2103286 (Refugee)

[2024] AATA 1909

2103286 (Refugee) [2024] AATA 1909 (26 February 2024)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  2103286

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Fiji

MEMBER:Sydelle Muling

DATE:26 February 2024

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

Statement made on 26 February 2024 at 9:18am

CATCHWORDS

REFUGEE – protection Visa– Fiji – political opinion – participation in SODELPA’s campaign – evidence as to why she supported SODELPA to be lacking and unconvincing – applicant was not an active supporter of SODELPA – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, ss 5, 36, 65, 499

Migration Regulations 1994, 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 dependant.

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 16 February 2021 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).

2. The applicant who claims to be a citizen of Fiji, applied for the visa on 13 December 2019.

3. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 9 February 2024 to give evidence and present arguments. The applicant’s father also attended the hearing as a support person.

   CRITERIA FOR A PROTECTION VISA

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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).

7. 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.

8. 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

9. 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.

   CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

10. The applicant is a [age] year old ethnic Fijian Christian female. According to her protection visa application, the applicant resided in [Central] Fiji from [1997] to [date] December 2019. She completed 13 years of education (from January 2003 to December 2015) and is fluent in Fijian and English. The applicant departed Fiji legally in December 2019.

11. The applicant presented her claims in her protection visa application, summarised as follows:

    ·In 2014 elections were held in September and she decided to participate in the January election campaign to be held in the community [hall].

    ·She and her friends attended the Social Democratic Party (SODELPA) and decided to volunteer with hosting campaigns and other preparations as one of the party’s ‘manifestos’ was to bring back the scholarship scheme for students.

    ·After months of campaigning, the presence of her and her school friends caught the attention of those against SODELPA. An officer warned them about their participation in the political ‘trials’.

    ·Her participation in SODELPA’s campaign became stronger between 2015 and 2017.

    ·The body of one of her friends, who was a policeman, was recovered from inside a pool in one of the police training barracks in 2014. As a result, her friend began to feel unsafe about ‘sticking around’.

    ·She and her friend attended campaigns together and were being watched by the police, so they had to be careful.

    ·They attended SODELPA campaigns for the election in 2018 every night until one night, while they were putting up banners and handing out flyers, she and her friends were caught up in an incident during which one of her friend’s took a photograph of a burning banner of the opposing FijiFirst party.

    ·They were blamed because they were there when it happened. Police and the military received the photograph and started looking for them.

    ·Only her friend who took the photograph was caught by the authorities and taken in for questioning. Her friend was asked to name the others who were with her that night, but she did not disclose their names.

    ·The rest of them stayed in hiding and the authorities kept looking for them.

    ·She decided to leave the country to avoid being victimised for something she did not do.

    ·Due to what happened on the night of June 2018, after her friend was arrested, she and her friends felt threatened by officers and supporters of the opposition party because of the photograph of the burning banner which was posted by her friend.

    ·The matter was reported to the authorities, however, no action was taken.

    ·It was impossible for her to move in Fiji because of the threats. She just wanted to get out of Fiji because the police were still looking for them.

    ·If she returns to Fiji she will be victimised and taken to the army camp and punished or to the police station for detention and end up in prison.

    ·The authorities will not protect her because they are pro-government.

    ·She cannot relocate within Fiji because the police and military are everywhere in the country.

12. The delegate was not satisfied Australia had protection obligations in respect of the applicant and refused the protection visa application on 16 February 2021.

13. On 15 March 2021, the applicant submitted to the Tribunal her application for review of the delegate’s decision refusing her a protection visa. Attached were the following documents:

    ·Copy of the decision record.

    ·Letter of support dated 12 March 2021 written by [a politician].

    ·Draft Government of Fiji Police Bill 2020.

    ·Various photographs, reports and articles collated under the heading ‘Tortured by Bainimarama’s Police and Military goons’.

