2204111 (Refugee) - [2024] ARTA 690

2204111 (REFUGEE) [2024] ARTA 690 (28 NOVEMBER 2024)
DECISION AND
REASONS FOR DECISION
Respondent: Minister for Home Affairs

Tribunal Number: 2204111
Tribunal:General Member J Kotsifas
Date:28 November 2024

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

Statement made on 28 November 2024 at 4:28pm

CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – China – religion – Falun Gong – persecution and psychological harm – consent to decision without hearing – responsibility to specify claims and provide evidence – no evidence of practice or harm in home country, and practice at home in Australia – unhindered departure and no attention by authorities to family – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5AAA, 5H(1)(a), 5J(1)(a), 36(2)(a), (aa), (2A), 65
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2
Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth), s 106(3)(b)(ii), (c)
CASES
MIAC v SZQRB [2013] FCAFC 33
Randhawa v MILGEA (1994) 52 FCR 437
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 25 February 2022 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The applicant[1] is a [Age]-year-old man who claims to be a national of China. He first arrived in Australia on 3 February 2018 has not departed since his last arrival. He applied for his protection visa on 12 June 2018.
[1] Department File: [Reference], Tribunal File: 2204111
On 25 February 2022, the delegate refused to grant the applicant’s visa on the basis that he is not a person to whom Australia has protection obligations.
The applicant applied to the Tribunal for a review of the delegate's decision on 22 March 2022. He provided a copy of the delegate’s decision record on review which contained information about his identity, country of nationality, and protection claims. The applicant also provided a statement containing further particulars of his claims for protection.
On 14 October 2024, the 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), applications for review to the AAT that were not finalised before 14 October 2024 are taken to be an application for review to the Tribunal. The Transitional Act gives the Tribunal the authority to continue and finalise any aspect of the review not already completed by the AAT. This decision and statement of reasons is made by the Tribunal.
On 19 August 2024 the Tribunal wrote to the applicant advising that his file was being prepared to be constituted to a member and requesting he complete a prehearing information form within seven days. The applicant did not provide the form to the Tribunal.
By letter dated 13 August 2024, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant and invited him to give evidence and present arguments at a hearing scheduled for 1.00pm on 4 December 2024. The hearing invitation contained a response to hearing invitation form which the applicant was requested to complete and return to the Tribunal within 7 days.
On 13 November 2024 the applicant sent to the Tribunal an email advising that he had attached his ‘response to hearing invitation form’. The applicant’s form was signed by the applicant on 13 November 2024, and the applicant ticked the ‘No’ box in answer to a question about whether he would take part in the hearing scheduled for 4 December 2024. The form contained the following:
“No, I will not participate in the hearing, and request the Tribunal to make a decision on the papers without holding a hearing”.
On 19 November 2024, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant confirming that he would not be attending the hearing and requested that if he has any additional documents, material or submissions he wished the Tribunal to consider, he should provide this by 26 November 2024. The applicant has not provided any further material following this request.
The circumstances in which the Tribunal may reach a decision without a hearing are set out in section 106 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (ART Act). They include where an applicant requests the Tribunal to make its decision without holding a hearing of the proceedings: s 106(3) ART Act. Based on the applicants answers to relevant questions contained in the response to hearing invitation form, the applicant clearly communicated to the Tribunal that he did not wish to attend any hearing and requested the Tribunal to make its decision without holding the hearing of the proceeding. There is no ambiguity in his response and the Tribunal is satisfied his written response to the hearing invitation form can be properly construed as a request to make a decision without holding a hearing of a proceeding as per s 106(3)(b)(ii) of the ART Act.
The Tribunal must also consider whether it appears that the issues for determination in the proceedings can be adequately determined in the absence of the parties to the proceeding: s 106(3)(c).
In reviewing a decision to refuse to grant a protection visa, the issues which the Tribunal are required to determine are:
• whether the applicant faces a real chance of persecution 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 if returned to their receiving country and if not;
• whether there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of them being removed from Australia to their receiving country, there is a real risk that they will suffer significant harm for the purpose of s 36(2)(aa) of the Act
