2112094 (Refugee) - [2025] ARTA 1420

2112094 (REFUGEE) [2025] ARTA 1420 (20 MARCH 2025)
DECISION AND
REASONS FOR DECISION
Respondent: Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

Tribunal Number: 2112094
Tribunal:General Member Summerfield
Date:20 March 2025

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

Statement made on 20 March 2025 at 2:35pm
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – Protection Visa – China – race – Han Chinese – religion – Buddhism – decision without a hearing – applicant has not provided further information – uncovered embezzlement of funds – not satisfied the applicants have a well-founded fear – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024, s 106
Migration Act 1958, ss 5, 36, 65, 348 499
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2
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 (the Department) on 19 August 2021 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The applicant is a [age]-year-old male who claims to be a national of China. He arrived in Australia on[date] November 2018 on a visitor visa and he applied for a protection visa on 25 January 2019.
On 19 August 2021 the delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the applicant did not meet the requirements of s 5H of the Act; that is, he did not meet the criteria for being considered a refugee. Further, the delegate was not satisfied that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed to China, there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm as defined in s36(2)(aa) of the Act.
The applicant applied for a review of the delegate’s decision on 9 September 2021.
On 19 February 2025 the applicant was informed by the Tribunal that an in-person hearing was scheduled for 18 March 2025. The hearing notice provided information on the option of requesting that the Tribunal make a decision without a hearing, and that if the Tribunal proceeds to make a decision without a hearing this does not guarantee that the applicant would receive a favourable decision.[1] The applicant completed the ‘response to hearing’ form, stating that he would not participate in the hearing and requesting that the Tribunal make a decision on the papers without holding a hearing.
[1] Notice of hearing letter, p3
On 11 March 2025 the Tribunal wrote to the applicant clarifying that the hearing had been scheduled because the Member had considered the material before the Tribunal and was unlikely to be able to make a favourable decision on the information before the Tribunal. The letter stated that the purpose of the hearing is to permit the applicant to present additional evidence in support of the application. The applicant was asked to confirm his intentions and invited to provide written submissions in support of his review by 14 March 2025. The applicant did not respond to the correspondence. A Tribunal Officer attempted to call the applicant on 18 March 2025 to confirm that the hearing had been cancelled and an email was sent to confirm that the hearing had been cancelled and that the member would proceed with a determination on the papers.
As of the date of this decision no further information has been provided by the applicant in support of his claims.
Decision without a hearing
Section 106(1) of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth) (the ART Act) sets out the circumstances in which the Tribunal may make a decision without a hearing. Where the only parties are the applicant and non-participating party to the proceeding or hearing, such as is the case here, s 106(3) applies. This is:
(3) This subsection applies if:
(a) the only parties to the proceeding are the applicant and a non‑participating party to the proceeding or the hearing of the proceeding; and
(b) either:
(i) the decision is wholly in favour of the applicant; or
(ii) the applicant requests the Tribunal to make its decision without holding the hearing of the proceeding; and
(c) it appears to the Tribunal that the issues for determination in the proceeding can be adequately determined in the absence of the parties to the proceeding.
Section 348A of the Act provides that the Minister is taken to be a non-participating party to a proceeding for review of a reviewable protection decision.
The Tribunal is satisfied that the only parties to the proceedings are the applicant and a non-participating party and that the applicant has requested that the Tribunal make its decision without holding a hearing.
In this case it appears to the Tribunal that the issues for determination in the proceeding can be adequately determined in the absence of a hearing. The Tribunal has before it a copy of the Department’s file which includes a copy of the applicant’s identity documents and his protection visa application form, which contains his biographical information and protection claims. In addition, the applicant has provided to the Tribunal a copy of the delegate’s decision record. Further, in his responses to the Tribunal, the applicant has restated his claims. Based on this information the Tribunal is able to determine the applicant’s identity and receiving country. It is also able to form conclusions about whether he meets the criteria for a protection visa in ss 36(2)(a) and 36(2)(aa) of the Act. It appears to the Tribunal that the issues for determination can be adequately determined in the absence of the parties to the proceeding.
Evidence before the Department
In his application for a protection visa the applicant indicated that he was born in Liuzhou in Guangxi Province, China and that before leaving China he lived in [a] Town, Guizhou Sheng, China. The applicant’s ethnic group is Han Chinese and his religion, Buddhism. His relationship status is ‘separated’ and he speaks, reads and writes Cantonese. Both his parents are Chinese citizens. The applicant provides that he has never studied and that he was never employed. While unemployed he undertook charity activities and relied on financial support from his family.
The applicant stated in the application form that he did not receive assistance in completing the form.
The applicant’s claims for protection are as follow:
·He previously worked as a volunteer in a charity foundation in his hometown. Over that period he discovered that the person in charge and some of the top executives were involved in the embezzlement of funds.
·They threatened him with violence and told him not to report his findings to the police as no one would believe him because they had relatives in the police force.
·Because of this he left the foundation and tried to start a new life but they continued to faze him and disturb his family.
·His wife left him.
·He did not suffer any harm.
·If he returned he is not sure what will happen to him but he can be sure that there will be physical violence. As the government is also involved in these illegal incidents, he is not sure who would give him protection.
