2208818 (Refugee) - [2024] ARTA 864

2208818 (REFUGEE) [2024] ARTA 864 (10 DECEMBER 2024)
DECISION AND
REASONS FOR DECISION
Respondent: Minister for Home Affairs

Tribunal Number: 2208818
Tribunal:Alicia Bills
Date:10 December 2024

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

Statement made on 10 December 2024 at 10:04am
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Fiji – Indigenous rights and economic conditions – no past harm – working in Australia to support siblings’ education – limited work available on temporary work visa, so applied for protection visa to do other work – fear of harm from relative who facilitated visa – no recent contact – now married to Australian citizen – would have returned if not for marriage – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5H(1)(a), 5J(1), 36(2)(a), (aa), (2A), 65
Migration Regulation 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2
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 9 June 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 Fiji, applied for the visa on 21 April 2021. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the applicant is not a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 5 December 2024 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Fijian and English languages.
BACKGROUND
The applicant was born in [Town 1], Fiji. The applicant is currently [Age] years of age.
In November 2018 the applicant travelled to Australia on a temporary work visa. The applicant returned to Fiji in May 2019.
In November 2019 the applicant travelled again to Australia on a further temporary work visa.
In April 2021 the applicant applied for a protection visa.
Evidence before the Department
Protection visa application
In April 2021 the applicant applied for a protection visa. In his application the applicant stated the following as his reasons for leaving Fiji and claiming protection in Australia:
Provide reasons why this applicant left that country:
I came to Australia to work in [a work sector] of Australia and then the COVID started in 2020 and I am still here. I am the eldest of [Number] siblings and my father passed away in 2000, when I came to work here in 2019, I was the only sole breadwinner for the family. I am paying for my siblings school fees and materials. Life is really hard back in the village but am thankful to my mother for her support. Now Fiji has started with their lockdown again because of the COVID and being here has made me determine to work hard and support my family back home during there trying times.
Did this applicant experience harm in that country?
No
Did this applicant move, or try to move, to another part of that country to seek safety?
No. I do not have the funds to travel to other places.
Explain what the applicant thinks will happen to them if they return to that country:
Going back to Fiji will be more stressful as I will be thinking of where to find the money to support my family which will emotionally drained me.
Does this applicant think they will be harmed or mistreated if they return to that country?
No
Does this applicant think the authorities of that country can and will protect this applicant if they go back?
No. Our people have been discriminated against and silenced for speaking up for indigenous rights and I have been verbally threatened too many times by supporters of this government for doing just that. Discrimination is defined as denying or giving advantage to a person or group based on ethnicity, age or sex. The entire 23 sunset clauses which this current government is founded on portray elements of racial discrimination in accordance to the International Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Decimation (the "convention". Article 1(1) of the convention defines racial discrimination as any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.
Does this applicant think they would be able to relocate within that country or to an area where they would not be harmed?
Yes. Australia offers a far better opportunity for me and I know that I will be able to support my family if given the opportunity here.
Evidence before the Tribunal
Tribunal hearing
The applicant gave the following evidence at the Tribunal hearing on 5 December 2024:
a.The applicant grew up in [Town 1], Fiji. He identifies as an ethnic Fijian. The applicant’s father died when he was [Age] years old. The applicant’s mother and [siblings] still live in [Town 1]. The applicant speaks with his family weekly.
b.In [Year] the applicant completed high school. After completing high school the applicant commenced working. The applicant worked as [an occupation 1] for the Fijian [employer] and also worked as [an occupation 2] on a [workplace 1] that visited the smaller islands of Fiji.
c.Between November 2018 and May 2019 the applicant came to Australia and did seasonal [work]. He worked in Queensland and Victoria [doing job task].
d.When the applicant returned to Fiji in May 2019 he worked at a [workplace 2].
e.The applicant travelled to Australia again in November 2019 for the purpose of seasonal [work]. The applicant did the same type of work as he had previously done. One month before the applicant was due to go back to Fiji, COVID restrictions came into place and the applicant was unable to leave Australia.
f.After a period of time the applicant left the [work] because there was not much work, the applicant was only getting two shifts per week. The applicant applied for the protection visa so he could do other work as the temporary work visa limited him to the [work].
g.The applicant’s [relative] ran the program that facilitated the applicant and other Fijians to work in Australia. The applicant’s [relative] threatened the applicant because he left the [work].
