2208968 (Refugee) - [2025] ARTA 1934

2208968 (Refugee) [2025] ARTA 1934 (10 September 2025)
DECISION AND
REASONS FOR DECISION
Respondent:Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

Tribunal Number: 2208968
Tribunal:General Member R Hampson
Date:10 September 2025

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

Statement made on 10 September 2025 at 3:31pm
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – India – political opinion – follower of Dera Sacha Sauda – fears harm from non-followers – decision on the papers – issues can be adequately determined – no evidence – applied for protection after other visa refused – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth), ss 9, 106
Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 (Cth)
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5, 5AAA, 5H, 5J–5LA, 36, 56, 65, 369, 384, 499
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2
CASES
2010120 (Refugee) [2025] ARTA 550
2203419 (Refugee) [2025] ART
Randhawa v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1994) 52 FCR 437
Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 369 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information.
STATEMENT OF REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 26 May 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 India, applied for the visa on 4 October 2018. 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 applied to the Tribunal on 20 June 2022 for a review of this decision.
On 14 October 2024 the AAT was abolished and replaced with the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART). Under the transitional provisions of the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional provisions No. 1) Act 2024 (the Transitional Act), applications for review that were not finalised before 14 October 2024 are taken to be an application for review before the ART. The Transitional Act gives the Tribunal the authority to continue and finalise any aspect of the review not already completed by the AAT.
The applicant was sent a pre-hearing information form on 6 February 2025. This form includes questions about whether the applicant requires an interpreter if there were to be a hearing, and if she wished for this to be a video hearing, along with a space to add details of their claims for protection. The applicant returned this completed form on 13 February 2025 indicating he would prefer a hearing by video and required the assistance of an interpreter in the Punjabi language if a hearing was required. He also comment in the statement of claim ‘my return to India would place my life in grave danger. I am taking this threat very seriously’.
On 2 July 2025 the applicant were invited to attend a hearing before the Tribunal set down for 6 August 2025. On 9 July 2025 the applicant was sent a follow up reminder email regarding the hearing requesting he respond to the invitation.
On 23 July 2025 the Tribunal sent the applicant an email regarding a booking for a test technology call scheduled for 30 July 2025 prior to the hearing on 6 August 2025. The applicant replied to this email with a completed response to the hearing notice form in which he has answered by ticking a box titled, ‘No, I will not participate in the hearing and request the Tribunal to make a decision on the papers without holding a hearing’. The applicant has signed and dated the form as of 23 July 2025.
On 30 July 2025 the Tribunal notified the applicant by email that his request for a decision to be made without holding a hearing had been granted.
The Tribunal must now consider the following points:
a)Should the Tribunal proceed to decide the matter without holding a hearing?
b)Do the applicants have a well-founded fear of persecution in relation to their home country of India and meet the refugee protection provisions of the Act?
c)Do the applicants meet the protection obligations under the complementary protection provisions of the Act?
a)Should the Tribunal proceed to decide the matter without holding a hearing?
The Tribunal for the following reasons has decided to make a decision without a hearing.
Section 106 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (cth) (the ART Act) outlines the circumstances in which the Tribunal may make a decision without a hearing. The Tribunal has also had regard to the consideration of the exercise of the power under s 106(3) of the ART Act in 2010120 (Refugee) [2025] ARTA 550 (13 May 2025) [1].
Did the applicant consent to proceeding without a hearing?
[1] 2010120 (Refugee) [2025] ARTA 550 (13 May 2025).
To proceed without a hearing, the Tribunal must be satisfied that s 106(3) of the ART Act has been met. In ss 106(3) (a) and (b) it is set out that the Tribunal may make a decision without holding a hearing in circumstances were the only parties to the hearing are the applicant and a non-participating party; and the decision is wholly in favour of the applicant, or the applicant requests the Tribunal to make its decision without holding a hearing.
