2206998 (Refugee) - [2025] ARTA 2015

2206998 (REFUGEE) [2025] ARTA 2015 (29 AUGUST 2025)
DECISION AND
REASONS FOR DECISION
Respondent: Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

Tribunal Number: 2206998
Tribunal:General Member B Butler
Date:29 August 2025

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

Statement made on 29 August 2025 at 11:40am
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Thailand – particular social group – gender identity variously described, stated at hearing as transgender man – discrimination, social exclusion and systemic inequality, and political and legal hostility – identity not accepted by mother, and relationships with women not accepted by their families – confronted in public – one relationship, no public disclosure or medical consultation in Australia – return visit and delay in applying for protection – gender identity accepted – country information – general tolerance and gender and marriage equality laws, with public discussion of gender recognition bill – limited information about conditions for transgender men – low risk of official discrimination – experiences distressing but not serious harm as defined – economic conditions and employment opportunities – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5H(1)(a), 5J(1)(a), (4), (5), 36(2)(a), (aa), (2A), 65
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2
CASES
AWC21 v MHA [2022] FCA 1568
GLD18 v MHA [2020] FCAFC 2
SZRSN v MIAC [2013] FMCA 78; [2013] FCA 751
SZTAL v MIBP; SZTGM v MIBP (2017) 262 CLR 362
WZARI v MIMAC [2013] FCA 788
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

The applicant is a [Age]-year-old national of Thailand who identifies as a transgender man. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The applicant applied for the visa on 24 September 2019. The delegate refused to grant the visa on 13 May 2022.
The applicant applied to the former Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) for review of the decision on 13 May 2022.
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.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 25 August 2025 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Thai and English languages.
The applicant has described their gender identity in different ways throughout the application process. While evidence submitted to the Tribunal referred to the applicant as a transgender woman or ‘ladyboy’, the applicant has more recently stated he is a transgender man and used the Thai term ‘tom’ in describing himself. The applicant has also used ‘Miss’ in her visa application, however this appears to be consistent with identity documents. I note that the applicant recorded male on the visa application form. I note that gender identity is complex and can be expressed differently over time. As the applicant said at the hearing that he identifies as a transgender man, and for clarity and respect, I will therefore use male pronouns when referring to the applicant in these reasons.
In the response to hearing notice form, the applicant indicated that he would like the Tribunal to take evidence from a witness but did not specify any witnesses. At the hearing, the applicant confirmed that this was an error and that he did not intend to propose that the Tribunal take evidence from any witnesses.
BACKGROUND
Evidence before the Department
The applicant made claims for protection in the protection visa application, which are summarised as follows:
·His family does not believe in gay marriage and said that marriage is between a man and a woman and is ordained by God and that same-sex marriage is counterfeit.
·Thailand’s growing moral and political panic about sexuality has produced draft laws that could criminalise sex outside marriage and also same-sex conduct.
·He is worried about legal action from the constitutional court.
·He cannot abide by the status quo and is willing to stand up and be counted. Australia provides a good environment, and he is happy and safe.
The delegate refused the application, finding that the applicant identifies as a homosexual and having regard to country information about the situation for LGBT people in Thailand, including that at the time of the delegate’s decision same-sex marriage were not legally recognised in Thailand, they were not satisfied that the applicant faced a real chance of persecution for their sexual orientation in Thailand. They were also not satisfied that the applicant faced a real risk of significant harm in Thailand.
Evidence before the Tribunal
Pre-hearing statement
The applicant provided a submission to the Tribunal, dated 5 June 2025. In the submission, he stated that he identifies as a ladyboy (transgender woman) and that while Thailand is often perceived as tolerant of LGBTQ+ individuals, the reality is that it is dangerous and unaccepting for such people. The applicant claimed that he had experienced discrimination, social exclusion and systemic inequality throughout life, including during childhood, because of his gender identity. He claimed that he had faced rejection from many areas of society, such as his family, school, workplaces and government institutions, and that he felt constantly judged, mocked and marginalised.
He referred to being denied access to public restrooms that matched his gender identity, which led to embarrassment and humiliation, and that he had been verbally harassed in public spaces, and that he had been rejected for jobs on the basis that the position was ‘not suitable’ for someone like him. He also claimed to have been denied appropriate medical care in hospitals when presenting as a woman.
He claimed that the political and legal climate in Thailand has become increasingly hostile toward the LGBTQ+ community, and referred to rulings of the Thai Constitutional Court that diverse gender express is viewed as ‘immoral’ and ‘against Thai law and culture’, and that these comments made him feel illegal and socially condemned. He claimed that he may face legal consequences or surveillance from the government for expressing who he truly is, and that the possibility of being criminalised for living as his authentic self is real and terrifying.
He also claimed that there is no effective protection available in Thailand because state officials hold prejudices against LGBTQ+ people and that complaints of discrimination or abuse are often ignored or dismissed. He claimed that, in his experience, seeking help from government agencies or the police had led to further humiliation and mistreatment.
He also referred to violence against LGBTQ+ people occurring frequently in Thailand and that perpetrators are not held accountable, which creates an atmosphere of fear and helplessness. He referred to being sexually harassed by men in public and that no one offered to help, and that the police mocked him and questioned his appearance when he reported the incidents. He has heard from friends in the LGBTQ+ community who have been physically assaulted and killed without any serious investigation by the authorities.