14. At the conclusion of the hearing, the applicant presented the Tribunal with a letter of support from her employer in Australia dated 25 January 2024. The letter confirms that the applicant has been working with her employer since December 2020 and that she is currently employed in the position of [position]. The author states that the applicant is a highly valued member of the team, and they would like to be able to continue to employ her in their organisation.

    CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

15. The issues in this review are whether there is a real chance that, if she returns to Fiji, the applicant will be persecuted for one or more of the five reasons set out in s 5J(1)(a) for the purpose of s 36(2)(a) of the Act and, if not, whether there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of her being removed from Australia to Fiji, there is a real risk that she will suffer significant harm for the purpose of s 36(2)(aa) of the Act.

16. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.

17. The applicant’s nationality is not in issue. The applicant travelled to Australia on a valid Fijian passport and states that she is a national of Fiji. In addition to providing a copy of her Fijian passport, which was issued on [date] 2015, the applicant also provided a copy of her birth certificate. The Tribunal accepts on the evidence before it that Fiji is the applicant’s country of nationality and receiving country for the purposes of complementary protection.

18. At the hearing, the applicant explained that she came to Australia at the end of 2019 to visit her father and for a holiday. When the Tribunal asked the applicant why she does not want to return to Fiji, she stated due to her political opinion. She claimed that she had campaigned for the elections. When asked what she believes will happen if she returns to Fiji, the applicant stated as the government has changed, nothing. In response to the Tribunal’s question as to whether she believes she will be harmed if she returns to Fiji, the applicant indicated that she did not believe anything would happen to her.

19. With respect to the applicant’s claims regarding her political opinion, the Tribunal finds the applicant’s evidence in the hearing to be limited and inconsistent with her claims in her protection visa application. When asked if there was a particular reason she supported SODELPA and not another party, the applicant responded the party had different opinions on things from the other opposition parties but did not elaborate any further as to what those opinions were or how they were different from other parties. In response to the Tribunal’s question as to what opinions SODELPA had which she liked or why she supported the party, the applicant responded ‘education grants and work’. Again, the applicant did not expand to explain what SODELPA’s position was in relation to either of these issues. Similarly, the Tribunal notes the applicant’s evidence in the hearing that as part of the campaign activities she engaged in, she would talk to communities about what SODELPA was going to do if they were in government and how it was different from the other parties. However, when the Tribunal asked the applicant what she would tell people about what the party was going to do if they came into power, the applicant stated that she could not remember. Taking into consideration the above, the Tribunal finds the applicant’s evidence as to why she supported SODELPA to be lacking and unconvincing.

20. Further, whilst the applicant claimed in the hearing that she had campaigned for SODELPA, she was unable to say when she had campaigned for the party. When the Tribunal queried whether it was for a particular election, the applicant stated it was for the last election that took place in Fiji whilst she was there, however, she could not remember what year that was. The applicant confirmed that she only campaigned during the one election. The Tribunal has serious concerns that if the applicant had actively supported SODELPA during a particular election, attending community talks, making posters and reaching out to people by going house to house over a period of several months, as she explained in the hearing, that she would not be able to recall what year she had engaged in these activities. The Tribunal also notes, as it put to the applicant, that her involvement or support of SODELPA as expressed in her protection visa application was significantly different to what she claimed in the hearing. In her protection visa application, the applicant claimed to have participated in two election campaigns, in 2014 and in 2018, as opposed to the one she claimed in the hearing. Additionally, the applicant claimed in her protection visa application that her participation in SODELPA’s campaign became stronger between 2015 and 2017, suggesting that she was also active during those years, outside of an election period. 

