2117854 (Refugee) - [2025] ARTA 1374

2117854 (REFUGEE) [2025] ARTA 1374 (26 MARCH 2025)
DECISION AND
REASONS FOR DECISION
Respondent: Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

Tribunal Number: 2117854

Tribunal:General Member S Waring
Date:26 March 2025

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

CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – East Timor – religion – Christian man in relationship with Hindu woman – objections and threats by her family – application prepared by another person without applicant’s knowledge of contents, and claims not maintained – similar claims to many other applications – limited work opportunites and financial hardship in small town not serious or significant harm, and faced by population generally – previous work in city – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5H(1)(a), 5J(1), (5), 36(2)(a), (aa), (2A), (2B)(c), 65
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2
CASES
Chan Yee Kin v MIEA (1989) 169 CLR 379
MIAC v SZQRB [2013] FCAFC 33
SZBQJ v MIMIA [2005] FCA 143
SZIGC v MIAC [2007] FCA 1725

Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 369 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information.
STATEMENT OF REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 29 November 2021 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The applicant who claims to be a national of East Timor, applied for the visa on 29 August 2020. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the applicant does not engage Australia’s protection obligations under the refugee or complementary protection criteria in s36(2)(a) and s36(2)(aa) of the Act.
On 29 November 2021 the applicant lodged an application for review with the former Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the AAT).
On 14 October 2024, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) became the Administrative Review Tribunal (the Tribunal). Under the transitional provisions in the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 (the Transitional Act), proceedings in the AAT that were not finalised before 14 October 2024 are to be continued and finalised by the Tribunal. Anything done in relation to the proceeding before 14 October 2024 is taken to have been done by the Tribunal.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 28 February 2025 to give evidence and present arguments.
The issue to be considered in this case is whether the applicant engages Australia’s protection obligations under the refugee criterion or the complementary protection criterion prescribed in the Act.
BACKGROUND
The applicant, a [Age]-year-old man was born in [Town], Timor-Leste and lived in that town during his schooling. The applicant was employed as [an occupation] in Dili between July 2009 and November 2019.
The applicant arrived in Australia [in] November 2019 on a temporary work visa. He initially settled in [Location] NSW before moving to Tasmania, then QLD.
Evidence before the Department and the Tribunal
No interview was offered by the Department prior to the delegate making the decision to refuse the protection visa application.
The applicant did not reply to a letter from the Department dated 1 October 2021 (the Department’s letter) inviting him to comment on relevant information it had received.
The evidence taken into account by the Department included:
·the applicant’s protection visa application.
·supporting documents including personal identifiers sighted by the Department as part of an identification test.
·information upon which the applicant was invited to comment in the Department’s letter. This invitation, pursuant to s 57 was offered by the Department on the basis that the information it had received could be the reason, or part of the reason, for refusing to grant the protection visa.
In addition to the above documents, a movement record of the applicant’s entry into Australia is also before the Tribunal.
The applicant’s submission included in the pre-hearing form sent to the Tribunal on 8 December 2024.
The totality of evidence before the Tribunal is discussed and examined below.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
Claims in the Protection Visa
In his protection visa application, the applicant’s claims for protection are set out (and summarised) as follows:
·He is a Christian and (while in Timor) he formed a relationship with [Ms A] who is Hindu.
·The couple wished to marry but [Ms A]’s parents objected and told her to end the relationship.
·[Ms A]’s parents and brothers threatened her (and threatened to kill him) but the couple continued the relationship.
·He and [Ms A] were very frightened. They believed their lives had been threatened and that if they had stayed in Timor (even if they relocated to another part of the country) they could not be together.
·He and [Ms A] decided to run away from her family. They took a flight to Darwin together [in] November 2019 to seek protection in Australia.
·He fears he will be killed by [Ms A]’s parents and brothers if he returns to Timor as the police could not protect him.
The submission made by the applicant in his pre-hearing form states:
“I need protection from Australia because my life is in danger, and if I return to my home country, my life could be at a price.”
Evidence at Hearing
The applicant told the Tribunal that he wrote the statement (above), on the pre-hearing form himself.
Contrary to his statement in the protection visa application that the form was completed without external assistance, the applicant told the Tribunal that [Mr B] had prepared the application. The applicant stated that he talked over the phone a few times with [Mr B] and paid him for his services.
As regards the claims made in the protection visa application, the applicant told the Tribunal that he did not read the application before it was submitted and he did not know the claims made therein.
