2101082 (Refugee)

[2022] AATA 797

2101082 (Refugee) [2022] AATA 797 (28 March 2022)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  2101082

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Afghanistan

MEMBER:Sean Baker

DATE:28 March 2022

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

DECISION:The Tribunal remits the matter for reconsideration with the direction that the applicants satisfy s 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act.

Statement made on 28 March 2022 at 5:14pm

CATCHWORDS

REFUGEE – protection visa – Afghanistan – ethnicity, religion, gender and imputed political opinion – Hazara Shia woman working in government-related occupations with specified people and girls – husband a government employee – discrimination, harm and relocation – fear of harm from Taliban and other militant groups – right to enter and reside in third country – husband’s visa for third country conditional on employment, which has now ceased – husband currently in fourth country on short-term visa – member of family unit – country information – decision made without hearing necessary – decision under review remitted

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5H(1), 5J(1), 36(2)(a), (3), 65, 425(2)(a)

Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2

Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other dependants.

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 14 January 2021 to refuse to grant the applicants protection visas under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).

2. The applicants who claim to be citizens of Afghanistan, applied for the visas on 10 February 2020. The delegate accepted that the applicants would face persecution on return to Afghanistan but refused to grant the visas on the basis that the applicants had not taken all possible steps to avail themselves of a right to enter and reside in [Country 1].

3. Having considered all of the information before me, including the submissions received on 28 March 2022, I consider that I should decide the review in the applicants’ favour on the basis of the material before me, and have not invited the applicants to a hearing pursuant to s. 425(2)(a).

4. The applicants were represented in relation to the review.

   CRITERIA FOR A PROTECTION VISA

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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).

8. 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.

9. 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

10. 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.

    CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

11. The issue in this case is whether there is a real chance of the applicants being persecuted if they return to Afghanistan, and whether they have not taken all possible steps to avail themselves of a right to enter and reside in a safe third country.  .For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the .matter should be remitted for reconsideration.

12. The first named applicant claims to fear harm on return to Afghanistan for the following reasons:

    ·     She is a Shia Hazara, born in [Location], [village], [district], Ghazni province, Afghanistan.

    ·     She travelled to Australia with her son, the second named applicant, from [Country 1], where her husband worked as [an Occupation 1] for the Afghan government (as it then was).

    ·     The applicant and her family have experienced harm, discrimination and have had to relocate within Afghanistan to avoid the Taliban and other fundamentalist groups

    ·     The applicant worked as [an Occupation 2] in Afghanistan and was threatened for doing so. She worked [doing a job task with people] at a [Workplace] and her and the second named applicant were threatened by to men on a motorbike for doing so. She quit her job and her son had nightmares and suffered psychologically because of this incident.

    ·     At the time of lodging her applicant the applicant stated that she feared she would be captured, tortured and killed by the Taliban, Islamic State and Sunni militant groups for one or more of the following reasons:

    a.being Shia Hazara;

    b.being a woman [doing a job task with specified people], Shias and Hazaras;

    c.co-operating with foreigners who are viewed as occupiers by extremist groups;

    d.being a failed asylum seeker from a western country;

    e.working as [an Occupation 2 with girls].

    ·     At the time of lodging her application, she stated that the Afghan authorities were unable to provide adequate protection as the Taliban, Islamic State, other Sunni extremist groups and lawless armed militias operate with impunity where people associated with the government are targeted and that relocation was not an option.

13. Since the refusal of the visas, the situation in Afghanistan has changed dramatically.

14. On 28 March 2022 in response to a query from the Tribunal, the applicant’s representative provided information about the situation of the applicant’s husband which allowed me to make a decision on the papers without a hearing.

15. The submissions established that:

    ·     The family of the applicant, who remain in Afghanistan, are in a difficult situation and have been unable to leave Afghanistan.

    ·      When the Afghan government collapsed, the applicant’s husband ([Mr A]) no longer had a job as [an Occupation 1] and travelled to [Country 2] where he remains on a 12 month short term visa (evidence of this was attached). He is anxious that he may be returned to Afghanistan. The Taliban approached his parents after they took over Afghanistan, demanding to know where [Mr A] was. [Mr A]’s parents were unable to flee and are in hiding.

    ·     The applicant and her son are in a difficult situation in Australia with only the applicant’s sister-in-law for support.