21. Additionally, with respect to the applicant’s claims regarding problems she experienced because of her alleged activities in support of SODELPA, whilst the applicant consistently claimed there was an incident involving the burning of an opposition party’s banner, the Tribunal finds her evidence in the hearing regarding what happened during and after this incident to be inconsistent with what she claimed in her protection visa application. In the hearing, the applicant explained that a group of kids lit a banner on fire and when the police came the kids ran away. As she and the three other people she was with were present at the scene, the police blamed them, and they were taken to the police station and questioned. The applicant claimed they were kept overnight before being released and asked to be taken to the military camp. However, as the Tribunal put to the applicant, in her protection visa application she claimed that one of her friends had taken a photograph of the burning banner and when the police and military received the photograph, they started looking for them as they blamed them. The applicant claimed in her protection visa application only her friend who took the photograph was caught by the authorities and taken in for questioning. The rest of them stayed in hiding and the authorities kept looking for them. In this respect, the Tribunal notes the applicant’s evidence at the beginning of the hearing regarding her residence in Fiji and her confirmation that she resided in her home village from birth up until she departed Fiji to come to Australia, and nowhere else. The Tribunal notes that the applicant did not provide any explanation for the inconsistencies in her evidence regarding this incident, as well as the discrepancy in her evidence regarding her active support of SODELPA, when this was put to her by the Tribunal.

22. Based on the above, whilst the Tribunal is prepared to accept that the applicant may have been attracted to SODELPA due to its policies with respect to education, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant was an active supporter of the party in that she engaged in campaign activities or any other activities in support of the party either during any election, including the 2014 and 2018 elections, or at any other time. As such, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant was being watched by those against SODELPA or by the police as she claimed in her protection visa application. Nor does the Tribunal accept that the applicant was caught up in an incident whilst she was with friends putting up banners and handing out flyers, as she claimed in her protection visa application, during which an opposition party banner was burned, and the applicant and her friends were blamed by the police and/or the military. The Tribunal therefore does not accept that the applicant was either questioned by police and asked to go to the military camp or was being pursued by the police and military and had to go into hiding. For the reasons provided above, the Tribunal does not find the applicant’s claims regarding her political opinion credible.

23. In light of the Tribunal’s findings that the applicant was not an active supporter of SODELPA and did not participate in any activities in support of SODELPA in any election campaigns in Fiji or otherwise, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant will be of any interest to the authorities including the police and military or that she faces a real chance of being victimised and taken to the army camp and punished or to the police station to be detained and imprisoned, as she claimed in her protection visa application. The Tribunal has also taken into consideration, as the applicant herself noted, that the government of Fiji has changed since the applicant departed Fiji and SODELPA is now part of a tripartite alliance governing Fiji following the December 2022 election. As the Tribunal put to the applicant in the hearing, independent country information provides that there has been no significant political unrest or deterioration in government function since the formation of the new government and the political situation remains stable.[1]  Having regard to the Tribunal’s findings with respect to the applicant’s claims and the change in the political arrangements in Fiji, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant faces a real chance of serious harm on her return to Fiji for reason of her claimed political opinion. The Tribunal therefore finds that the applicant does not face a well-founded fear of persecution.

    [1] COISS, DFAT Cable20230621135833, 3 August 2023.

24. For the same reasons, the Tribunal does not accept that there are grounds for believing that as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being returned to Fiji, there is a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm from the authorities in Fiji including the police and military or from the government. The Tribunal is therefore not satisfied that the applicant meets the alternative provisions in s 36(2)(aa).

25. At the conclusion of the hearing, the applicant submitted that she has a full-time job in hospitality in Australia and that both her father and sister are residing here. The applicant’s father spoke about the applicant’s hope to further her education and study nursing and the positive contribution the applicant is making in supporting the community through her participation in their church and the Fiji Association. The applicant expressed her desire to continue to help and support the community if she was given the opportunity to live in Australia and continue her education. 

26. The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s case and the ministerial guidelines relating to the discretionary power set out in departmental policy, ‘Minister’s guidelines on ministerial powers (s 351, s 417, and s 501J)’ but has decided not to refer the matter. The applicant may make a request directly to the Minister.

    CONCLUSION

27. 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).

28. 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).

1. 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 criteria in s 36(2).

   DECISION

2. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

   Sydelle Muling
   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.

   …