The Tribunal referred the applicant to the Department’s letter disclosing that information received by the Department could be the reason, or part of the reason, for refusing to grant the protection visa and sought his comment on evidence stated in his application that:
“[Ms A] and I flew to Darwin, Australia because we wished to get married in Australia. We lived together until somewhere in November of 2020 where we broke off our relationship. Since then I have lost contact with her and does not know her whereabouts.”
The applicant explained that he did not make those statements to [Mr B] and that he does not maintain them to be true. The applicant stated that [Mr B] had ‘made up’ that scenario so the applicant could get the visa and stay in Australia.
When questioned further by the Tribunal regarding the claimed relationship (and elopement to Australia) the applicant stated that he does not know who [Ms A] is. He repeated that [Mr B] “made these claims up because I did not have any reason to apply for the visa.” The applicant confirmed that he had never lived with (or wished to marry) a person named [Ms A]. In respect of any relationship with [Ms A], the applicant stated ”it never happened.”
The Tribunal sought comment from the applicant in relation to information about his flight to Australia that issue was raised in the Department’s letter. In its letter of 1 October 2021, the Department refers to statements made in the protection visa application that the applicant and [Ms A] wished to marry and flew to Darwin together [in] November 2019. The Department’s letter discloses that information relating to these statements had been received which could be the reason, or part of the reason, for refusing to grant the protection visa.
The applicant told the Tribunal that he was not accompanied on his flight to Darwin [in] November 2019. As regards any finding by the Tribunal on the matter of the flight to Darwin, the Tribunal relies on the applicant’s evidence at hearing which is accepted by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal sought comment from the applicant in relation to observations made in the Department’s letter that claims made in his protection visa application are similar to claims made in numerous other protection visa applications. The applicant stated that he had no comment to make on the similarity of his claims to those of other applicants.
The Tribunal raised with the applicant the claims made in the pre-hearing response which the applicant told the Tribunal he had written. In relation to the veracity of those claims, the applicant stated:
“If I don't like saying the truth, maybe [my visa] will be cancelled and I will return to my home country.”
“I think if I tell the truth my visa will be cancelled, that's why I will make [the pre-hearing statement].”
The Tribunal asked the applicant if he felt he would be physically harmed or discriminated against in Timor if he returns there. The applicant responded in the negative saying “No, no reason.” The applicant stated “I don’t have any problem with my families… I don’t have any problem like [Mr B] said.”
The Tribunal heard that the applicant’s concerns about returning to Timor relate primarily to the financial hardship he would suffer in his hometown. He stated that [Town] (where his family lives) is very small and he would be unable to find employment there.
The applicant submitted that he would be unable to subsist on the resources available to him if he returned to Timor.
The applicant stated that he had relocated to Australia in order to escape the financial hardship in his hometown and to open up avenues for employment.
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 case are whether there is a real chance that, if [the applicant] returns to Timor, he 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 him being removed from Australia to Timor, there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm for the purpose of s 36(2)(aa) of the Act.
In determining whether the applicant engages protection obligations, it is necessary to make findings of fact on relevant matters which may involve an assessment of the credibility of the applicant’s claims.
I accept the principle that the benefit of the doubt should be given to asylum seekers who are generally credible but unable to substantiate all of their claims. However, the Tribunal is not required to accept uncritically any or all of the allegations made by an applicant. Further, the Tribunal is not required to have rebutting evidence available to it before it can find that a particular factual assertion by an applicant has not been made out.
The Tribunal found the account of events given by the applicant at hearing to be consistent and plausible. Based on the evidence presented by the applicant at hearing, the Tribunal is satisfied and finds that the applicant came to Australia alone [in] November 2019.
The Tribunal does not accept that (as claimed in the visa application):
·The applicant formed a relationship with a person of the Hindu faith (or anyone) when he was in Timor.
·The applicant sought to marry a person he had met in Timor.
·The applicant received a death threat or suffered physical violence in Timor.
·The applicant would be threatened with (or subject to) acts of physical violence against him if he returns to Timor.
·The applicant fears he will be killed by anyone if he returns to Timor.
·That the applicant subjectively holds any fear of persecution, threats or acts of physical violence against him if he returns to Timor.
Does the applicant satisfy the refugee criterion for protection?
Well Founded Fear
The criterion in s 5J(1)(a) contains a subjective requirement, that an applicant must in fact hold a fear of being persecuted, while s 5J(1)(b) imposes an objective standard, that there be a real chance the person would be persecuted. A ‘real chance’ is one that is not remote or insubstantial or a far-fetched possibility. A person can have a well-founded fear of persecution even though the possibility of the persecution occurring is well below 50 per cent: Chan Yee Kin v MIEA (1989) 169 CLR 379.
