2113006 (Refugee)

[2022] AATA 2177

2113006 (Refugee) [2022] AATA 2177 (2 June 2022)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  2113006

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   China

MEMBER:Alison Murphy

DATE:2 June 2022

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 02 June 2022 at 4:32pm

CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – China – threats after refusing to sell business for unfair price or employment discrimination on grounds of religion – Christianity – general socio-economic conditions – credibility – different and contradictory claims and evidence given in application and at hearing – inconsistent evidence of business and basic and vague knowledge of Christianity – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5H(1), 5J(1)(a), 36(2)(a), (aa), (2A), 65
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2

CASES
GLD18 v MHA [2020] FCAFC 2
MIAC v SZQRB [2013] FCAFC 33


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 24 September 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 China, applied for the visa on 13 February 2018. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the applicant was not a person owed protection by Australia.

3. The applicant was invited to appear before the Tribunal by video, having previously advised the Tribunal that he had the capacity to participate in a video hearing. However at the commencement of the hearing the applicant was unable to join the hearing by video and so the hearing commenced by phone. The applicant told the Tribunal he could not understand the instructions for joining the video hearing and that he was living in [Suburb], NSW.

4. I discussed with the applicant the options for proceeding with the hearing, including that the Tribunal could continue to take his evidence by telephone, or adjourn to a later date to arrange a further video hearing or an in person hearing in Sydney. While the applicant initially stated that he could come into the Tribunal’s Sydney registry to participate in the hearing, he later said that he preferred to proceed with the hearing by telephone as scheduled. In those circumstances the Tribunal hearing proceeded by telephone with the assistance of an interpreter in the Mandarin and English languages.

   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). 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

    Country of nationality

11. The applicant travelled to Australia on an apparently genuine Chinese passport, a copy of which is contained on the Departmental file. He has at all times stated that he is a citizen of China and he has been assessed on that basis by the Department. The Tribunal finds he is a Chinese citizen and has assessed his claims against China as the country of nationality and the receiving country.

    The applicant’s personal background

12. The applicant is a [Age]-year-old male from [a] village in Langfang, Hebei province, China. At hearing he told me his wife and two adult children remain living in Hebei.

13. The applicant completed primary and middle school, later working as a contractor doing manual labour for many different employers. When asked at hearing if he had ever run a business, the applicant stated that he had not.

14. I accept the above matters to be true.

    The applicant’s claims for protection

15. In his protection visa application, the applicant stated that he left China because he was threatened by a person called [Mr A] who tried to force him to sell his [business] for an unfair price. He claimed that when he refused to sell his business to [Mr A], [Mr A] and his associates visited his business premises and caused damage to his property. He claims that he and his staff were harmed when they tried to stop [Mr A] and his associates damaging the property. He claims he approached the police for protection but they did not provide it because of [Mr A]’s personal relationship with one of the police officers. [Mr A] also told him that there was no point pursuing the matter because even the higher courts were under his control.

16. However at hearing the applicant gave very different reasons for leaving China and seeking protection in Australia. Initially the applicant gave evidence that he came to Australia because it was hard to make a living in China, as most employers wouldn’t accept him. When asked why they wouldn’t accept him, the applicant stated it was probably because he was bad at work. When asked what he meant by that, he said it was just the fact that most of the employers wouldn’t accept him and also because he is religious. When asked what religion he practised, he said he believed in Jesus. When asked to describe his religion, he said that he believed his religion benefits both the family and society but that some in China didn’t believe in it. He said it was hard to live in China because of his religion and so he came to Australia. He said that prior to coming to Australia he had joined others in his village to read the bible over a period of 11 years and since being in Australia he went to church on Sundays, but he goes to different churches because his English is poor.

17. At hearing I raised with the applicant the issue of his credibility, noting that he had given different reasons for claiming protection in his protection visa application, being that he was having difficulties because he was operating a [business]. The applicant responded by stating that he did have a [business] and that someone had [destroyed] all of his [stock] because of his religion. When I pointed out that he had already stated that he had never run a business in China, the applicant said that in China it wouldn’t be considered a business rather he just had a few [stock] that were [destroyed] because of his religion. When asked to elaborate on that incident, he said that people just told him he didn’t deserve a [business] because he was religious. He said he put all the [stock] in [storage] in spring and they were [destroyed] in the autumn of 2017.

    Fear of harm on basis of religion

18. For the following reasons I do not accept the applicant is a Christian as claimed:

    ·Firstly, he states in his protection visa application that he has no religion. Further, he makes no mention in his visa application of his Christian religion or his claims that he faced harm and his [stock] were [destroyed] because of his religion. When I discussed this with the applicant at hearing, he said he didn’t mention his religious claims in his visa application because he was afraid people would hate him.

    ·Secondly, despite his claims to have read the bible with others in his village for 11 years before travelling to Australia and then to have attended church regularly in Australia, the applicant was unable to tell the Tribunal anything at all about the tenets or beliefs of that religion. When asked the name of his religion, he said Jesus. When asked about the principles of that religion, he said it was good for his health and good for his parents but it was not allowed in China. When asked what attracted him to that religion, he said that sometimes he read the bible and prayed. When asked to give examples of what he had read in the bible, he said he had read a lot of things but it was hard to say. When asked if he could tell the Tribunal anything about Jesus, he said that reading the bible is good for society and you can also donate money. When asked about Jesus’ role in his faith, he said it was like a family. When asked if he knew who Jesus was, he said he couldn’t remember. When I put to him that I was having difficulty accepting he had ever been involved in the Christian faith at all given he appeared to lack even the most basic knowledge about that religion, he stated it was just that we should all appreciate God.

