a change of email address on 11 November 2024.
The review applicant did not appear before the Tribunal on the day and at the scheduled time and place. Satisfied that the review applicant was properly invited to a hearing in accordance with s 379A(5) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), the Tribunal decided to dismiss the application without further consideration of that application or the information before it, as foreshadowed in the hearing notice.
On 14 November 2024, the applicant emailed to the Tribunal a request for reinstatement of his application on the grounds that after notifying the Tribunal of the change to his email address, he only saw the notice of the hearing on day of the hearing. He also submitted a response to the notice of hearing indicating that he did not wish to participate in the hearing and request the Tribunal to make a decision on the papers without holding a hearing and confirmed this in an email on 18 November 2024. On 20 November 2024 the applicant was advised that the Tribunal agreed to reinstate his application.
The Tribunal considers that the applicant has been given every opportunity to participate in a hearing, to provide further information and evidence in support of his claims for protection. As the applicant has confirmed twice that he does not wish to participate in a hearing, requested that a decision be made on the papers and chosen not to provide any further information or evidence in support of his case, the Tribunal has concluded that the applicant has provided information and evidence on everything he wanted to provide in support of his case. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal has assessed that it is reasonable to proceed to make a decision without holding a hearing and is satisfied that that the issues for determination in the proceeding can be adequately determined in the absence of the parties to the proceeding, as required by ss 106(1) and (3) of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth) (ART Act).
BACKGROUND
Evidence before the Department
According to his Protection visa application form, the applicant was born on [Date] in Ziyang City, Sichuan province, China where he lived until he left for Australia. The applicant identified his ethnicity as Chinese. He speaks, reads, and writes in Mandarin. He completed six years of secondary education in [Year] and worked in a [factory] until he left China. He stated that he had never married or been in a de facto relationship and did not identify any family members in Australia or overseas. The applicant stated that he left China [in] November 2017 legally on his Chinese passport, a copy of which was submitted with her application.
The applicant’s protection claims as set out in his application form were as follows:
I had to leave China when the police continued to harass and hunt for me in China after my home was destroyed. The mayor said that we would receive compensation if we left our homes and it was demolished for them to build new apartments. But they never paid us. They come one morning with crews of construction workers and forced me out of the house. They pushed me to the ground and I pushed them back. Then all the men started to hit and punch me, then kicked me while I was on the floor.
They then told lies to the police about me, and the police arrested me. Inside the prison, they hit me and told me that I must not start fight with the mayor's people. The mayor must have bribed the police and told them to harm me further and punish me for stopping the construction work. My home was destroyed and I went to another province to stay with my friends because I had nowhere to go.
The police were able to find me and they arrested me again. This time they told me that I owed money to the mayor for hurting the construction worker and stopping their work. They punched me in the stomach and told me that I had to pay him.
That is when I knew that I had to flee China and seek protection in another country. It is not safe for me in China anymore.
I think that if I return back to China the police will continue to hunt and try to find me. It will not be safe for me to stay in China.
The police have already found me once before when I had left to go to another province to stay in another state. They wanted me to compensate them and the mayor for stopping work. The mayor will not stop trying to find people to harm me. It is not safe for me to stay in China.
I did not know where to seek help from because the police were the ones which had harmed me. I knew that I had to leave China to keep myself safe.
I was harmed by the construction workers before already.
The police found me and harmed me again for not being able to compensate the mayor. They wanted money from me for stopping their work.
I will not be safe and will not be able to live a normal life if I have to go back to China. It is not safe for me there.
The authorities want to harm me. The police have already hurt me before and were bribed to do so. I cannot return back to China because they will not protect me. They will harm me.
I moved away to another province, but the police still came and found me. They have been corrupted and will do anything to make sure that I am not able to live a normal life. They want money to go away and stop bothering me. But I have no money and my home was destroyed.
The police have harmed me and will not protect me. I cannot relocate because of this. It is safer for me to be outside of China.