The hearing
The applicant confirmed that he had assistance completing the protection visa application form and that the same person who assisted with the visa application also provided assistance when preparing the statement submitted to the Tribunal. He said that the claims in the visa application and statement submitted to the Tribunal reflected incidents that happened.
The applicant clarified that he identifies as a transgender man and that the reference to transgender woman and ladyboy in the statement of 5 June 2025 was incorrect and may have been a translation error.
The applicant is from [Province] in Thailand. He completed his education, up to [a grade], in this province. He then moved to Samut Prakan province for employment and worked in factories where [products] were made. In Samut Prakan, he rented accommodation and lived alone.
He has [siblings], who have different fathers, and he is not in contact with them. He does not know his father and grew up in an environment with his mother, as well as with uncles and aunts.
He said that when he was living alone in Thailand, he had girlfriends, and that he needed to change girlfriends a few times. This was because the relationships were not accepted by the girls’ parents, and that they did not accept the fact that he is transgender.
In terms of his gender identity, the applicant said that his body is biologically female but he would like to be a male and would like to have what males have and live life the way males do. He has not undergone any gender affirming treatment in Thailand or Australia, because he has not ‘come out’ yet. When asked to clarify, he said that he had not contacted any doctors about sex change or hormone therapy and that he has not been brave enough to do so.
The applicant said that he travelled to Australia for a holiday in 2017 or 2018, and then returned to Thailand. He then returned to Australia in 2019 and lodged the protection visa application. He said that he returned to Thailand for one year after the first trip to Australia so as to save up funds to be able to return to Australia. I asked why he did not apply for protection during the first trip to Australia. He said that he needed to return to Thailand to sell land so that he could bring money to Australia. The applicant said that he had purchased land in Thailand using his savings and it was empty residential land which was sold for 100,000 Thai Baht. He also enquired about whether there were any visas which would enable him to live in Australia. He was advised to apply for a protection visa and bridging visa. He added that he was told to write his story in the visa application and that it had to be the truth.
Since coming to Australia, he has worked on [workplaces] in regional Australia and currently lives in a share house. When asked about whether he had had any romantic relationships in Australia, the applicant said that he has been talking to someone. I asked him to elaborate as to whether this person was a friend or a girlfriend. He said that she was a girlfriend who was also from Thailand and that they had met on the [workplace], but they were not living together and that they had known each other for three years.
I asked whether people he worked with and people in his share house know that he identifies as a transgender man. He said that they do, and that people had asked whether he was gay. He responded that he was not gay but would like to be.
In terms of his experiences as a transgender man, he said that he has always felt transgender for as long as he could remember, and that at school people looked at him as if he was strange and they bullied him. I asked him about his experiences in the workplace in Thailand. He said that he had friends at work, but once he returned home, he did not have anyone. When asked to clarify what he meant, he said that they were just friends at work and would only talk at work, indicating that they were not close friends.
He told his mother that he identifies as transgender, but his mother did not accept it and attempted to force him to marry. I asked whether he was forced into marriage, and he said this was not the case because he moved to Samut Prakan, near Bangkok and that he did not go home to stay with his mother or family.
I asked what he was concerned about, if he returned to Thailand. He said that he is scared of society because people will not accept him, that he does not have anywhere to live in Thailand as he sold land, his mother did not accept him, and his siblings do not love him. He also noted that if he were to report any issues to the police, nothing would move forward and so he is scared of many things.
I asked whether he could elaborate on what he was scared of. He said that people at the factory would harm him, and that when he worked at a factory, he was sexually abused by a man. He said that he did not know who the man was and that the man did it in public which meant that people laughed. He was embarrassed by the situation and reported it to the police. The police asked whether he had done anything to the man first and he said that he did not know the man and that he had not done anything wrong. The man was not an employee at the factory but he thought that the man lived in the same area of Samut Prakan where the factory was located. He said that at the time, he was walking on the road and that the man was on a motorbike and touched his body to check whether he was male or female. He said that the incident occurred when he was [age] years old, which means the incident happened about 10 years ago. He also said that at work some people bullied him as well and that sometimes in public bathrooms, they would ask whether he is male or female and ask to see his private area to prove his sexuality or gender identity, which made him feel embarrassed. He said that he has used bathrooms when other people are not around or when few people are around.
He said that he was concerned that if he returned to Thailand now, the person who assaulted him may do so again. I asked whether he had been contacted by the person after the incident, and he said he had not been contacted by him and that he had not heard from him or about him. The applicant noted that following the incident, he moved to a different district in Samut Prakan. He said that after moving people also asked for his ID card when using public bathrooms or people may want to try to touch his body to prove his gender or sexuality.
He noted that even though Thailand had opened up as a society, the majority of society still does not accept people like him and that there is no law in place to protect people like him, which means that he feels it is dangerous because there is no law to protect transgender people.
The applicant raised that he was concerned about being able to secure employment in Thailand because of his [age], and that he is too old. He also said that he would like to work in agriculture in Thailand, but it was not something he could do, and when he returned to Thailand for a year (after first travelling to Australia), he had to work in a restaurant to secure employment.
When asked about the claim in the statement provided to the Tribunal that he had been denied medical care as a woman in Thailand, he said that he had visited a medical clinic for treatment for the flu and that it happened very quickly where an older person denied him treatment. The person said that they did not want to treat someone who is not normal. He said it was a long time ago and happened in Bangkok when he was living in Samut Prakan and that he went to Bangkok during his time off. I asked whether he was able to get treatment elsewhere. He said he was, but after that he did not go to visit a doctor again.