16. I have had regard to the evidence provided to the Department and to the record of interview conducted by the Department. I accept the evidence provided by the applicant without reservation.

17. I accept that the applicants are Hazara and Shia, nationals of Afghanistan with no nationality of another country. I accept that the first named applicant has worked as [an Occupation 2] as well as a role in a government [Workplace] in Afghanistan. I accept that she is the wife of a former [Occupation 1] with the previous Afghan government. I accept that the second named applicant is a dependent of the first named applicant and a member of her family unit.

18. I accept the evidence that [Mr A] is no longer [an Occupation 1] in [Country 1] after the fall of the Afghan government with whom he served. I accept that he travelled to [Country 2] where he now holds a temporary visa.

19. I find that the right of the applicants to enter and reside in [Country 1] was explicitly conditional on [Mr A] remaining as [an Occupation 1] there. He is no longer and has not been since the fall of the Afghan government. I find therefore that the circumstances on which the applicants were granted the right to enter and reside in [Country 1] no longer exists. I find that the visas for [Country 1] attached to the applicants’ passports would not allow either of them to enter [Country 1] now or in the reasonably foreseeable future because the pre condition on which those [Country 1] visas was granted no longer exits, and that the [Country 1] authorities would be aware the [Mr A] is no longer an Afghan [Occupation 1] in [Country 1].

20. I find that [Mr A]’s temporary visa in [Country 2] does not, on the face of it, nor would it appear logically, to allow the applicants to travel to and enter [Country 2].

21. I find therefore that there is no presently existing right, however expressed, for either of the applicants to enter and reside in any other country. Section 36(3) therefore does not apply to either applicant.

22. I have therefore assessed their claims against Afghanistan as the country they would be returning to.

    Country information

23. Following 20 years of insurgency, the Taliban took control of Kabul and almost all of the rest of Afghanistan on 15 August 2021 and declared an Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. International forces departed and aid money directed to the previous Afghan government stopped, and many of the assets of the previous Afghan government were frozen overseas.

24. The economy is in crisis and close to or in collapse and food shortages have been widely reported. Much of the population suffers acute food insecurity[1] The Taliban set up an ‘interim government’ in September and October 2021, with the announcement of some 88 appointments across 30 ministries. The occupants of these positions are mostly Pashtun and chiefly long-serving Taliban commanders with little relevant government experience. There are no women among them and few representatives of ethnic minorities.[2]

    [1] UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), UNHCR Guidance Note on the International Protection Needs of People Fleeing Afghanistan, February 2022, available at: DFAT Thematic Report Afghanistan - Political and Security Developments August 2021 to January 2022 (14 January 2022).

25. Despite statements to the contrary from Taliban leaders including Sirajuddin Haqqani, leader of the HQN and deputy leader of the Taliban, there have been waves of killings of journalists, human rights activists, judicial workers, doctors and clerics.[3] Whilst the takeover by the Taliban means there has been a reduction in mass casualty attacks perpetrated by the Taliban, Islamic State in Khorasan Province (ISKP) has perpetrated mass casualty attacks since August 2021. While indiscriminate attacks by the Taliban and elements associated with it have reduced, there are concerns about ongoing targeted violence and serious human rights violations by the Taliban and its affiliates.[4] The relative peace may be further frayed if the economic situation worsens or the unstable network of alliances of groups pledged to the Taliban becomes unstable.

    [3] DFAT Thematic Report Afghanistan - Political and Security Developments August 2021 to January 2022 (14 January 2022).

    [4] UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), UNHCR Guidance Note on the International Protection Needs of People Fleeing Afghanistan, February 2022, available at: >

    UNHCR and others have highlighted the widespread human rights violations in Afghanistan, giving rise to an increase in the need for international protection for people fleeing Afghanistan, including, inter alia, women and girls as well as ethnic and religious minorities.[5]

    Hazara

    [5] UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), UNHCR Guidance Note on the International Protection Needs of People Fleeing Afghanistan, February 2022, available at: >

    ISKP attacks since August 2021 have targeted Shia mosques. The Taliban, since taking control of the country, have summarily executed Hazaras who were former members of the security forces and hundreds of Hazara families have been forcibly evicted from their homes in central Afghanistan.[6] Whilst the Taliban claim these evictions are due to property disputes, some NGOs have described them as ethnic cleansing.[7] This information has led DFAT to assess that Hazaras in Afghanistan face a high risk of harassment and violence from both the Taliban and ISKP, on the basis of their ethnicity and sectarian affiliation.

