2118677 (Refugee) - [2024] AATA 3943

2118677 (Refugee) [2024] AATA 3943 (17 May 2024)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER:  2118677
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Malaysia
MEMBER:Amy Faram
DATE:17 May 2024
PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the Applicant a protection visa.

Statement made on 17 May 2024 at 2:13pm

CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Malaysia – fear of contracting COVID-19 – no ‘refugee nexus’ – risk faced by the population of the country generally – Chinese ethnicity – Buddhist religion – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5AAA, 5H, 5J, 36, 65
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2, cl 866.221
CASES
MIAC v SZQRB (2013) 210 FCR 505
Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other dependant.
STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 1 December 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 citizen of Malaysia, applied for the visa on 24 July 2021 because he feared that return to Malaysia would see him contract COVID-19. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that he did not face harm in Malaysia for a refugee reason (as set out in s 5J(1)(a) of the Act) and, with respect to the complementary protection criteria, on the basis that the harm feared was faced by the population of Malaysia generally, rather than by the Applicant personally (s 36(2B)(c)).
On 25 March 2024, the Tribunal wrote to the Applicant advising that it had considered the material before it but was unable to make a favourable decision on that information alone. The Applicant was invited to appear before the Tribunal to give oral evidence and present arguments relating to the issues arising in his case.
On 15 May 2024, the Applicant emailed the response to hearing invitation form to the Tribunal. The correspondence was from the email address on record with the Tribunal and included a copy of his passport. The Applicant advised the Tribunal that he did not wish to give oral evidence and consented to the Tribunal proceeding to make a decision on the review without taking further steps to enable him to appear, that is ‘on the papers’.
CRITERIA FOR A 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, they are either a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion, or on other ‘complementary protection’ grounds, or they are a member of the same family unit as such a person and that person holds a protection visa of the same class.
Refugee criteria
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.
Complementary protection criteria
If a person is found not to meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), they may nevertheless meet the criteria for the grant of the visa if they are 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’).
A real risk (as with a real chance, per the refugee criteria) is one that is not remote or insubstantial or a far-fetched possibility.[1]
[1] Chan Yee Kin Ors v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1989) 169 CLR 379.
‘Significant harm’ for these purposes is exhaustively defined in s 36(2A). A person will suffer significant harm if they will be arbitrarily deprived of their life; or the death penalty will be carried out on the person; or the person will be subjected to torture; or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or to degrading treatment or punishment. ‘Cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment’, ‘degrading treatment or punishment’, and ‘torture’, are further defined in s 5(1) of the Act.
There are certain circumstances in which there is taken not to be a real risk that an applicant will suffer significant harm in a country. These arise where it would be reasonable for the applicant to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm; where the applicant could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm; or where the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the applicant personally: s 36(2B) of the Act.
Sections 5(1) and 36(2A) and (2B) 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 (DFAT) expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
The issue in this case is whether, on account of his fear of contracting COVID-19 in Malaysia, the Applicant is a person to whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36 of the Act and cl 866.221 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.
While the Applicant declined to give oral evidence to the Tribunal, the Tribunal, with reference to his form and copy passport, is satisfied that he is a citizen of Malaysia and that Malaysia, for the purposes of this protection eligibility assessment, is the ‘receiving country’ against which his claims are to be assessed.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
The Applicant was born on [date], in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia and came to Australia in 2018.
In his protection visa application form, lodged in July 2021, the Applicant stated he was of Malaysian-Chinese ethnicity and Buddhist faith and made the following claims:
-    The situation in Malaysia with respect to COVID-19 is very serious, and the country has declared an emergency status.
-    He is afraid he will be infected with COVID-19 upon return to Malaysia, and hopes the Australian government can provide protection.
-    He did not relocate to another part of Malaysia. He believes Australia is the safe country at the moment.
-    He does not think the authorities can protect him. There are 4,000 – 9,000 new cases there every day.
Included on the Applicant’s file was a summary page from the Health Ministry, setting out the status of COVID-19 throughout different areas of Malaysia as of 23 July 2021.
The Applicant was not interviewed by the delegate.
The Applicant sought review of the delegate’s decision but has not provided any further information in support of the claims made in 2021. Nor has he provided details of any other claims to the Tribunal.
The Act places certain obligations on applicants to provide sufficient evidence to establish their claims (section 5AAA) and it is established that, while an inquisitorial process, it is for an applicant to make their case.[2] The fact that a person claims fear of persecution for a particular reason does not establish either the genuineness of the fear or that it is 'well-founded' or that it is for the reason claimed. Similarly, that an applicant claims to face a real risk of significant harm does not establish that such a risk exists, or that the harm feared amounts to 'significant harm'. It remains for the applicant to satisfy the Tribunal that the statutory elements are made out and a decision-maker is not required to make the applicant's case for them.
[2] SZBEL v MIMIA (2006) 228 CLR 152; at [40]; Re Ruddock; Ex parte Applicant S154/2002 [2003] HCA 60 at [57].
Protection findings
Harm from COVID-19
Refugee criteria
The Applicant has set out his fears contracting the COVID-19 virus. The Tribunal notes that at the time of making his application in mid-2021, fear with respect to COVID-19 was extremely high, as was the risk of contracting it. The Tribunal accepts, also, that at that time, Australia had less incidents of the virus than most other places and that the Applicant may have been less likely to fall ill with the virus in Australia than in Malaysia.