The applicant informed the Tribunal that he had married [Ms A] in 2023. The applicant stated that [Ms A] was an Australian citizen and that she had not yet visited Fiji.
The Tribunal noted the applicant’s evidence that he had applied for the protection visa in early 2021 because he had needed a different visa to work. The Tribunal noted that the applicant was now married. The Tribunal asked the applicant whether now, in late 2024, he still feared returning to Fiji. The applicant stated that if he wasn’t married he would have gone back to Fiji by now. The applicant stated that there were no reasons, other than staying in Australia with [Ms A], why the applicant did not want to return to Fiji.
The Tribunal then read to the applicant his written claims for protection as written on his protection visa application. The applicant agreed that he had not experienced harm in Fiji and that he did not think he would experience harm if he returned.
The applicant agreed that he was the provider for his family and that although his siblings were mostly now adults, he still sent money home. The applicant stated that if he returned to Fiji he would be able to get a job, but he would earn less money than he earns in Australia. The applicant stated that in Australia he earns in one day what he earns in a fortnight in Fiji. The applicant informed the Tribunal he is currently working as [an occupation 3] in [Town 2], Northern Territory.
The Tribunal questioned the applicant on the written claim surrounding indigenous rights and racial discrimination. The applicant stated that his aunty’s friend had helped him complete the form and she had got that bit wrong. The applicant stated that he had never faced harm as a result of racial discrimination or indigenous rights.
The applicant stated that he feared his [relative] because his [relative] had set up the seasonal worker’s program, and because the applicant had left the [work] his [relative] had threatened to beat him up if he returns to Fiji. The applicant stated that his [relative] had lost his contract to facilitate the seasonal work because the applicant and other workers had left the [work]. The applicant’s [relative] had been forced to return to Fiji. The applicant last had contact with his [relative] in 2022 when his [relative] threatened the applicant to stay away from him. After that the applicant blocked his [relative] from [Social media] and his phone. The applicant’s family in [Town 1] do not have contact with his [relative]. His [relative] lives on Vanua Levu island which is a day trip away by boat from the main island.
The Tribunal observed that any economic harm the applicant feared by returning to Fiji appeared to be due to the Fijian economy in comparison to the Australian economy. The Tribunal observed that the economic harm did not appear to be harm directed at the applicant for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. The applicant declined to comment.
The Tribunal explained to the applicant the meaning of significant harm for the purposes of the complementary protection criterion. The Tribunal observed that the economic harm feared by the applicant did not appear to amount to torture, cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment, degrading treatment or punishment or arbitrary deprivation of life. Nor was it suggested that the applicant would be subject to the death penalty. The applicant declined to comment.
The Tribunal questioned the applicant on why his fear of harm from his [relative] had not been included in his protection visa application. The applicant stated that he explained his situation to his aunty’s friend and was not sure why she didn’t include it in the application. The Tribunal observed that all of the other detail in the visa application appeared true and correct. The Tribunal questioned the applicant on whether he thought his [relative] may have lost interest in pursuing him, now that it was late 2024 and there had been no contact since 2022. The applicant stated he was not sure.
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
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 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.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
The applicant travelled to Australia on an apparently genuine Fijian passport, a copy of which is contained in the material before the Tribunal. The applicant has also produced a copy of his Fijian birth certificate. The applicant has at all times maintained that he is a citizen of Fiji. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant is a national of Fiji and has assessed his claims against Fiji as his country of nationality and the receiving country.