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, I have 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 the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion, or under the complementary protection criterion.
For the following reasons, I have concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
Findings on gender identity
I accept that the applicant is a transgender man, as claimed at the hearing. I accept that the claim was not clearly articulated prior to the hearing which is because of an error in translation where it was claimed he was a transgender woman. In the visa application, he did mark that he identified as male. From his presentation at the hearing and his evidence at the hearing about his experiences, I accept that he is a transgender man.
Country information
Thailand is reported to have a long-held reputation for tolerance towards lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and/or intersex (LGBTIQA+) people.[1] There are no laws which prohibit consensual same-sex relations, and issues facing LGBTIQA+ communities are discussed in public. The Gender Equality Act (2015) prohibits discrimination ‘due to the fact that the person is male or female or of a different appearance than his or her own sex by birth’.[2] The applicant did not appear to be aware of this Act, although I note that it was implemented in 2015 and the applicant departed Thailand (for the second time) in 2019, having previously spent time in Australia, and has not returned to Thailand. It is noted that while LGBTQIA+ people have successfully filed claims under the Act, critics have claimed it is not always effective and that offenders generally avoid punishment.[3] There have been reports of transgender women experiencing employment discrimination outside of stereotypical occupations such as sex work and beauty therapy and DFAT assesses that transgender women face a moderate risk of societal discrimination in employment.[4] However, there has not been a similar assessment made for transgender men.
[1] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Country Information Report – Thailand (18 December 2023) (DFAT Report), para 3.77.
[2] DFAT Report, para 3.77.
[3] DFAT Report, para 3.77.
[4] DFAT Report, para 3.88.

DFAT reports that overt homophobic statements or actions were generally considered unacceptable by Thai society and that DFAT is not aware of any pattern of societal violence against the LGBTQIA+ community or individuals in recent times. There are some reports of bullying against LGBTQIA+ people in schools, although in-country sources reported this was consistent with broader patterns of bullying of all students and rarely extended to physical violence.[5] DFAT’s community-wide assessment notwithstanding, there have been reports of family violence and rejection of LGBTIQA+ people on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity.[6]
[5] DFAT Report, para 3.80.
[6] DFAT Report, para 3.80.
Despite the prominence of LGBTQIA+ issues in Thailand, many Thais reportedly have a limited understanding of gay and lesbian relationships and often understand LGBTQIA+ to refer to transgender women. DFAT reports that lesbians and transgender men were much less visible in Thai society than gay men or transgender women, although sources reported this was rapidly changing.[7] While there is limited reporting on the situation for transgender men in Thailand, online articles indicate that the situation varies, and can be influenced by the family of origin. In a 2016 article by ‘The World’, a US based radio program, a transgender man noted that acceptance for trans people had shot up in the last five years, and that there are old-fashioned thinkers who say it is wrong but very few people from the young generation think this way, which is consistent with DFAT’s reporting that DFAT is not aware of any pattern of societal violence against the LGBTQIA+ community.[8] Notwithstanding reports of acceptance, some transgender men have reported living a lonely life in Thailand, particularly if not accepted by family or their community, and that there can be bigoted taunts and slurs used by co-workers and friends against them.[9]
[7] DFAT Report, para 3.79.
[8] Gym in Thailand is staffed exclusively by transgender men, The World, 14 June 2016 < See e.g., A tricky transition, Bangkok Post, 8 October 2012, <>
Transgender people are unable to change their sex on official documents, even when they have had sex reassignment surgery (SRS).[10] There has been discussion in the Thai media and community about allowing transgender people to change their sex on identity documents. A previous first draft of a bill which proposed to allow trans people to change gender markers was rejected by the Thai parliament in February 2024,[11] however, following the passage of the Marriage Equality Bill, community groups have urged the government to pass the Bill and the issue remains a concern within Thailand. As of January 2025, there were four versions of a Gender Recognition Bill which have been proposed.[12]
[10] DFAT Report, para 3.83.
[11] Parliament rejects MFP’s gender recognition bill, Prachatai English, 23 February 2024, < See e.g., Gender titles emerge as new battleground, Bangkok Post, 27 January 2025 <>
DFAT assesses that LGBTQIA+ people face a low risk of official discrimination through denial of inheritance, adoption, and medical rights, and that LGBTQIA+ people face a low risk of societal violence and discrimination, although this varies between families and communities.[13] For example, DFAT reported that while some LGBTQIA+ people lived openly in the Muslim-majority SBPs, others chose to relocate to Bangkok or other more tolerant areas.[14]
[13] DFAT Report, para 3.88.
[14] DFAT Report, para 3.80.
The applicant has referred to comments made by the Thai constitutional court. On 17 November 2021, the Thai Constitutional Court ruled on whether the country’s marriage law was constitutional, stating that the provision that marriage is only between a man and a woman does not contradict the Thai constitution, and that the purpose of marriage is to allow a man and woman to live together as husband and wife to establish a family unit to have children, to maintain the human race according to natural order, and that marriage between LGBT+ persons cannot establish such delicate bonds or relationships.[15] The ruling was seen as a setback for marriage equality within Thailand.