·As a China passport holder it is not easy for him to fly around the world as most countries will limit the entry of Chinese passport holders to their country.
·He chose to fly to Australia as it is a safe and friendly country where he can meet the requirements for entry.
Evidence before the Tribunal
In his application for review, dated 9 September 2021, the applicant requested a mandarin interpreter in communications with the Tribunal. He did not elaborate on his earlier claims or submit evidence in support of his claims.
On 30 January 2025 the applicant was sent a ‘Pre-hearing information form’ which he completed and returned. In this, he paraphrased his earlier claims. No new information or supporting documentation was submitted.
On 19 February 2025 the applicant was sent a notification of the hearing. On 7 March 2025 the applicant completed the ‘Response to hearing notice’ form where he elected for the decision to be made on the papers. He did not submit further information in respect of his claims.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
Criteria for protection visa
The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s 36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations). An applicant for the visa must meet one of the alternative criteria in s 36(2)(a), (aa), (b), or (c). That is, he or she is either a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion, or on other ‘complementary protection’ grounds, or is a member of the same family unit as such a person and that person holds a protection visa of the same class.
Section 36(2)(a) provides that a criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee.
A person is a refugee if, in the case of a person who has a nationality, they are outside the country of their nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country: s 5H(1)(a). In the case of a person without a nationality, they are a refugee if they are outside the country of their former habitual residence and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to return to that country: s 5H(1)(b).
Under s 5J(1), a person has a well-founded fear of persecution if they fear being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, there is a real chance they would be persecuted for one or more of those reasons, and the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of the relevant country. Additional requirements relating to a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ and circumstances in which a person will be taken not to have such a fear are set out in ss 5J(2)-(6) and ss 5K-LA, which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
If a person is found not to meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), he or she may nevertheless meet the criteria for the grant of the visa if he or she is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that he or she will suffer significant harm: s 36(2)(aa) (‘the complementary protection criterion’). The meaning of significant harm, and the circumstances in which a person will be taken not to face a real risk of significant harm, are set out in ss 36(2A) and (2B), which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
Mandatory considerations
In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.84, made under s 499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken account of the ‘Refugee Law Guidelines’ and ‘Complementary Protection Guidelines’ prepared by the Department of Home Affairs, and country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.
REASONS AND FINDINGS
The issues in this review are whether there is a real chance that the applicant will suffer serious harm if returned to China, for reasons of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion or, in the alternative, whether there are substantial grounds for believing that as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being returned to China, there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
The applicant’s identity and country of nationality
The Tribunal accepts that the applicant is a [age]-year-old male, born in Liuzhou in Guangxi Province, China, that he is Han Chinese and that his religion is Buddhism.
The applicant claims to be a citizen of the People’s Republic of China and has provided an uncertified copy of the biodata page of his Chinese passport and an uncertified copy of a Chinese identification card to the Department. The delegate accepted that the applicant’s country of birth and citizenship is the People’s Republic of China.
The Tribunal finds that the applicant is a citizen of the People’s Republic of China and has assessed his claims against China as the country of nationality and the receiving country.
Does the applicant satisfy the refugee criterion for protection?
As outlined above, to meet the definition of ‘refugee’ a person must have a well-founded fear of persecution. The persecution must be on account of either their race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion and involve serious harm to the person. Examples of what amounts to serious harm are provided in the Act and includes such things as a threat to life or liberty, significant physical harassment, significant physical ill-treatment or significant economic hardship that threatens the person’s capacity to subsist.
The Refugee Law Guidelines clarify that whether or not physical harassment is ‘significant’ involves an evaluative judgement. What distinguishes ‘significant physical harassment’ from ‘significant physical ill-treatment’ is that harassment may be comprised entirely of threats or intimidation regarding future physical violence, but there must be a real chance of such threats being realised.[2]
[2] VBAO v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] HCA 60
The Tribunal notes section 5AAA of the Act which provides that it is the responsibility of the applicant to specify all particulars of their claim and to provide sufficient evidence to establish the claim. Although the concept of onus of proof is not appropriate to administrative inquiries and decision-making, the relevant facts of the individual case will have to be supplied by the applicant in as much detail as is necessary to enable the decision maker to establish the relevant facts. A decision maker is not required to make the applicant's case for him or her. Nor is the Tribunal required to accept uncritically any and all of the allegations made by an applicant.[3]
[3] Randhawa v MILGEA (1994) 52 FCR 437 at 451
The Tribunal informed the applicant that the purpose of the hearing with the Tribunal was to present additional evidence in support of the application and that the Tribunal was unlikely to make a favourable decision on the information before it. It invited him to provide further information to support his application. Despite this the applicant has not provided further information. There is no detail before the Tribunal that would permit it to draw a conclusion that the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution.