Based on the applicant’s evidence at hearing and the findings above, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant holds any fear of threats or physical harm if he returns to Timor.
At hearing, the applicant put claims of financial hardship to the Tribunal. The applicant claimed that he will suffer from limited work opportunities and financial hardship if he returns to his hometown.
When assessing conduct directed at the applicant which could cause him ‘serious harm’, the Tribunal is guided by examples of instances of ‘serious harm’ appearing in s 5J(5). Such instances include, for example, a threat to a person’s life or liberty, a significant physical harassment or a significant physical ill-treatment of the person, or circumstances that threaten the person’s capacity to subsist.
Having regard to the instances listed above, the Tribunal finds that the hardships the applicant would encounter in gaining employment in Timor, as challenging as those may be, are not such severe forms of harm that they fall within the kinds of conduct covered by s 5J(5). The capacity of the applicant to subsist upon return to Taiwan is discussed below.
As recorded above, the applicant told the Tribunal that he does not fear physical harm if he returned to Timor. This is accepted by the Tribunal.
Based on the accepted evidence, the Tribunal does not find that if the applicant were to return to Timor, he has a real chance of being subjected to conduct that constitutes persecution or serious harm.
For the reasons given above and having considered the applicant’s claims individually and
cumulatively, the Tribunal is not satisfied that if the applicant returned to Timor he would face a real chance of persecution for any reason set out in s 5J(1)(a) of the Act, or for any other reason. The Tribunal does not find that the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution for any of the reasons set out in the Act, or for any other reason. The applicant is therefore not a refugee as defined in s 5H(1) of the Act.
The Tribunal finds the applicant does not satisfy s 36(2)(a) of the Act.
Does the applicant satisfy the complementary protection criterion for protection?
Having found the applicant does not satisfy the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a) of the Act, the Tribunal must proceed to consider whether in the alternative, the applicant is able to engage Australia’s protection obligations under the complementary protection criterion in s 36(2)(aa) of the Act because there are substantial grounds for the Tribunal to believe that there is a real risk the applicant would suffer significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of his removal from Australia to Timor.
In MIAC v SZQRB [2013] FCAFC 33, the Full Federal Court held that the ‘real risk’ test as it applies to complementary protection imposes the same standard as the ‘real chance’ test applicable to the assessment of the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a).
Physical harm
Given that the Tribunal has not found that the applicant has a real chance of suffering serious harm (from threats or acts of physical violence) if he returns to Timor, it must follow that the applicant does not have a real risk of significant harm from such conduct as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of his removal from Australia to Taiwan.
Financial hardship
As regards the applicant’s claims of potential financial hardship and limited job opportunities, the Tribunal turns to consider whether these outcomes of returning to Timor constitute ‘significant harm’. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant may be temporarily without an income upon return to Timor while he seeks employment.
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). It is significant for this case that s36(2B)(c) specifies a proviso that there is not taken to be a real risk that a person will suffer significant harm in a country if the Minister is satisfied that “the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the non‑citizen personally.”
The Tribunal forms the view that unemployment (or inability to find work in one’s chosen field) is an issue faced generally by the population of Timor and is not a risk faced by the applicant personally.

The Tribunal does not accept the applicant’s evidence that he would suffer severe financial hardship if he returned to Timor.
The Tribunal accepts the evidence in the protection visa application that the applicant lived and worked in Dili, rather than his hometown, for more than a decade. The Tribunal does not accept the applicant’s evidence that (if returned to Timor) he would locate himself in [Town] and be unable to subsist on the resources available to him.
The courts have found the ‘capacity to subsist’ to be a high threshold that involves a threat to a person’s ability to continue to exist or remain in being.[1] While I accept that the applicant faces the prospect of being temporarily without an income in Timor (as he searches for employment), I do not find that he will not have the ‘capacity to subsist’.
[1] SZBQJ v MIMIA [2005] FCA 143; SZIGC v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 1725
Having regard to the findings and observations above, I am not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of his removal to Timor, there is a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm.
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) of the Act.
The applicant has not raised any other reason why he fears returning to Timor and based on the available information I find that no additional protection claims arise in this case.
For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations.
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.
Date of hearing: 28 February 2025
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.
…