2204270 (Refugee) - [2025] ARTA 2315

2204270 (Refugee) [2025] ARTA 2315 (22 August 2025)
DECISION AND
REASONS FOR DECISION
Respondent:Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

Tribunal Number: 2204270
Tribunal:General Member S Vohra
Date:22 August 2025

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

Statement made on 22 August 2025 at 10:24am
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Malaysia – particular social group – lesbian women in Malaysia – fears being arrested and imprisoned – decision on the papers – lack of detail – no supporting evidence – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth), s 106
Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 (Cth)
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5, 5AAA, 5H, 5J–5LA, 36, 56, 65, 369, 499
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2
CASES
EIZ20 v Child Support Registrar [2023] FedCFamC2G 637
MIAC v SZQRB (2013) 210 FCR 505; [2013] HCATrans 323
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 22 March 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 2 October 2018. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that that the applicant’s claims were not credible.
On 23 March 2022, the applicant applied to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) for merits review of the delegate’s decision. 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, inviting her to complete a Pre-Hearing Information form. The form asks, among other things, whether the applicant wants to give any further information about the claims for protection or whether there are any other reasons the applicant is afraid to return to her home country. The applicant returned the form, copying and pasting the claims as they were summarised by the delegate in the delegate’s decision. No further or additional information was provided.
On 17 July 2025, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant, inviting her to appear before the Tribunal on 8 August 2025 to give evidence and present arguments. The invitation asked her to read and complete an enclosed Response to hearing notice’ form.
On 22 July 2025, the applicant returned the form, responding to the question “Will you take part in the hearing scheduled for 8 August 2025?’ by marking the box which says “No I will not participate in the hearing, and request the Tribunal to make a decision on the papers without holding a hearing”. In addition, she twice typed on the form:
I HERE REQUEST THE ART TRIBUNAL TO MAKE A DECISION WITHOUT HEARING INTERVIEW, BUT ART TRIBUNAL MAKE A DECISION ON PAPERS. THANKS.
The Tribunal responded the same day, writing as follows:
The Tribunal confirms receipt of your completed Response to Hearing Notice dated 22 July 2025 and your request that the Tribunal make a decision on the papers without holding a hearing.
The Tribunal confirms that it will determine the issues in the case on the papers without holding a hearing and has cancelled the hearing scheduled for 8 August 2025.
A decision on the papers means that the decision will be based on the information and evidence before the Tribunal and the Tribunal may consider issues that were not previously considered by the primary decision maker. It may be the case that the Tribunal does not make a favourable decision.
The issues for determination in this case are whether the applicant satisfies the criteria for a grant of a protection visa, either by being a refugee or a person who meets the criteria for complementary protection or by being a member of the same family unit as a person who is a refugee or meets the criterion for complementary protection.
First, however, the Tribunal must consider and be satisfied that the issues for determination in the proceeding can be adequately determined in the absence of the parties to the proceeding, in accordance with s106(3)(c) of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth) (the ART Act).
Should the Tribunal proceed to reach a decision without a hearing?
For the reasons that follow, the Tribunal has decided to make a decision without a hearing. Section 106 (3) of the ART Act outlines circumstances in which the Tribunal may make a decision without a hearing. These include if:
·the only parties to the proceeding are the applicant and a non-participating party to the proceeding, and
·the applicant requests the Tribunal to do so, and
·it appears to the Tribunal that the issues for determination in the proceeding can be adequately determined in the absence of the parties to the proceeding.
In this case, the only parties in the proceeding are the applicants and a non-participating party. The Tribunal is satisfied that the first criterion is met.
Further, as outlined above, the Tribunal invited the applicant to attend a hearing, but the applicant responded by asking for the Tribunal to make a decision on the papers without a hearing. As well as checking the relevant box, the applicant explicitly typed this request twice on the form. The Tribunal is therefore satisfied that the second criterion is also met.
The Tribunal must now determine if the third criterion is met. That is, can the issues for determination in the proceeding be adequately determined in the absence of the parties to the proceeding?
The Tribunal has before it a copy of the Department’s file which includes a copy of the bio-page of the applicant’s passport and her protection visa application form, which contains her biographical information and claims for protection. The applicant has been provided several opportunities to provide any and all information about her claims as follows:
