2202621 (Refugee) - [2025] ARTA 1721

2202621 (REFUGEE) [2025] ARTA 1721 (26 JUNE 2025)
DECISION AND
REASONS FOR DECISION
Respondent: Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

Tribunal Number: 2202621
Tribunal Member: General Member M. Bray
Date:26 June 2025

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

Statement made on 26 June 2025 at 3:15pm
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Malaysia – political opinion – lack of freedom of speech, and political corruption – no expression of opinions, past harm or profile of interest – limited and general claims and evidence – consent to decision without hearing – responsibility to establish claims – country information – general limits to freedom of expression on controversial issues – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5AAA, 5H(1)(a), 5J(1), 36(2)(a), (aa), (2A), 65
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2
CASES
MIEA v Guo (1997) 191 CLR 559
Prasad v MIEA (1985) 6 FCR 155
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 Immigration and Citizenship on 7 February 2022 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 Malaysia, applied for the visa on 23 October 2021. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that, having regard to the claims and evidence, the applicant was not owed protection under Australian law.
The Tribunal invited the applicant to give oral evidence and present arguments at a hearing scheduled on 13 May 2025. On 2 May 2025 the applicant advised the Tribunal in writing that she would not attend the hearing and asked that it determine the review application without a hearing, or ‘on the papers’. Details regarding the Tribunal’s acceptance of that request are set out below.
BACKGROUND
The applicant is a female of Chinese Malaysian ethnicity, aged in her [decade], from Sarawak, Malaysia. Her claims broadly regard a lack of freedom of speech and the presence of political corruption in Malaysia and are set out in more detail below.
Evidence before the Department
The applicant provided to the Department a copy of her Malaysian passport, together with a completed protection visa application form. She did not provide any material to the Department in support of her claims and was not invited to attend an interview about her claims. The delegate characterised the applicant’s claims as relating to political opinion, and based on their analysis of country information (set out in the primary refusal decision record) found the applicant, in all her circumstances, was not owed refugee protection or complementary protection.
Evidence before the Tribunal
The applicant provided a copy of the primary refusal decision alongside her application for review. During the review period, the applicant did not offer to the Tribunal any further details about her protection claims or provide any supporting material regarding them.
I describe and consider the evidence before me further below, as part of my reasons and findings.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
Criteria for protection visa
The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s 36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations). An applicant for the visa must meet one of the alternative criteria in s 36(2)(a), (aa), (b), or (c). That is, he or she is either a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion, or on other ‘complementary protection’ grounds, or is a member of the same family unit as such a person and that person holds a protection visa of the same class.
Section 36(2)(a) provides that a criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee.
A person is a refugee if, in the case of a person who has a nationality, they are outside the country of their nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country: s 5H(1)(a). In the case of a person without a nationality, they are a refugee if they are outside the country of their former habitual residence and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to return to that country: s 5H(1)(b).
Under s 5J(1), a person has a well-founded fear of persecution if they fear being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, there is a real chance they would be persecuted for one or more of those reasons, and the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of the relevant country. Additional requirements relating to a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ and circumstances in which a person will be taken not to have such a fear are set out in ss 5J(2)-(6) and ss 5K-LA, which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
If a person is found not to meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), he or she may nevertheless meet the criteria for the grant of the visa if he or she is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that he or she will suffer significant harm: s 36(2)(aa) (‘the complementary protection criterion’). The meaning of significant harm, and the circumstances in which a person will be taken not to face a real risk of significant harm, are set out in ss 36(2A) and (2B), which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
Mandatory considerations
In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.84, made under s 499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken account of the ‘Refugee Law Guidelines’ and ‘Complementary Protection Guidelines’ prepared by the Department of Home Affairs, and country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.
Other matters
Section 5AAA of the Act makes clear that it is the applicant’s responsibility to specify all particulars of a claim to be a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations and to provide sufficient evidence to establish the claim. The Tribunal does not have any responsibility or obligation to specify, or assist the applicant in specifying, any particulars of her claims. Nor does the Tribunal have any responsibility or obligation to establish, or assist in establishing, the claim.
The mere fact that a person claims fear of persecution for a particular reason does not establish either the genuineness of the asserted 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 all of the statutory elements are made out. A decision-maker is not required to make the applicant's case for him or her. It is the responsibility of the applicant to specify all particulars of the claim to be a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations and to provide sufficient evidence to establish the claim. The Tribunal does not have any responsibility or obligation to specify, or assist in specifying any particulars of the claim, or to establish or assist in establishing the claim: s 5AAA. Nor is the Tribunal required to accept uncritically any and all the allegations made by an applicant (MIEA v Guo (1997) 191 CLR 559 at 596, Prasad v MIEA (1985) 6 FCR 155 at 169-70)
REASONS AND FINDINGS
Procedural matters
Right to present case
Given the following information, I am satisfied the applicant has been given a reasonable opportunity to present her case and make submissions and give evidence. The Tribunal’s online review application process enables applicants to upload supporting documents, and the applicant uploaded the primary refusal decision. The Tribunal, via pre-hearing outreach correspondence dated 13 March 2025, asked if the applicant wanted to give any more information (beyond the protection visa application) about her claims for protection, or indicate any further reasons she was afraid to return to her home country, and indicated she should send any additional evidence to the Tribunal in writing as soon as possible. The Tribunal received no response. The hearing invitation correspondence (sent on 24 April 2025 regarding a hearing on 13 May 2025) included a form enabling the applicant to indicate if they would attend the hearing, and to propose witnesses to give oral evidence and to indicate if there is further information they intend to rely on. The applicant responded requesting a decision without a hearing and her responses in the form indicated she does not seek to rely on further evidence. I find the applicant has demonstrated her ability to communicate with the Tribunal via email about the review.
The applicant’s request for a decision without a hearing
The applicant had nominated an email address for the purpose of correspondence in connection with the review and nominated herself as the recipient for all such correspondence. The applicant’s written request for a decision without a hearing was received on 2 May 2025 from that email address together with a copy of the identity page of her passport. The written request was made clearly and unambiguously.
As the applicant is the sole participating party in the review, I have discretion to accept her request for a decision without a hearing, provided it appears the issues for determination in the proceeding can be adequately determined in her absence. The issue to be determined in this review is whether the named applicant is owed protection under Australian law. The evidence before me enables me to be satisfied about the applicant’s identity and nationality, and the country to which her claims relate and to which she would return or be removed (the country of reference and ‘receiving country’). I can discern her protection claims from the information she provided in the protection visa application, where she responded to a range of questions in that form which are designed to elicit information relevant to considering protection needs. It is the applicant’s choice to decide what information and evidence to offer to support her case, and her responsibility to make her case for protection. I found for reasons above the applicant has had a reasonable opportunity to present her case during the review. Given these matters, I am satisfied that I can adequately determine the issues in the review, on the evidence before me and without a hearing, and am therefore willing to exercise the discretion to accept the applicant’s request.