[15] Chanan Yodong, Thai Constitutional Court ruling against gender diversity and marriage equality, Apcom < A new blow for same-sex marriages, Bangkok Post, 18 November 2021 < Subtle meanings behind Thai Constitutional Court’s ruling against same-sex marriage, Nation Thailand, 3 December 2021 < Constitutional Court Ruling No. 20/2564, Constitutional Court of Thailand, Unofficial translation – Center for Southeast Asian Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison <>
Advocacy groups continued their push for same-sex marriage to be recognised in Thailand, and in September 2024, Thailand became the third jurisdiction in Asia to legalise same-sex marriage when the Thai King signed the same-sex marriage bill into law (which passed the parliament in June 2024), with reports that LGBTIQA+ people in the region wished to move to Thailand to live more openly.[16] The law took effect on 23 January 2025, with hundreds of couples reportedly marrying in Thailand, including an event at a shopping mall in Bangkok where over 150 same-sex marriages took place.[17]
[16] Thailand's historic marriage equality laws may spark a 'pink baht' boom — and not just from an influx of LGBTQIA+ weddings, ABC News Australia, 4 August 2024 < Thai king signs same-sex marriage bill into law, BBC, 25 September 2024 < Couples wed as landmark same-sex marriage law takes effect in Thailand, NPR, 23 January 2025, <>
The applicant has referred to the issue of gender-neutral bathrooms and being asked to show ID on occasion when using public bathrooms. While gender-neutral bathrooms are not widespread in Thailand, it is recognised as a country that has gender-neutral bathrooms and is trending towards gender-neutral bathrooms; although it is noted that public opinion appears to be divided, and that some transgender people opt to use the universal or disabled bathroom.[18]
The applicant’s experiences as a transgender man
[18] Countries with Gender Neutral Bathrooms 2025, World Population Review 2025 < Debate over gender-neutral toilets gains traction in Thailand, Thaiger, 10 July 2024 <>
I accept that the applicant is not in regular contact with his mother and that he moved to Samut Prakan after completing high school so as to live away from family members who did not accept his gender identity. This is consistent with country information, referred to above, which outlines that some families do not accept LGBTQIA+ people.
The applicant was able to rent accommodation in Samut Prakan, near Bangkok, and live independently, including being able to save up money to purchase residential land. He was also able to secure employment in factories and in a restaurant, and I accept his evidence in this regard. He referred to having some friends at work, despite being the subject of inappropriate comments.
The applicant has claimed Thailand is dangerous for people like himself and that he was sexually assaulted on the street in a situation where a man felt his body ostensibly in an attempt to identify his gender, and that this occurred about 10 years ago. The applicant reported the situation to the police and was asked whether he had done anything to the other person first. The applicant in his written claims indicated that the police did not take action. I accept that this incident would have been deeply distressing for the applicant and that following the incident, he moved within Samut Prakan.
I also accept that the applicant has, from time to time, experienced discrimination in the form of having his ID checked when using public bathrooms and that comments have been made about his gender and appearance. I also accept that on one occasion, the applicant was refused treatment for the flu because the older person providing treatment did not wish to treat the applicant on the basis of his appearance. I accept that comments about the applicant’s appearance and gender identity have been made about him since he was in high school.
The applicant claimed to have been in four to five relationships with women in Thailand and that the relationships ended because the woman’s parents did not approve. When speaking about the relationships, the applicant spoke referring to a singular incident. However, I accept that on multiple occasions, the applicant’s relationships ended because of disapproval from the woman’s family. I accept that the applicant has had romantic relationships with women in Thailand which ended because the families of the women did not approve of the relationships. In respect of relationships in Australia, while the applicant initially said he was ‘talking to someone’, I also accept that the applicant is in a relationship with a woman. The applicant did not appear to embellish his evidence at the hearing in respect of his relationships.
The applicant’s identity card records him as ‘Miss’ and this is consistent with current Thai law that means that it is not possible to change one’s gender on identity documents.[19]
[19] DFAT report, para 3.83.
Does the applicant satisfy the refugee criterion for protection?
I accept that the applicant has been the subject of negative comments in the past in Thailand because of his masculine appearance and gender identity as a transgender man. I acknowledge that comments made by other students during the formative school years, and also by co-workers, would have been deeply distressing for the applicant. It is unfortunate that there remain people who would seek to belittle or humiliate others on the basis of their gender identity.
I have considered whether such comments made towards the applicant or about him would constitute serious harm. For the purposes of s 5J(4), s 5J(5) provides that the following are instances of serious harm: (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. This is not an exhaustive list of instances of serious harm.
Despite being the subject of some negative comments, I note that the applicant was able to complete his education until [a grade] and then move to Samut Prakan, secure employment and live independently. He was therefore able to continue to function within Thai society and did not face economic hardship, notwithstanding the emotional burden the comments would have taken. While the comments made about the applicant would have been hurtful, I do not accept that any such comments made about the applicant’s appearance and transgender identity amount to serious harm.
I also note that the country information indicates that transgender men are becoming more visible within Thailand and that the younger generation is more accepting of LGBTQIA+ people. DFAT is not aware of any pattern of societal violence against the LGBTQIA+ community or individuals in recent times. Therefore, while I accept that the applicant may face some comments from people in Thailand, society as a whole appears to be largely tolerant of LGBTQIA+ people and the situation for transgender people has improved over time. I do not accept that negative or bigoted comments in this context amount to serious harm, and I do not accept that the applicant faces a real chance of serious harm on the basis of comments made about him or to him in respect of his appearance and/or gender identity, now or in the reasonably foreseeable future in Thailand.