·The protection visa application form completed by the applicant stated that they should provide all the details about why they are seeking protection and any supporting documentation, as a decision may be made on the information provided in the application only.
·The applicant was sent an acknowledgement of receipt letter by the Department, which states in part that a decision may be made on the application without requesting further information and that the applicant can bring any additional information they would like considered to the appointment for the collection of personal identifiers or provide it through ImmiAccount or by mail.
·As referred to in the delegate’s decision, the delegate wrote to the application requesting further information, under s 56 of the Act. The delegate invited the applicant to provide further information to assist the delegate in assessing whether the claims are genuine. The delegate noted that the claims lacked substantiating details such as dates and names. Further, the applicant had not provided any documents or other evidence to corroborate or support the claims. However, the applicant did not respond or furnish any further information.
·The Tribunal provided the applicant with the opportunity to complete a Pre-Hearing Information Form which asks the applicant if she wants to provide more information about her claims for protection and whether there are any other reasons she is afraid to return to her home country. The applicant only cut and paste the summary of the claims, as written in the delegate’s decision.
·The Tribunal invited the applicant to appear at a hearing, however the applicant wrote that she would not attend and requested a decision to be made on the papers, without holding a hearing.
Based on the above, it is open to, and reasonable for, the Tribunal to conclude that the applicant has provided all the information that she considers important and relevant, and that the Tribunal can properly review the decision with the information before it.[1]
[1] See EIZ20v Child Support Registrar [2023] FedCFamC2G 637(20July 2023) at [59].
The Tribunal has also considered that, in accordance with Section 5AAA (2) of the Act, it is the responsibility of the applicant to specify all particulars of their claim and to provide sufficient evidence to establish the claim to be a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations. Effectively, the Tribunal does not have any responsibility or obligation to specify, or assist the applicant in specifying, any particulars of their claims. Nor does the Tribunal have any responsibility or obligation to establish, or assist in establishing, the claim.
With the information before it, the Tribunal is able to be satisfied as to the applicant’s identity, determine the applicant’s receiving country and form conclusions as to whether the applicant meets the criteria for a protection visa. The Tribunal is therefore satisfied that the issues for determination in the proceeding can be adequately determined in the absence of the parties to the proceeding.
BACKGROUND
The applicant is [an age] year old woman who is the holder of a Malaysian passport. She arrived in Australia [in] February 2018 on an Electronic Travel Authority, returning to Malaysia for 3 months from end of April to July 2018, and arriving again in Australia [in] July 2018 on an Electronic Travel Authority.
The delegate’s decision states that she sought a subclass 600 Visitor visa onshore for business reasons in April 2018, which was deemed invalid. She first lodged a protection visa application on 21 September 2018 which was deemed invalid and then lodged a valid protection visa application on 2 October 2018.
Evidence before the Department
The information provided to the Department in support of the applicant’s claims to engage Australia’s protection obligations was contained in her protection visa application form. In that form, the applicant claimed as follows:
a.The applicant left Malaysia as she is in a relationship with a woman and the majority of Malaysians are Muslims with strong religious beliefs.
b.She has experienced lots of ‘bad situations’ which have affected her career, her life, her family and her relationship.
c.In Malaysian society, ‘people like her’ are not allowed to be together in public or live a normal life. They are despised and, if the relationship becomes known, they can be arrested and imprisoned.
d.If she returns, she will not be allowed to be together with her partner in public. She will be ‘arrested and imprisoned by the society’.
e.No authorities or organisations can protect her.
As stated above, the applicant was requested by the delegate, by way of letter, to provide further information about the claims but she did not do so.
The delegate refused the visa, writing:
I do not find the applicant’s claim of being a lesbian woman or what she claims has adversely happened to her because of her sexuality to be credibly supported by on the evidence and information currently before me.
I therefore do not accept the applicant is lesbian as claimed or find the assertion that she fears harm in Malaysia for reasons of her membership of a particular social group, as a lesbian from Malaysia to be credible.
I have considered the applicant’s claims but due to the lack of detail and evidence in her application and her failure to provide further information, I am not satisfied that her claims are genuine.
In light of these concerns, I find that the applicant’s claims are neither credible nor credibly supported by meaningful corroborating information or evidence.
Evidence before the Tribunal
The Tribunal has before it a copy of the departmental file, containing the applicant’s protection visa application.