The applicant claims that after working as a volunteer for a charity foundation he discovered that the person in charge and senior executives were involved in the embezzlement of funds. He states that the government is also involved in these illegal incidents. He has not provided the name of the charity foundation, any clarification on how he uncovered the embezzlement, how it was conducted, the identity of those purportedly involved in the fraud, or their connection to government and police.
Corruption is reported as serious in China, particularly in areas heavily regulated by government, such as real estate and mining and infrastructure development.[4] It is not evident to the Tribunal that corruption in charitable organisations is common.
[4] Transparency International 2023 Corruption Perceptions Index, cited in DFAT Country Information Report People’s Republic of China 2024 p16
The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade Country Information Report People’s Republic of China (the DFAT Report) states that the CCP takes allegations of corruption seriously, viewing corruption as a threat to its legitimacy and that there have been anti-corruption crackdowns against high and low-ranking officials.
In light of the country information, and in the absence of detail from the applicant, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant uncovered embezzlement of funds within the charity. In those circumstances, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant or his family has faced threats or disturbances.
The Tribunal notes, in any case, that even if it accepts that the applicant faced threats of harm, the DFAT Report refers to the effectiveness of police protection in China. Police are reported as maintaining public order and social stability, these being overriding priorities for the CCP.[5] Police carry out day-to-day crime fighting activities and investigate crimes, with day-to-day crime rates being low in 2023. In-country sources in 2023 informed DFAT that the police investigate thoroughly and prosecuted alleged criminals. Further, the police have access to enormous amounts of data and other evidence.[6]
[5] DFAT Country Information Report People’s Republic of China 2024 p67
[6] DFAT Country Information Report People’s Republic of China 2024 p67
Section 5J(2) of the Act provides that a person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if effective protection measures are available to the person in the receiving country.
The Tribunal is satisfied that, even if the applicant had faced threats from the purported embezzlers, he is able to access effective protection measures in China. This is through the combination of anti-corruption measures targeting public officials (such as police and government officials) and effective policing of day-to-day crime. The Tribunal does not accept that effective protection from the police would be marred because the person in charge and the senior executives of the charity have relatives in the police force or because government is involved. Therefore, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution.
Having considered singularly and cumulatively all of the applicant’s claims and his personal circumstances as contained in his written evidence to the Department and the Tribunal, along with the country information, the Tribunal does not find that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary consequence of being removed from Australia to China, there is a real risk that the applicant will face significant harm, as defined in s 36(2A) of the Act, for any reason. The Tribunal is therefore not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s36(2)(aa) of the Act.
Does the applicant satisfy the complementary protection criterion for protection?
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), that is, whether he meets the complementary protection criterion. This requires that the applicant satisfy the Tribunal that he faces a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of his being removed from Australia to China. The Court has stated that the ‘real risk’ test is that there is a ‘real chance’ of the harm.[7] Significant harm is defined exhaustively in the Act as being arbitrary deprivation of life, the death penalty being carried out, being subjected to torture, being subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment, or being subjected to degrading treatment or punishment.
[7] Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZQRB [2013] FCAFC 33
The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant uncovered the embezzlement of funds within a charity, for the reasons outlined above. In those circumstances, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant or his family was threatened or disturbed.

In any case, if the Tribunal were to accept that the applicant did bring embezzlement to light, and as a result faced recrimination, the Tribunal notes s 36(2B)(b) of the Act that there is taken not to be a real risk of significant harm in a country if the person ‘could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that [he or she] will suffer significant harm’. In light of the country information outlined above the Tribunal finds that the level of protection available to the applicant from the state and other authorities, both in terms of policing and anti-corruption measures, would remove the real risk of significant harm.
Having considered singularly and cumulatively all of the applicant’s claims and his personal circumstances as contained in his written evidence to the Department and the Tribunal, along with the country information, I do not find that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary consequence of being removed from Australia to China, there is a real risk that the applicant will face significant harm, as defined in s 36(2A) of the Act, for any reason. The Tribunal is therefore not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s36(2)(aa) of the Act.
CONCLUDING PARAGRAPHS
For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(a).
Having concluded that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), the Tribunal has considered the alternative criterion in s 36(2)(aa). The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(aa).
There is no suggestion that the applicant satisfies s 36(2) on the basis of being a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfies s 36(2)(a) or (aa) and who holds a protection visa. Accordingly, the applicant does not satisfy the criterion in s 36(2).
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.
Date of Hearing  18 March 2025
Representative  Not applicable
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.
…