19. The applicant’s statement in his protection visa application that he has no religion and his failure to mention any fear of harm on the basis of his religion in that visa application cause me to doubt that the applicant is a Christian as claimed, or that he has any fear of harm in China on that basis. Taken together with his inability to articulate even the most basic principles of that faith or any reason whatsoever for being drawn to that faith, I do not accept the applicant is or has ever been an adherent or believer of the Christian faith. It follows that I do not accept the applicant’s [stock] were [destroyed] because of his religious beliefs, nor that he was discriminated against or otherwise targeted for harm in China for reasons of his religion.  For these reasons I do not accept there to be a real chance the applicant will face harm from the Chinese authorities or his community for any reason relating to his religion if he returns to China, now or in the foreseeable future.

20. In MIAC v SZQRB, the Full Federal Court held that the ‘real risk’ test imposes the same standard as the ‘real chance’ test applicable to the assessment of ‘well-founded fear’ in the Refugee Convention definition.[1]  For the same reasons I do not accept there to be a real risk the applicant will be subjected to significant harm by any person or group for reasons of his religious beliefs.

    [1] MIAC v SZQRB [2013] FCAFC 33 (Lander, Besanko, Gordon, Flick and Jagot JJ, 20 March 2013) per Lander and Gordon JJ at [246], Besanko and Jagott JJ at [297], Flick J at [342].

    Fear of harm from [Mr A] and his associates

21. In considering the applicant’s claims in his protection visa application that he fears harm from a person named [Mr A] who was trying to force the applicant to sell his [business] for an unfair price, I note the applicant did not recount these claims in his evidence at the hearing, nor did he suggest they were true even when reminded of them by the Tribunal. Rather he maintained the real reason he was seeking protection was because of his religion and he had given other reasons in his protection visa application because he was afraid people would hate him if they knew of his religion.

22. Further, the applicant’s evidence at hearing contradicted the claims in his visa application. While the applicant stated in his visa application that he operated a [business] in China, at hearing he gave evidence that he had never run a business. When I pointed out the apparent inconsistency to him, he stated that he had a few [stock] in [storage] but that it wouldn’t be considered a business in China. He did not mention [Mr A] or suggest that anyone was trying to force him into selling his [business], rather he stated that his [stock] had been [destroyed] because of his religious beliefs.

23. His evidence at hearing stands in contrast to his written claims in which he states that he was operating a [business] that was running well and made him lots of money, that it had lots of people coming to [find] and buy [stock] and that [Mr A] was trying to force him to transfer the business at a cheap price. The applicant’s written claims also indicate his [business] had staff who were threatened by [Mr A] and his associates and its facilities were damaged. I consider the applicant’s evidence at hearing about his [business] to be inconsistent with his written claims.

24. Given the inconsistencies in the applicant’s evidence and my serious concerns about the truthfulness of his evidence I do not accept the applicant owned or operated a [business], nor that he was threatened, harassed or otherwise harmed by a person called [Mr A] who wished to purchase that business for less than it was worth. It follows that I do not accept that [Mr A] and his associates visited the applicant’s business premises and threatened or harmed the applicant or his staff or premises, nor that the applicant was denied protection because of [Mr A]’s relationship with the police.

25. For these reasons I do not accept there to be a real chance the applicant will face harm from [Mr A] or his associates or any other person for reasons relating to his [business] if he returns to China, now or in the foreseeable future. For the same reasons I do not accept there to be a real risk the applicant will be subjected to significant harm by [Mr A] or his associates.

    Fear of economic harm

26. I have considered the applicant’s evidence that he came to Australia because it was hard to make a living in China, as most employers wouldn’t accept him. As I have not accepted that the applicant is Christian as claimed, I do not accept he was discriminated against by employers in China because of his Christian religion. I accept that the applicant perceives the economic conditions in Australia to be more favourable to him than those in China. The applicant’s evidence is that in China he was employed in many different jobs as a contractor undertaking manual labour and I have accepted that to be true.

27. I discussed with the applicant that socio-economic conditions do not generally enliven Australia’s protection obligations because the refugee assessment is directed at harm directed at a person for reasons of their race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion while complementary protection obligations are concerned with intentional acts by another person. In response the applicant stated that the [destruction] of his [stock] had been deliberate harm.

28. However for the reasons set out above I have not accepted the applicant’s [stock] were [destroyed] as claimed, nor have I accepted that he has been targeted or otherwise harmed for reasons of his Christian religion or any other reason. I find the economic harm he fears in China is not for the essential and significant reasons of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. Therefore, he does not meet the criteria set out in s 5J(1)(a) of the Act.

29. In considering whether the applicant meets the complementary protection criterion under s 36(2)(aa), I have considered whether there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Malaysia, there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm. ‘Significant harm’ is exclusively defined in s 36(2A) as follows:

    (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.

30. As discussed with the applicant at hearing, the Australian courts have held that complementary protection obligations are concerned with intentional acts or omissions occurring in the relevant country and how a visa applicant might be treated by another person or persons.[2]

    [2] GLD18 v MHA [2020] FCAFC 2.

31. For the reasons set out above, I have not accepted that the applicant will be targeted in China for harm by any person or group for any reason. For these reasons I do not accept that any economic harm the applicant may experience upon return to China would arise from the intentional or deliberate act or omission of a third person or persons such as could constitute arbitrary deprivation of life, cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment, degrading treatment or punishment or torture. The applicant does not suggest that he will be arbitrarily deprived of his life or subjected to torture, nor that the death penalty will be carried out upon him.

32. For these reasons I do not accept that any economic harm to which the applicant may be subjected if returned to China would meet the definition of ‘significant harm’, as that term is exclusively defined in s 36(2A), if he is returned to China now or in the foreseeable future.

    CONCLUSION

33. For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(a).

34. 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).

35. 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

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

   Alison Murphy
   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.

   …