    Women

    [6] DFAT Thematic Report Afghanistan - Political and Security Developments August 2021 to January 2022 (14 January 2022).

    [7] DFAT Thematic Report Afghanistan - Political and Security Developments August 2021 to January 2022 (14 January 2022).

26. Since the Taliban took control, women have been removed from public roles, secondary schools for girls have been closed, and despite some statements to the contrary, most observers believe women and girls will be placed back in the same position as that under the previous Taliban government with no real access to human rights other than through a male relative.

27. This has led DFAT to assess that women in Afghanistan, regardless of ethnicity or socio-economic status, face a high risk of official discrimination and a high risk of societal discrimination as well as a high risk of gender-based violence, including sexual assault and domestic violence, while Afghan girls face a high risk of being forced into early or involuntary marriage.[8] Most recently the Taliban leadership closed girls’ schools only hours after reopening them, stating that schools for girls above class six would be closed until a plan was drawn up ‘in accordance with Islamic law and Afghan culture’.[9]

    [8] DFAT Thematic Report Afghanistan - Political and Security Developments August 2021 to January 2022 (14 January 2022).

    [9] Al Jazeera, “The Taliban closes Afghan girls’ schools hours after reopening”, 23 March 2022, Al Jazeera,

28. DFAT further assesses that women face a high risk of harassment and violence from the Taliban if they depart from traditional female roles, and DFAT assesses that any restraint shown by the Taliban towards women challenging their authority or interpretation of Sharia could end at any time and DFAT assesses that the situation of women in Afghanistan, with regards to access to employment, education and healthcare services, is precarious; such access that exists may be altered or withdrawn by the Taliban with little warning or reason given.[10]

    [10] DFAT Thematic Report Afghanistan - Political and Security Developments August 2021 to January 2022 (14 January 2022).

    Consideration

29. Having regard to the information before me and the claims of the applicants, which I accept in full, I find that the applicant face a real chance of serious harm if she returns to Afghanistan from the Taliban who have taken over the country. Such harm would be for reasons of her membership of particular social groups including close family member of a former government [employee], women who worked previously [Occupation 2] and in other government roles, her ethnicity as a Hazara and her religion as a Shia Muslim. These reasons would be the essential and significant reasons for the harm from the Taliban administration. The harm would constitute serious harm including her arrest, detention, assault and possible death. In particular the confluence of her ethnicity, gender and her association with her husband, an [employee of] the former government, would place her at very high risk of more extreme forms of serious harm. Such harm would systematic and discriminatory conduct because it would be non-random and targeted at the applicant for one or more of these reasons.

30. The applicant cannot alter her behaviour to obscure these characteristics, they are either innate or immutable including her gender and ethnicity, her marriage to a former [Occupation 1], and her past work history, or fundamental to her identity or conscience including her faith.

31. Effective state protection cannot be accessed by the applicants, they fear harm from the Taliban who control effectively al most all of Afghanistan. Nor can they relocate within Afghanistan for the same reason.

32. Having regard to all of the information before me, I find that the first named applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution by the Taliban for reasons of her ethnicity, religion and membership of the above particular social groups if she returns to Afghanistan now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.

33. I do not have before me detailed information on the situation of the second named applicant. He is clearly a member of the first named applicant’s family.

34. But he is also, I find, a close member of an [employee of] the former government, his father, he is a Hazara, and on this basis I consider that there is more than a remote chance that he would be detained and questioned if he was returned. Even if this was the sole treatment he received (and I have concerns that as a member of a minority and with his family associations he may be treated much worse), I find that in the circumstances of the second named applicant, being a child of [Age], this would constitute serious harm. I find that, like his mother, he is also owed protection.

35. I have considered the situation of [Mr A]. I accept that he is in a very difficult and precarious situation. It also appears that, had he been able to enter Australia he would have, on the information above, been entitled to protection. I hope that he is able to find safety in Australia or another safe country.

    Conclusions

36. For the reasons given above the Tribunal is satisfied that each of the applicants is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations. Therefore the applicants satisfy the criterion set out in s 36(2)(a).

    DECISION

37. The Tribunal remits the matter for reconsideration with the direction that the applicants satisfy s 36(2)(a)of the Migration Act.

    Sean Baker
    Member

    
    

    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.

    …