I have considered the cumulative effect of such comments over time, however I do not accept that they would give rise to a real chance of serious harm in the applicant’s circumstances as a [Age]-year-old who has been able to live independently of family from a young age, purchase property, and establish himself in Samut Prakan and also in Australia.
I have considered the applicant’s assault which occurred approximately 10 years ago. I acknowledge it would have been deeply distressing for the applicant to be touched in public in such a way, and for the police to not take action. Based on the applicant’s evidence at hearing, this incident was traumatic, however, it was an isolated incident when he was [Age]. I acknowledge the serious impact that it had on the applicant; I do not accept that an isolated incident of touching on the street in the circumstances described, which is deeply inappropriate, amounts to serious harm. Based on the country information in respect of the community’s views on LGBTQIA+ issues and growing acceptance by younger people, I find that there is only a remote chance that the applicant would face harm of this type in the future, and accordingly do not accept that there is a real chance of the incident occurring in the reasonably foreseeable future.
I note that the applicant is not able to change his gender marker on his identity document, as this is current Thai law. While I acknowledge that being referred to as ‘Miss’ may at times be distressing, I do not accept that it amounts to serious harm.
The applicant has referred to issues when using public bathrooms, and that other people have at times asked him to prove his identity when using bathrooms. I accept that it would be uncomfortable to be asked about gender when using public bathrooms and to have to think about whether using the public bathrooms will cause unnecessary attention. As noted above, it is open to the applicant to use a gender-neutral bathroom option (such as a disabled toilet) or to use bathrooms when there are fewer people around. Thailand is a country where there is reportedly an increasing number of gender-neutral bathrooms and an awareness of the need for more bathroom options for transgender people. While I find it would be distressing for the applicant to have to consider these issues when using public bathrooms, I do not accept that using a gender-neutral option or using bathrooms in known spaces which are accepting of transgender men or when there are fewer people around amounts to serious harm in the context outlined above.
The applicant said that he had to change girlfriends in Thailand because the parents of his girlfriends did not accept that she was transgender. I accept that some parents may not accept their adult children dating transgender people, and may discourage relationships with transgender people. I accept that this occurred in the applicant’s case and that it would have been distressing for the applicant to have relationships end because of interference from family members of his partners. The applicant said she had multiple relationships, and I accept that despite relationship breakdowns, he was able to find other partners. I do not accept that all parents in Thailand would discourage relationships with a transgender man, and that it is possible for the applicant who is now [age] years old to date a woman whose family is more accepting of a relationship with a transgender man. I also do not accept that a relationship breakdown in itself amounts to serious harm, including in the context of multiple relationship breakdowns. Accordingly, I do not accept that the applicant faces a real chance of serious harm now or in the reasonably foreseeable future in relation to dating in Thailand.
Does the applicant satisfy the complementary protection criterion for protection?
I have accepted that comments were made towards the applicant, and about the applicant, because of his appearance and gender identity, and I have accepted that he was assaulted in the past.
For the purposes of complementary protection, ‘significant harm’ is exhaustively defined in s 36(2A): s 5(1). A person will suffer significant harm if he or she will be arbitrarily deprived of their life; or the death penalty will be carried out on the person; or the person will be subjected to torture; or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or to degrading treatment or punishment. ‘Cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment’, ‘degrading treatment or punishment’, and ‘torture’, are further defined in s 5(1) of the Act. ‘Cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment’ for the purposes of s 36(2A)(d) is exhaustively defined in s 5(1) of the Act to mean an act or omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is inflicted on a person, or pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is 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. The pain or suffering must be intentionally inflicted, in the sense that there is an actual, subjective intention on the part of a person to bring about the suffering by their conduct: SZTAL v MIBP; SZTGM v MIBP (2017) 262 CLR 362 at [26]–[27] and [114]. The final type of significant harm listed in s 36(2A) is degrading treatment or punishment: s 36(2A)(e). Degrading treatment or punishment is exhaustively defined in s 5(1) of the Act to mean an act or omission which causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation which is unreasonable, in the sense that there is an actual, subjective intention on the part of a person to bring about the suffering by their conduct: SZTAL v MIBP; SZTGM v MIBP (2017) 262 CLR 362 at [26]–[27] and [114].
I have considered whether comments made about or towards the applicant in relation to his appearance and gender identity amount to significant harm. While I acknowledge that such comments would be deeply distressing, I do not accept that they amount to severe pain or suffering, and I do not consider that they amount to extreme humiliation. The applicant was able to continue working and live independently, and also function within Thai society including by saving and buying land. The extent of the comments, which amount to discrimination and bigoted comments, do not rise to the level of significant harm. Further, as noted above, society as a whole appears to be largely tolerant of LGBTQIA+ people and the situation for transgender people has improved over time. Accordingly, I do not accept that the applicant faces a real risk of significant harm on the basis of comments made about him or to him in respect of his appearance and/or gender identity, now or in the reasonably foreseeable future in Thailand.
I have also considered the cumulative effect of such comments over time, however I do not accept that they would give rise to a real risk of significant harm in the applicant’s circumstances as a [Age]-year-old who has been able to live independently of family from a young age, purchase property, and establish himself in Samut Prakan and also in Australia.