In his visa application and oral evidence, the applicant raised three claims for protection as follows:
a.Fear of harm as a result of race / ethnicity;
b.Fear of his [relative];
c.Fear of economic harm.
Fear of harm as a result of race / ethnicity
I accept the evidence of the applicant at the hearing that the claims surrounding racial and ethnic discrimination did not reflect the applicant’s true circumstances in Fiji. I accept the applicant’s evidence that he did not know why his aunty’s friend included the information. I accept that the applicant has never faced harm in Fiji as a result of race or ethnic discrimination. The applicant identifies as ethnic Fijian. There is no material available to the Tribunal to suggest the applicant would face discrimination based on his race or ethnicity. If the applicant returned to Fiji now or in the reasonably foreseeable future I do not consider he would face harm as a result of race or ethnic discrimination.
On the evidence before me I do not accept there to be a real chance that the applicant would face harm by way of ethnic or racial discrimination, now or in the reasonably foreseeable future if he returned to Fiji. I am not satisfied that the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution for the purposes of the refugee criterion. For the same reasons I do not accept there to be a real risk the applicant will be subjected to significant harm by way of ethnic or racial discrimination as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to Fiji.
Fear of [relative]
In his initial evidence, in response to a Tribunal question about whether he currently feared returning to Fiji, the applicant stated that if he were not married in Australia then he would have returned to Fiji by now. The applicant also gave evidence that he applied for the protection visa as a means to gain employment in Australia outside of his temporary work visa conditions. It was only after the Tribunal discussed with the applicant his claims for protection as written in his visa application that the applicant gave detailed evidence about fearing harm from his [relative]. When the Tribunal asked the applicant if he thought his [relative] may have lost interest in pursuing him, the applicant stated he was not sure.
I did not find the applicant’s evidence regarding his [relative] to be credible. I consider that if the applicant genuinely feared harm from his [relative] upon return to Fiji then he would have stated as such when the Tribunal initially questioned the applicant whether he currently feared returning to Fiji. I do not accept that the applicant’s [relative] has ever threatened the applicant. If the applicant returned to Fiji, I do not consider he would face harm from his [relative].
On the evidence before me I do not accept there to be a real chance that the applicant would face harm from his [relative], now or in the reasonably foreseeable future if he returned to Fiji. I am not satisfied that the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution for the purposes of the refugee criterion. For the same reasons I do not accept there to be a real risk the applicant will be subjected to significant harm from his [relative] as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to Fiji.
Fear of economic harm
I accept that the applicant travelled to Australia in November 2019 to do seasonal [work]. I accept that the applicant faced travel restrictions and was unable to return to Fiji in 2020 as a result of the COVID pandemic. I accept that the applicant’s temporary work visa conditions required him to work at the nominated [job] but that the work hours at the [job] decreased. I accept that the applicant left the [job] as he sought additional work and applied for a protection visa with an understanding that this would be a means to enable him to work in Australia. I accept that in Australia the applicant has earned a higher level of income than he earned in Fiji. The applicant has a good employment history, both in Fiji and Australia.
I accept that if he returned to Fiji, the applicant may not earn as high a level of income as he has been earning in Australia. I consider that this is a result of different economic conditions in Fiji compared with Australia. I am not satisfied that any economic harm faced by the applicant if he returned to Fiji now or in the reasonably foreseeable future would be harm directed at him for reason of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. I am not satisfied that the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution for the purposes of the refugee criterion.
If the applicant was removed from Australia to Fiji I am not satisfied that any economic harm he would face would amount to significant harm for the purposes of the complementary protection criterion. I am not satisfied the applicant would be subject to torture, cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment, degrading treatment or punishment or arbitrary deprivation of his life. I am not satisfied the death penalty would be carried out on the applicant. Accordingly I am not satisfied there are substantial grounds for believing that as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Fiji he will suffer significant harm.
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.
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.
…