On 16 September 2020 the Department wrote to the applicant under s 56 of the Act inviting him to provide additional information, including exact dates and locations, when and where each claimed event occurred as well as any documents or other evidence in support of his claims, such as copies of land documents/title deeds for the land/residence which the dispute is about; copies of any offers of compensation he received; copies of any letters or petitions he may have sent to government officials about the matter; copies of police charge sheets, arrest warrants, discharge documents and any other official documentation relating to his arrest and imprisonment. Noting the applicant departed China legally through an international airport using his own valid passport and country information regarding China’s sophisticated security checking system at major airports, the Department invited the applicant’s comment on its suggestion that he was not of interest to the authorities when he exited China and would not be of interest to the authorities if he returned to China. The applicant failed to provide the information requested by the Department in the specified timeframe.
On 14 December 2020 the delegate refused to grant the applicant a Protection visa as she was not satisfied that he was a person in respect of whom Australia had protection obligations under either the refugee or complementary protection criterion. In the decision, the delegate set out relevant country information, including from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), regarding dissent and the ability of persons with adverse profiles with the Chinese authorities to depart China. The delegate noted that the Chinese authorities did not tolerate organised opposition and that those who raise sensitive topics may be subject to surveillance. However, in light of the lack of detail or supporting evidence provided by the applicant to support his claims, as well as his ability to obtain a passport and depart China lawfully without any apparent problem despite his protection claims, the delegate was not satisfied that the applicant participated in the activities or suffered the kinds of adverse treatment or harassment in China as claimed.
Evidence before the Tribunal
On 5 October 2020, the applicant applied to the Tribunal for a review of the Department’s decision, a copy of which he provided to the Tribunal for the purposes of the review.
On 5 August 2024, in preparation for the hearing, the Tribunal invited the applicant to submit any further information and supporting evidence relating to his claims for protection within 7 days of receipt of the email. No response was provided to the pre-hearing information request.
The applicant declined the opportunity to appear at a hearing before the Tribunal to give evidence and present arguments requesting that the Tribunal make a decision on the papers without holding a hearing. He did not provide any further evidence in support of his claims for protection.
Accordingly, the Tribunal has proceeded to decide this matter on the evidence available to it.
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 (DFAT) expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.
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.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
Country of reference
On the basis of his Chinese passport provided to the Department, 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 his claims against the refugee and complementary protection criteria, respectively.
Assessment of claims
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.
The applicant claims that he left China because police harassed and hunted for him after he was forced from his home, which was destroyed to build new apartments, without any compensation. This included being arrested on two occasions and assaulted by construction workers, as well as by police for not paying money to the mayor for hurting the construction worker and stopping their work. The applicant fears that police will continue to hunt for him and harm him if he returns to China.
The applicant’s claims in his Protection visa application lacked relevant details about the timing and location of the incidents and no supporting evidence was provided regarding the alleged demolition of his house, his arrests by police. The applicant did not respond to the Department’s invitation to provide more information, including the details of where and when the events took place or documentary evidence to substantiate his protection claims (paragraph 11 refers). Nor did the applicant provide comment on the Department’s suggestion that his ability to depart China legally on his own passport without any apparent problem suggested that he was not of adverse interest to the Chinese authorities. Significantly, the applicant did not provide any further information to the Tribunal or avail himself of the opportunity to appear before it to provide more detailed oral evidence about his claims for protection.
The Tribunal has had regard to the applicant’s evidence, as well as relevant country information set out in the delegate’s decision. In particular, it notes DFAT advice that the Chinese government maintains a system of strict border controls at airports and other border crossings that prevent persons with an adverse profile with authorities departing the country.
On the limited evidence before it, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant has been truthful about his experiences in China, including that his house was demolished to make way for an apartment block without compensation; that he was assaulted by construction workers and arrested and assaulted by police in relation to his alleged conflict with local authorities over the house demolition; that the police were chasing him; or that he left China for this reason. As the applicant indicated in his Protection visa application form, that he left China legally on his own passport, the Tribunal is satisfied that he did not have an adverse profile with the Chinese authorities when he left China. It follows that the Tribunal is not satisfied that the police will continue to hunt for and harm the applicant if he returns to China.
Having considered all the evidence before it, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant faces a real chance of serious harm on return to China for any of the reasons envisaged in s5J(1)(a) of the Act, now or in the reasonably foreseeable future. The Tribunal is therefore not satisfied that the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution in China.
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 he will suffer significant harm for the reasons claimed or any other reason.
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.
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.
…