I have considered the applicant’s assault which occurred approximately 10 years ago. I note that it was an isolated incident when he was [age]. I have considered whether the incident amounts to significant harm, and have considered in particular whether it amounts to extreme humiliation or severe pain and suffering. I accept that it would have been deeply distressing for the applicant, it is highly inappropriate and led to a degree of humiliation for the applicant; however, I do not accept that an isolated incident of this nature amounts to significant harm as defined. I have also considered country information in respect of the community’s views on LGBTQIA+ issues and growing acceptance by younger people and I also find that there is only a remote chance that the applicant would face this type of incident in the future, and do not accept that there is a real risk of this type of incident occurring in the reasonably foreseeable future.
I note that the applicant is not able to change his gender marker on his identity document, as this is current Thai law. While I acknowledge that being referred to as ‘Miss’ may at times be distressing, I do not accept that it amounts to significant harm.
As noted above, the applicant has referred to issues when using public bathrooms, and that other people have at times asked him to prove his identity when using bathrooms. As noted above, it is open to the applicant to use a gender-neutral bathroom option (such as a disabled toilet) or to use bathrooms when there are fewer people around. Thailand is a country where there is reportedly an increasing number of gender-neutral bathrooms and an awareness of the need for more bathroom options for transgender people. I find it would be distressing for the applicant to have to consider these issues when using public bathrooms. However, having regard to the definition of significant harm, I do not accept that having to use a gender-neutral option or using bathrooms in known spaces which are accepting of transgender men or when there are fewer people around amounts to severe pain or suffering, and I do not consider that the situation amounts to extreme humiliation. I do not accept that it amounts to significant harm in the context outlined above.
The applicant said that he had to change girlfriends in Thailand because the parents of his girlfriends did not accept that he was transgender. I have accepted that it would have been distressing for the applicant to have relationships end because of interference from family members of his girlfriends. The applicant said he had multiple relationships, and I accept that despite relationship breakdowns, he was able to find other partners. I do not accept that all parents in Thailand would discourage relationships with a transgender man, and that it is possible for the applicant who is now [Age] years old to date a woman whose family is more accepting of a relationship with a transgender man. I find that the parents of his partners were not attempting or intending to cause harm or distress to him, but rather they wished for their daughters to be in relationships with a cis-gender male, and the repercussions to the applicant were a consequence their actions. I also do not accept that a relationship breakdown in itself amounts to significant harm, including in the context of multiple relationship breakdowns, particularly where the applicant has been able to continue to date other people. Accordingly, I do not accept that the applicant faces a real risk of significant harm now or in the reasonably foreseeable future in relation to dating in Thailand.
Other matters
Health care
The applicant has referred to being refused treatment for the flu by an older person on one occasion in Bangkok because he is transgender man. I accept that this occurred. However, based on the applicant’s evidence, he was able to get treatment but also said that he did not visit a doctor again. There is no indication that medical treatment is generally withheld from or denied to transgender men in Thailand. Thailand reportedly has an advanced healthcare system with Thai citizens having access to good quality, affordable public healthcare under the government-funded Universal Coverage Scheme (UCS), which covers more than 75 per cent of the population, with the remainder covered under separate schemes for civil servants and private sector employees.[20] While I accept that there may be isolated incidents of discrimination, I do not accept that it is a widespread issue and the applicant was able to obtain treatment elsewhere. Accordingly, I do not accept that the applicant faces a real chance or real risk of any harm in relation to the provision of health care in Thailand.
Employment and re-establishing himself in Thailand
[20] DFAT Report, para 2.12.
When country information was put to the applicant about the overall situation for LGBTQIA+ people in Thailand and that society is largely reported to be tolerant, he then raised that it would be difficult to obtain employment in a factory because he is over [age] years old and that when he returned to Thailand from Australia after his first trip, he had to work in a restaurant and that while he would like to work in agriculture, farming opportunities are limited because people work on their own farms.
I note that the applicant moved away from his family and was able to establish himself in Samut Prakan and live independently. The applicant is now [Age] years old and has been able to find employment in Thailand and in Australia. There is no information before me to suggest that people over the age of [age] years old are discriminated against when applying for jobs at factories.
DFAT reports that Thailand has experienced rapid economic and social development since the 1960s and has been an upper-middle income economy since 2011.[21] Unemployment is reported among the lowest in the world.[22] Agriculture employs one-third of the labour force.[23]
[21] DFAT Report, para 2.7.
[22] DFAT Report, para 2.9.
[23] DFAT Report, para 2.8.
I do not accept that the applicant will not be able to find a job if he returns to Thailand. He has been employed in factories in Thailand and a restaurant in the past. While I acknowledge agriculture may provide employment for people on their own farms, I do not accept that the applicant would not be able to secure employment on a farm within Thailand, which would be seeking additional labour, if he chooses to find employment in that sector.
I have considered whether he would face discrimination in employment as a transgender man and/or as someone over the age of [age] years old. I acknowledge that some employers may prefer younger workers and may discriminate against transgender men, the applicant has been employed in the past in Thailand and I find that he would be able to find employment in a restaurant (as he has done previously), on a farm (such as a larger farm or with a family seeking assistance) or in a factory, such as a factory where there is no strict age limit. The applicant has relevant skills which would enable him to be employed in these industries.