It also has a copy of the delegate’s protection visa decision which was attached to the application to the Tribunal for merits review. The delegate did not accept the claims to fear harm because the lack of information provided by the applicant, despite being given the opportunity to provide further information, meant that the delegate was unable to be satisfied that the claims were credible.
No other information or supporting evidence was provided to the Tribunal and, as stated above, the applicant did not complete a form to provide further information and declined to attend a hearing, requesting that the Tribunal make a decision on the papers.
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.
REASONS AND FINDINGS
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
The applicant’s identity and country of reference
The applicant claims to be a citizen of Malaysia. The applicant provided a copy of her passport to the Department. The Department accepted the applicant’s identity. There is nothing before the Tribunal to suggest that the applicant is not the person identified in the application for protection.
The Tribunal accepts that the applicant is a citizen of Malaysia which is also her receiving country for the purposes of refugee and complementary protection assessments.
Does the applicant satisfy the refugee criterion for protection?
The Tribunal does not consider that the applicant’s claims for protection are established. The claims stated in the protection application are vague and are lacking in any detail or specificity. There are no dates, locations, names of other parties and or any substantiating documentation or other evidence which will assist the Tribunal in finding that the claims are established. For example:
a.The applicant claims that she is in a same-sex relationship with a woman but gives no details about her relationship. She gave no details about her partner nor provided details such as the length of the relationship, how it began, whether they lived together or how often they saw each other.
b.The applicant claims to be a lesbian but did not provide any details about this, such as when she first realised she was attracted to women or whether anyone knew about her sexuality.
c.The applicant claims that she has experienced lots of ‘bad situations’ which have affected her career, her life, her family and her relationship. However, she has not explained what these situations were, when they occurred, who was involved and how they have affected her.
The applicant does not provide any substantiating documentation or other evidence to support her claims, about the existence of her relationship or about the bad situations that she experienced and their impacts. While the Tribunal accepts that an applicant may not be able to substantiate their claims and that there is no requirement for corroborating evidence, this lack of substantiation means that there is scant information before the Tribunal to assist it to accept the claims set out in the protection visa application and Pre-Hearing Information Form.
As outlined above, the applicant was given several opportunities to provide further details and evidence to support her claims but declined to do so.
On the scant evidence before it, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant has established the claims. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant is a lesbian. Consequently, it does not accept that she has experienced harm in the past due to this or that she faces harm if she returns to Malaysia due to her sexuality. The applicant has not claimed to fear harm for any other reason. The Tribunal therefore does not accept that there is a real chance that the applicant will be harmed in the reasonably foreseeable future if she returns to Malaysia.
As the Tribunal finds that there is no real chance of harm in the reasonably foreseeable future if the applicant returns to Malaysia, the Tribunal finds that the applicant does not have a well-founded fear of persecution and therefore does not meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a) of the Act.
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), the Tribunal has considered the alternative criterion in s 36(2)(aa).

In doing this, 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 Malaysia, there is a real risk that she will suffer significant harm.
As discussed above, the Tribunal has not accepted that the applicant faces a real chance of harm should she return to Malaysia. The “real risk” test under the complementary protection criterion imposes the same standard as the “real chance” test under the refugee criterion.[2]
[2] MIAC v SZQRB (2013) 210 FCR 505 (special leave to appeal from this judgment was refused: MIAC v SZQRB [2013] HCATrans 323). The Court rejected the submission that ‘real risk’ was a higher threshold which required that the possibility of harm be more likely than not: per Lander and Gordon JJ at [246], Besanko and Jagot JJ at [297], Flick J at [342]; reflected in the Complementary Protection Guidelines: see Department of Home Affairs, Complementary Protection Guidelines, section 3.5.1, as re-issued 29 February 2020.
Following the reasoning given above, and on the basis of the material before it, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a real risk that the applicant will suffer harm. Therefore, the Tribunal is not satisfied that that there is a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm and the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person who meets the complementary protection criterion in s 36(2)(aa).
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.
Hearing: Not applicable
Representative: Not applicable
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.
…