In this case it appears to the Tribunal that the issues for determination in the proceeding can be adequately determined in the absence of a hearing. The Tribunal has before it a copy of the Department’s file. This includes a copy of the applicant’s identity documents, and his protection visa application form, which contains his biographical information and protection claims. Additionally, he provided to the Tribunal a copy of the delegate’s decision record which sets out some of this information. The Tribunal also has the applicants statement filed with the Tribunal when he lodged his application for review which sets out further particulars of his claim. The Tribunal also has further statements from the applicant which provide certain particulars of his claim.
Based on this information the Tribunal is able to determine the applicant’s identity and receiving country. It is also able to form conclusions about whether he meets the criteria for a protection visa in ss 36(2)(a) and 36(2)(aa) of the Act without seeking further evidence or submissions from the applicant.
BACKGROUND
The applicant’s personal background
The applicant was born in Yanggu County, Shandong, China. He is married and has one child. His wife and child reside in China. His parents and one sibling also reside in China. His application shows that his religion is Falun Gong. His application states that he worked in China as [an occupation 1] from 2004 – 2014 and as [an occupation 2] from 2014 – 2017.The application also states that the applicant completed his studies in [Subject] in 2004.
Evidence before the Department
The applicant’s initial claims for protection
The applicant’s initial claims can be summarised as follows:
·The applicant left his country due to religious persecution by the Chinese authorities as he practices Falun Gong which is banned in China.
·He was subjected to psychological harm.
·He sought assistance and protection from the local authorities, nevertheless, they did not offer any assistance.
·Falun Gong’s oppression is committed across the whole of China, and therefore relocation will not provide him with any protection.
·If he is returned to China, he will be imprisoned and abused because of his religious beliefs.
The interview and further information
Department records indicate that the applicant was not invited to attend a protection visa interview. On 8 October 2021 the department sent the applicant a letter inviting him to provide additional information about his claims. The applicant responded by indicating that:
·The applicant did not keep any evidence or proof to support his claims regarding being a Falun Gong practitioner, or what had happened to him in China.
·He will not be able to acquire any evidence to support his claims because this matter has taken place a long time ago.
- The applicant considers that the Australian Falun Gong Association is involved with politics, and as a result, he decided not to join them; instead, he currently practices Falun Gong on his own at home.
The delegate’s decision
The delegate was not satisfied that the applicant is a Falun Gong practitioner, or that they have a profile that would be of adverse interest to the Chinese authorities or anyone else if they return to China. Therefore, the delegate was not satisfied that the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution as defined in s5J of the Act for any of the reasons in s5J(1)(a) if returned to China. With respect to complimentary protection, the delegate not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed to People’s Republic of China, there is a real risk the applicant will suffer significant harm as outlined in s36(2)(aa) of the Act.
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). 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 issue in this case is whether there is a real chance that if the applicant returns to China they will be persecuted for one or more of the 5 reasons set out in s 5J(1)(a) for the purposes 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 the applicant being removed from Australia to China, there is a real risk that they will suffer significant harm for the purposes of s 36(2)(aa) of the Act.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
Based on the evidence before the Tribunal, the Tribunal accepts and finds that the applicant does not have a right to enter and reside in a country other than their own country of origin – China. Therefore, the Tribunal accepts that s 36(3) of the Act does not apply to the applicant’s circumstances.
Country of nationality
The applicant travelled to Australia on an apparently genuine Chinese passport, a copy of which is contained in his Departmental file.[2] He has at all times stated that he is a citizen of China and has been assessed on that basis by the Department.[3] The Tribunal finds that the applicant is a Chinese citizen and has assessed his claims against China as the country of nationality and the receiving country.
[2] Department File: BCC2018/3723915, Tribunal File: 2204111
[3] Ibid
The Tribunal notes section 5AAA of the Act provides that it is the responsibility of the applicant to specify all particulars of their claim and to provide sufficient evidence to establish the claim. Although the concept of onus of proof is not appropriate to administrative inquiries and decision-making, the relevant facts of the individual case will have to be supplied by the applicant in as much detail as is necessary to enable the decision maker to establish the relevant facts. A decision maker is not required to make the applicant's case for him/her. Nor is the Tribunal required to accept uncritically any and all of the allegations made by an applicant (Randhawa v MILGEA (1994) 52 FCR 437 at 451).