Accordingly, I do not accept that he faces a real chance or real risk of any harm in relation to his ability to find employment now or in the reasonably foreseeable future in Thailand. The applicant has secured rental accommodation in Thailand in the past, and I find that he would be able to do so in the future, and do not find there is a real chance or real risk of any harm in relation to his ability to find accommodation.
I also acknowledge that the applicant is estranged from his family in Thailand and is in a relationship with a woman in Australia. I accept that returning to Thailand now would be difficult for him, including having to move away from his girlfriend, and also because of the length of time he has spent in Australia. I acknowledge that the difficulties the applicant may face in Thailand, by not having a family support network. However, I note that he resided in Samut Prakan previously and lived independently of his family, prior to moving to Australia. I have to consider whether the applicant engages Australia’s protection obligations, as set out by s 36(2) of the Migration Act. I find that any resulting emotional difficulties caused by his return to Thailand and having to re-establish himself would not be directed at him for any of the five refugee reasons in s 5J(1)(a), and I also do not accept that it amounts to serious harm. Further, having to establish himself in Thailand again and possible separation from his girlfriend in Australia would be the consequence of removal. In SZRSN v MIAC, the Federal Court stated that the fact that the significant harm must be a consequence of the removal strongly suggests that the removal itself cannot be the significant harm. A consequence cannot be said to have an ‘intention’, so the act of removal itself cannot be said to be perpetrated by the State with the intention to cause extreme humiliation that is unreasonable.[24] There is no act or omission on the part of another person in relation to his possible situation in Thailand where he may have to re-establish himself without family support or without his girlfriend. Accordingly, I find that the any difficulties in respect of having to establish himself without the support of his family in Thailand and possible separation from his girlfriend in Australia arise from the act of removal itself, and do not meet the definition of ‘significant harm’.[25]
Constitutional Court, Thai law and same-sex marriage
[24] SZRSN v MIAC [2013] FCA 751 at [48] and SZRSN v MIAC [2013] FMCA 78 at [65].
[25] SZRSN v MIAC [2013] FCA 751 at [47]–[49] (upholding the reasoning at first instance SZRSN v MIAC [2013] FMCA 78 at [61]–[65]); GLD18 v MHA [2020] FCAFC 2 at [36]–[58]; AWC21 v MHA [2022] FCA 1568 at [29]. Similarly, in WZARI v MIMAC [2013] FCA 788 at [31]–[32] the Court upheld the Tribunal finding that the applicant would not face ‘degrading treatment’ for the stress and pain of being separated from his family if he were returned to his home country (special leave to appeal dismissed: WZARI v MIAC [2013] HCASL 201).
The applicant previously claimed that he was concerned about comments made by the Thai Constitutional Court in respect of same-sex relationships. The law in Thailand has changed since the applicant came to Australia and made the protection visa application, and as noted above, same-sex marriage has been available in Thailand since January 2025. While I acknowledge it would have been distressing for the applicant and the LGBTQIA+ community in Thailand to read about the comments from the Thai Constitutional court, the passing of the same-sex marriage law has overtaken the position taken by the Thai Constitutional court in 2021. Further, the comments of the court were in relation to whether retaining marriage as between a man and woman was consistent with the Thai constitution, and while they may have reflected a degree of homophobia and/or transphobia on the part of the court, they did not seek to criminalise same-sex relationships or activity in any way. I do not accept that the applicant faces a real chance or real risk of any harm in relation to previous comments of the Thai Constitutional Court or because same-sex marriage was previously not available in Thailand.
Conclusion
I acknowledge that the situation for the applicant as a transgender man is complex in Thailand. I also acknowledge that the applicant would prefer to reside in regional Australia and continue to work in [work sector] or open his own business (which he said he would like to do) and contribute to the local community.
The information before me indicates that Thailand is overall a society which is tolerant of LGBTQIA+ individuals, with transgender men not being as visible as others in the LGBTQIA+ community, although this is changing. Community organisations continue to support LGBTQIA+ causes, with same-sex marriage commencing in January 2025. I accept that the applicant has experienced some discrimination in Thailand, in the form of negative comments being made about him, and has been assaulted. He has not been accepted by his family, however, he was able to establish himself in Samut Prakan and find employment and I find that he would be able to do so again and live in a largely tolerant society when it comes to LGBTQIA+ matters, although disparaging comments may be made from time to time as they are in many societies. Considering the applicant’s situation cumulatively, I am not satisfied on the basis of the material before me that he faces a real chance or real risk of harm on the basis of his gender identity or appearance now or in the reasonably foreseeable future, or for any other reason.
I am not satisfied, on the evidence before me, that the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion. Nor am I satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm.
For the reasons given above, I am 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), I have considered the alternative criterion in s 36(2)(aa). I am 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.
Date(s) of hearing:  25 August 2025
ATTACHMENT - Extract from Migration Act 1958
5 (1) Interpretation
…
cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment means an act or omission by which:
(a)     severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person; or
(b)     pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person so long as, in all the circumstances, the act or omission could reasonably be regarded as cruel or inhuman in nature;
but does not include an act or omission:
(c)     that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(d)     arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
degrading treatment or punishment means an act or omission that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation which is unreasonable, but does not include an act or omission:
(a)     that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(b)     that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
torture means an act or omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person:
(a)     for the purpose of obtaining from the person or from a third person information or a confession; or
(b)     for the purpose of punishing the person for an act which that person or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed; or
(c)     for the purpose of intimidating or coercing the person or a third person; or
(d)     for a purpose related to a purpose mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c); or
(e)     for any reason based on discrimination that is inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant;
but does not include an act or omission arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
receiving country, in relation to a non-citizen, means:
(a)     a country of which the non-citizen is a national, to be determined solely by reference to the law of the relevant country; or
(b)     if the non-citizen has no country of nationality—a country of his or her former habitual residence, regardless of whether it would be possible to return the non-citizen to the country.