On 8 May 2025, the Tribunal communicated to the applicant in writing flagging its acceptance of the request for a decision without a hearing and indicating that it would proceed to a decision without delay after 14 May 2025 and that there was no guarantee of a decision wholly favourable to her. She was encouraged to contact the Tribunal immediately if she had questions about the information in that correspondence. She is taken to be aware of those matters, and she has made no further contact to the Tribunal up to the time and date of this decision.
In all the above circumstances, I have proceeded to decide the review application without a hearing, at the applicant’s request, and I consider anew the merits of her protection claims below based on the information she has chosen to provide.
Consideration of protection claims
Based on the information she provided in the protection visa application, I accept the applicant is a female born in [Year] in Sarawak, Malaysia and that she lived at a single address in Sarawak from birth until August 2017, when she left Malaysia and entered Australia holding a visitor visa. I accept she is a Malaysian citizen by birth and that she arrived in Australia holding a passport of Malaysia. I accept the applicant is of Malaysian Chinese ethnicity and Buddhist religion who speaks, reads and writes Mandarin and English.
The issue in this case is whether the applicant is owed refugee protection or complementary protection under Australian law.
The applicant’s claims in her protection visa application form are as follows. She left Malaysia because she was very dissatisfied with the political situation in Malaysia. Members of the parliament can be bought by money. There is no freedom of speech at all. She is very disappointed in this country. She did not face past harm in Malaysia and made no attempt to move within Malaysia for safety. If she returns, there is no freedom of speech. There will be no state protection from the harm she fears, because the police department is controlled by ‘political personas’ (taken to mean politicians or people with political influence). Australia is a free country with freedom of speech: she can live a happy and free life here.
For the following reasons, I have concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
Does the applicant satisfy the refugee criterion for protection?
The information provided by the applicant in her protection visa application about her personal experiences in Malaysia is extremely broad and undetailed. For example, she does not indicate what specific opinions she holds personally (other than the extremely broad ones noted in her claims above), or whether or how she has expressed, or tried to or is inclined to express opinions (including her very broad ones) and/or whether or how she has been or felt limited in doing so, or what types or forms of harm she believes she might face if she expressed her opinions. She does not indicate any context for her concerns about parliamentarians who can be brought or indicate any impact on her of any actions or decisions by them. She does not describe or specify any elements of the overall political situation that concern her or that she believes may impact her adversely or result in potential harm to her.
I accept generally that there is a level of social and state intolerance for the expression (especially potentially influential expression) of public views on certain matters of social, political or religious sensitivity or controversy in Malaysia, and I am prepared to accept that some members of parliament are open to being ‘brought’ (influenced by financial incentives in their actions or decisions). I am prepared to accept that she feels some broad disappointment and dissatisfaction about these matters, and that she broadly prefers there was more freedom of expression in Malaysia and more integrity amongst parliamentarians. However, having regard to the applicant’s claims and evidence and given the very limited undetailed evidence before me about her views, motivations and circumstances and experiences, I am not satisfied (and am not prepared to impute) and do not accept that she has ever expressed her extremely broad political opinions (about freedom of expression or parliamentary or police integrity) publicly, or that she holds strong views on any matters that are or might potentially be regarded as sensitive or controversial or problematic in Malaysia, or that she has any inclination, tendency or motivation to express any of her political views or opinions publicly, or that she has needed to curb her conduct or suppress any natural inclination or inherent characteristic out of a fear of harm.
The applicant does not claim or suggest that she has ever been of adverse interest to the authorities (or anyone) for any reason or had any interaction with police, or that she has (or is concerned she may have) any adverse profile in Malaysia. She indicates she has not faced past harm in Malaysia, which I accept. Given the findings above, I am not satisfied and do not accept that the absence of past harm of the applicant in Malaysia is due to her modifying her conduct or suppressing any inherent characteristic.
On the evidence before me, and given the findings above, I find the applicant had never been of interest to Malaysian authorities and had no adverse profile in Malaysia when she left to travel to Australia. I find that she did not seek help in Malaysia (for example, from police) because she had not faced harm or needed their help. On the very limited evidence before me about the applicant’s views, values, motivations and circumstances, and given my findings above, I am not prepared to accept her assertion that she left Malaysia and sought protection in Australia due solely to her very broad, general concerns about freedom of expression, parliamentary integrity or police independence, or the overall political situation there, or due to broad feelings of dissatisfaction or disappointment about those things.
There is no suggestion in the evidence before me that, in the several years since she left Malaysia, the applicant has engaged in any conduct which might be of concern to any state or non-state actor in Malaysia, and I find that she has not. I am not willing to impute that the applicant has modified her conduct in Australia to avoid future harm in Malaysia.
The applicant has not at all suggested that she fears future harm in Malaysia due to her race, nationality, religion or membership of any particular social group (including any group characterised by her gender or place of residence), and given she responded to the questions in the protection visa application form, she is taken to have had the opportunity to raise any matter of concern or fear to her in Malaysia.
On the extremely limited evidence before me from the applicant, and considering her claims and arguments, and given the findings above about her personal circumstances and profile, I find as follows.
I am not persuaded or satisfied (and am not prepared to impute) and do not accept that the applicant’s extremely broad political opinions (described above) are particularly sensitive or controversial, or that she is inclined to express them publicly. Further, I am not satisfied that she holds or intends to or is motivated or inclined to express publicly any critical, sensitive or controversial opinions about Malaysia or in Malaysia (including on political, religious or social matters), now or in the reasonably foreseeable future. I find there are no developments or matters regarding the applicant’s circumstances, views, conduct or activities since she left Malaysia which might mean that she is or will be of any adverse interest or concern to anyone, including state authorities, in Malaysia now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.
I am not satisfied and do not accept that there is a real chance that general curbs or limits on absolute freedom of expression in Malaysia, or questions or matters of integrity amongst parliamentarians or police independence, will result in targeted harm (including intentionally-directed mental or physical harm in any form) amounting in nature, scope, or degree to serious harm (or for the purposes of complementary protection, significant harm, having regard to s. 36(2A)) toward the applicant personally in Malaysia, now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.
Further, given the overall findings in this decision, I am not satisfied that the applicant’s stated feelings of broad general dissatisfaction or disappointment with the existence of these curbs or matters will themselves amount to serious harm to her now or in the reasonably foreseeable future (or for the purposes of complementary protection below, significant harm having regard to the exhaustive definition in s. 36(2A)).