While incidents have lessened and despite significant developments in health responses to COVID-19, the Tribunal considers there remains a real chance of contracting the virus. The Tribunal accepts, also, that contracting the virus may still result in serious health outcomes.
However, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the Applicant meets the definition of a refugee. As set out above, to be eligible for a protection visa under the refugee criteria, the Minister must be satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Applicant is a refugee: s 36(2)(a). A refugee is defined at s 5H of the Act as someone that has a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ and a well-founded fear of persecution is in turn defined at s 5J as requiring, among other things, an applicant to fear being persecuted for reasons of their race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion: s 5J(1)(a). A virus does not discriminate, and the Applicant has not claimed that any of the reasons listed in s 5J(1)(a) would cause him to contract the virus or would contribute to or heighten the risk of him contracting the virus or would impact his ability to access or receive care were he to fall ill with the virus.
The Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a real chance that the Applicant would face persecution in Malaysia for one of the reasons set out in s 5J(1)(a) and it follows that he does not meet s 36(2)(a).
Complementary protection criteria
In considering whether the Applicant meets the complementary protection criterion under s 36(2)(aa), the Tribunal has considered whether there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the Applicant being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm.
The Tribunal accepts there is a real risk the Applicant will contract the COVID-19 virus if returned to Malaysia, and that contraction of the virus may result in serious health outcomes for him.
In considering whether such a scenario can constitute ‘significant harm’ for the purposes of the complementary protection provisions, the Tribunal notes that ‘significant harm’ is 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.
Australian courts have held that complementary protection obligations are concerned with acts or omissions occurring in the relevant country and how a visa applicant might be treated by another person.[3] The Tribunal does not accept that the contraction of COVID-19 encompasses the intentional element necessary to enliven the instances of ‘significant harm’ set out in s 36(2A). The Applicant has not suggested that any person would seek to deliberately infect him. The virus was and is being spread via inadvertent transmission from one person to another.
[3] GLD18 v MHA [2020] FCAFC 2; SZTAL v MIBP (2016) 243 FCR 556; SZSPE v MIBP [2013] FCCA 1989 at [68] and [72] (upheld on appeal SZSPE v MIBP [2014] FCA 267).
The definitions of ‘cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment’, ‘degrading treatment or punishment’ and ‘torture’ each concern harm resulting from an act or omission where that harm is intentionally inflicted. In relation to a person being ‘arbitrarily deprived of their life’ the Australian courts have held that s 36(2A) is restricted to the risk of being deprived of life by the intentional or deliberate act or omission of a third person or persons.[4]
[4] EZC18 v MHA [2019] FCA 2143 at [47]; MZAAJ v MOI [2015] FCCA 151.
Further, the risk to the Applicant of contracting COVID-19 would appear to be one faced by the population of the country generally and not faced by the Applicant personally. As such, under s 36(2B), there is taken not to be real risk that the Applicant will suffer significant harm for the purposes of the complementary protection provisions.
For these reasons, the Tribunal does not accept there to be a real risk the Applicant will suffer significant harm. The Tribunal is not satisfied that 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 in Malaysia.
Ethnicity and religion
Refugee criteria
The Applicant has not claimed that on account of his Buddhist religion or Chinese ethnicity, considered together or alone and apart from his COVID-19 claim, that he would face a real chance of serious harm in Malaysia. Country information considered by the Tribunal, including as set out in the 2021 DFAT report, does not satisfy the Tribunal that there is a real risk of serious harm to the Applicant on the basis of his Chinese ethnicity and/or Buddhist faith in Malaysia.
Malaysia is a multi-religious and multi-ethnic country.[5] While race has ‘historically been a prominent issue in Malaysia’ (there were race riots primarily between ethnic Malays and Chinese Malaysians in the late 1960’s)[6], and positive discrimination in favour of the Bumiputera continues, Chinese Malaysians ‘tend to be wealthier than other ethnic groups in Malaysia’. DFAT assesses they experience low levels of official discrimination in education, the civil service or when opening business.[7]
[5] DFAT report.
[6] DFAT report at [2.3], [2.5], [section 3].
[7] DFAT report at [3.12].
Buddhists account of 19.8% of the Malaysian population and are around 80% of the Chinese Malaysian community.[8] Freedom of religion is guaranteed by the Constitution[9] and DFAT assesses that Buddhists generally live free from societal discrimination on a day-to-day basis.[10] More recent country information seems broadly consistent with these observations.[11]
[8] DFAT report at [3.23], [3.53]
[9] DFAT report at [3.21].
[10] DFAT report at [3.64].
[11] 2022 Report on International Religious Freedom: Malaysia, Malaysia - United States Department of State.
In the event that it might be said a claim regarding the Applicant’s ethnicity or religion does in fact arise on the papers, the Tribunal has considered these aspects of his profile, and finds that on the information before it, it is not satisfied he would face a real chance of serious harm for either or both of these reasons.
Complementary protection criteria
Section 36(2)(aa) refers to a ‘real risk’ of an applicant suffering significant harm. In MIAC v SZQRB (2013) 210 FCR 505, the ‘real risk’ test was held to impose the same standard as the ‘real chance’ test applicable to the assessment of ‘well-founded fear’ in the Refugee Convention definition and that reasoning appears equally applicable to the refugee criterion in s 5J(1)(b) of the Act (see Explanatory Memorandum, Migration and Maritime Powers Legislation Amendment (Resolving the Asylum Caseload Legacy) Bill 2014 (Cth), pp.170-1 at [1169], [1180]).
Having determined the Applicant does not face a real chance of harm on account of his religion and/or ethnicity, it follows that the Tribunal is not satisfied that 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 at the hands of the authorities or others in Malaysia.
CONCLUSION
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.
Amy Faram
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.
…