…
5H    Meaning of refugee
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person in Australia, the person is a refugee if the person is:
(a)     in a case where the person has a nationality – is outside the country of his or her nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country; or
(b)     in a case where the person does not have a nationality – is outside the country of his or her former habitual residence and owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to return to it.
Note:     For the meaning of well-founded fear of persecution, see section 5J.
…
5J     Meaning of well-founded fear of persecution
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person has a well-founded fear of persecution if:
(a)     the person fears being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion; and
(b)     there is a real chance that, if the person returned to the receiving country, the person would be persecuted for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(c)     the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of a receiving country.
Note:     For membership of a particular social group, see sections 5K and 5L.
(2)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country.
Note:     For effective protection measures, see section 5LA.
(3)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if the person could take reasonable steps to modify his or her behaviour so as to avoid a real chance of persecution in a receiving country, other than a modification that would:
(a)     conflict with a characteristic that is fundamental to the person’s identity or conscience; or
(b)     conceal an innate or immutable characteristic of the person; or
(c)     without limiting paragraph (a) or (b), require the person to do any of the following:
(i)alter his or her religious beliefs, including by renouncing a religious conversion, or conceal his or her true religious beliefs, or cease to be involved in the practice of his or her faith;
(ii)conceal his or her true race, ethnicity, nationality or country of origin;
(iii)alter his or her political beliefs or conceal his or her true political beliefs;
(iv)conceal a physical, psychological or intellectual disability;
(v)enter into or remain in a marriage to which that person is opposed, or accept the forced marriage of a child;
(vi)alter his or her sexual orientation or gender identity or conceal his or her true sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.
(4)If a person fears persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a):
(a)     that reason must be the essential and significant reason, or those reasons must be the essential and significant reasons, for the persecution; and
(b)     the persecution must involve serious harm to the person; and
(c)     the persecution must involve systematic and discriminatory conduct.
(5)Without limiting what is serious harm for the purposes of paragraph (4)(b), the following are instances of serious harm for the purposes of that paragraph:
(a)     a threat to the person’s life or liberty;
(b)     significant physical harassment of the person;
(c)     significant physical ill‑treatment of the person;
(d)     significant economic hardship that threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(e)     denial of access to basic services, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(f)     denial of capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist.
(6)In determining whether the person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a), any conduct engaged in by the person in Australia is to be disregarded unless the person satisfies the Minister that the person engaged in the conduct otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening the person’s claim to be a refugee.
5K    Membership of a particular social group consisting of family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person (the first person), in determining whether the first person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for the reason of membership of a particular social group that consists of the first person’s family:
(a)     disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced, where the reason for the fear or persecution is not a reason mentioned in paragraph 5J(1)(a); and
(b)     disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that:
(i)the first person has ever experienced; or
(ii)any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced;
where it is reasonable to conclude that the fear or persecution would not exist if it were assumed that the fear or persecution mentioned in paragraph (a) had never existed.
Note:     Section 5G may be relevant for determining family relationships for the purposes of this section.
5L    Membership of a particular social group other than family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person is to be treated as a member of a particular social group (other than the person’s family) if:
(a)     a characteristic is shared by each member of the group; and
(b)     the person shares, or is perceived as sharing, the characteristic; and
(c)     any of the following apply:
(i)the characteristic is an innate or immutable characteristic;
(ii)the characteristic is so fundamental to a member’s identity or conscience, the member should not be forced to renounce it;
(iii)the characteristic distinguishes the group from society; and
(d)     the characteristic is not a fear of persecution.
5LA Effective protection measures
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country if:
(a)     protection against persecution could be provided to the person by:
(i)the relevant State; or
(ii)a party or organisation, including an international organisation, that controls the relevant State or a substantial part of the territory of the relevant State; and
(b)     the relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (a) is willing and able to offer such protection.
(2)A relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) is taken to be able to offer protection against persecution to a person if:
(a)     the person can access the protection; and
(b)     the protection is durable; and
(c)     in the case of protection provided by the relevant State—the protection consists of an appropriate criminal law, a reasonably effective police force and an impartial judicial system.
…
36     Protection visas – criteria provided for by this Act
…
(2)A criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is:
(a)     a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee; or
(aa) a non-citizen in Australia (other than a non-citizen mentioned in paragraph (a)) in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the non-citizen being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that the non-citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b)     a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:
(i)is mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant; or
(c)     a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:
(i)is mentioned in paragraph (aa); and
(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant.
(2A)A non‑citizen will suffer significant harm if:
(a)     the non‑citizen will be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life; or
(b)     the death penalty will be carried out on the non‑citizen; or
(c)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to torture; or
(d)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or
(e)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment.
(2B)However, there is taken not to be a real risk that a non‑citizen will suffer significant harm in a country if the Minister is satisfied that:
(a)     it would be reasonable for the non‑citizen to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b)     the non‑citizen could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(c)     the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the non‑citizen personally.
…