In essence, the applicants claim is that he fears religious persecution from the Chinese authorities because he practices Falun Gong which is banned in China. He fears that he will be imprisoned and abused because of his religious beliefs.
The applicant has not provided any evidence of being harmed in any way. There is no evidence about how the applicant practiced his religious beliefs or how he expressed his beliefs whilst living in China. The applicant has not provided any evidence about how he was subjected to psychological harm nor is there any evidence of the applicant seeking assistance from the Chinese authorities and why they did not provide assistance to him.
There is no evidence before the Tribunal that the applicant came to the attention of Chinese authorities because of his religious beliefs and what actual harm he suffered if any. The Tribunal notes that the applicant was able to depart China in 2018 without any concern and without being questioned by Chinese authorities. The fact that the applicant was able to freely depart China without incident, suggests that he is not a person of interest to the Chinese authorities or any other persons.
There is no evidence before the Tribunal that his wife, child, parents or sibling who all reside in China, have been the subject of any attention from Chinese authorities or that they have been harmed in any way over the past 6 years. There is no evidence before the Tribunal about how the applicant has continued to practice his religious beliefs in Australia. The applicant has been living in Australia since February 2018, a period of more than 6 years.
Having regard to all the evidence, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant was a Falun Gong follower or practitioner or that he was ever harmed because of his religious beliefs. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant left China to escape threats or harm from Chinese authorities.
Given these findings, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant faces a real chance of serious harm from any persons, or any authority if he returns to China. It therefore follows that the Tribunal does not accept the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution pursuant to s 5J(1) of the Act.
Does the applicant have a well-founded fear of persecution if returned to China?
The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s claims individually and cumulatively but is not satisfied that the applicant would face a real chance of serious harm now or in the foreseeable future if he returned to China.
For the reasons given above, the Tribunal finds that the applicant does not have a well-founded fear of persecution as required by s 5J for any of the grounds advanced and it therefore finds that he is not a refugee within the meaning of s 5H.
Accordingly, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(a).
Complementary protection
In considering whether the applicant meets the complementary protection criterion in s 36(2)(aa), the Tribunal has considered whether it has 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 they will suffer significant harm.
The applicant has not provided any other reason, apart from what he has already claimed, as to why he would fear harm if he returned to China.
In this case, the Tribunal has found that the applicant is a national of China, and the Tribunal therefore finds that China is his ‘receiving country’ for the purposes of s 5(1).
‘Significant harm’ is exclusively defined in s 36(2A) as follows:
(2A) A non-citizen will suffer significant harm if:
(a) the non-citizen will be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life; or
(b) the death penalty will be carried out on the non-citizen; or
(c) the non-citizen will be subjected to torture; or
(d) the non-citizen will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or
(e) the non-citizen will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment.
For the reasons set out above, the Tribunal has found there is no real chance of the applicant suffering serious harm if returned to China from Chinese authorities or any other persons. In Minister for Immigration andCitizenship v SZQRB [2013] FCAFC 33, the Full Federal Court held that the ‘real risk’ test imposes the same standard as the ‘real chance’ test applicable to the assessment of ‘well-founded fear’ in the Refugee Convention definition. The Tribunal notes that this applies equally to the assessment of ‘well-founded fear’ for the purposes of s 5J. It follows that the Tribunal does not accept that there is a real risk that the applicant would face significant harm if returned to China for any of the above reasons, whether taken individually or cumulatively.
For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk the applicant will face significant harm, as defined in s 36(2A) of the Act, if he is removed from Australia and returned to China. The Tribunal is therefore not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(aa) of the Act
Family unit member assessment

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 any of the criteria 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.
…