Having overall regard to the claims, evidence and arguments provided by the applicant, and given the matters and findings set out in this decision, and having regard to her overall circumstances and profile (as indicated by findings in this decision) I find the applicant faces no real chance of harm (including harm amounting due to its nature, scope or degree, to serious harm), now or in the reasonably foreseeable future in Malaysia due to her actual or imputed political opinion, and/or her race, religion, nationality, or membership of any particular social group (including any group where her gender or place of residence is a shared characteristic). Given this overall finding, I have not proceeded to consider the matter of effective state protection.
Overall, on the evidence before me and given the reasons and findings above, I find the applicant’s stated fears of persecution in Malaysia are not well-founded.
Does the applicant satisfy the complementary protection criterion for protection?
Having concluded that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), I have considered the alternative criterion in s 36(2)(aa).
On the very limited evidence before me from the applicant, and applying the analysis, reasons and findings above and keeping in mind the applicant’s overall circumstances (as reflected by findings in this decision), I am 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 (including Sarawak), there is a real risk that she will suffer significant harm in any of the forms set out exhaustively in s. 36(2A). This finding is made having specific regard to relevant interpretative provisions regarding forms of significant harm set out in the Attachment (below) to this decision.
Conclusions
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) or s 36(2)(aa).
There is no suggestion that the applicant satisfies s 36(2) based on 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.
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.
…