Section 384(1) of the Act stipulates that the Minister is taken to be a non-participating party to a proceeding for review of a reviewable protection decision for the purposes of the ART Act. The Tribunal notes that this matter involves only the applicant and a non-participating party, being the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship.
In this case, the applicant and the non-participating party (the Minister) are the only parties to the proceedings; and the applicant has requested a decision to be made without a hearing as they have made this request by email completing the response to hearing notice form on 23 July 2025. The Tribunal now then finds the applicant’s response is a clear and unambiguous indication that they do not wish to attend a hearing and wish the Tribunal to proceed to make a decision on the material before it. The Tribunal finds that the applicant has requested, consents to, the Tribunal making its decision without holding a hearing. The Tribunal is satisfied that s 106(3)(a) and s 106(3)(b)(ii) have been met.
Can the issues for determination be adequately determined in the absence of the applicant?
Paragraph 106(3)(c) of the ART Act states that the Tribunal can only exercise its powers in circumstances where the issues can be adequately determined in the parties’ absence. The Explanatory Memorandum clarifies that the Tribunal cannot exercise these powers if there are issues it considers cannot be resolved without seeking further evidence or submissions from the parties.
In 2010120 (Refugee) [2025] ARTA 550 (13 May 2025)[2], when considering the key phrase ‘adequately determined’, the Tribunal indicated that relevant to the appropriateness of the Tribunal exercising the power under s 106(3) of the ART Act was whether the applicant had been provided with reasonable opportunities to present evidence and make submissions in support of their application for review. The Tribunal stated that while this was a matter for the Tribunal to assess, it was important that any such assessment should be considered with reference to the Tribunal’s objectives in s 9 of the ART Act. The Tribunal further stated that:
In protection cases, matters relevant to assessing the opportunities afforded to an applicant to present their case may include any opportunities provided prior to the delegate’s decision being made; the opportunity provided to respond to the matters raised in the delegate’s reasons for refusing the visa when lodging an application for review with the Tribunal; any responses to Tribunal outreach; and any responses to the general invitation in a notice of hearing for any further submissions or evidence in support of the application to be provided to the Tribunal. [3]
BACKGROUND
[2] 2010120 (Refugee) [2025] ARTA 550 (13 May 2025).
[3] 2203419 (Refugee) [2025] ART (13 June 2025).
Evidence before the Department
Migration history
The delegate notes the applicant’s migration and application history. This is extracted here from the delegates decision as follows:
Date Event details
21/12/2013 Granted TU-573 Higher Education Student visa
[January] 2014 Arrived Australia
20/05/2015 Granted TU-570 ELICOS Student visa
20/05/2016 Refused TU-572 Vocational Education Student visa
28/03/2017 AAT outcome – Review Affirmed - Migration
06/09/2018 Judicial Review Result – Minister Win
25/10/2018 Lodged XA-866 Protection visa application
22/04/2022 Section 56 Request for Information sent to applicant
27/04/2022 Applicant advises of change of email address[4]
Protection visa application
[4] Delegate’s Decision Record dated 26 May 2022, p1.
According to his protection visa application dated 25 October 2018 the applicant claims to [be a 45] year old national of India. He claims to be of ‘Other – ethnicity not listed’ and his religion is listed as ‘Other – religion not listed’.
He claims to be divorced and has a [sibling] living in Australia, his parents remain living in India.
The applicant claims the following in his application to the department:
·That he left India as he was afraid of persecution as a follower of Baba Ram Rahim, the head of the Indian social group Dera Sacha Sauda.
·He states he did not experience harm whilst living in India.
·He did not try to move to another part of the country to seek safety.
·The applicant came to Australia in 2014 as a dependent visa holder.
·The applicant fears that if he returns to India he will be harmed by non-followers and people who are against Baba Ram Rahim.
·The applicant fears he may face physical harm by his local community as a follower of the DSS.
·The applicant believes local police will not protect him as Baba Ram Rahim has been jailed for his offences and the followers of Baba Ram Rahim have been and are being attacked by the police and locals in Punjab.
·The applicant states he cannot relocate as he does not have any money or any friends or relatives so that he is able to live anywhere else in India.
The applicant appointed an authorised representative on 6 July 2021 and this appointment ceased on 27 April 2022.
On 24 April 2022 the delegate, via a s 56 letter, requested the applicant provide further information about his claims in answer to a list of specific questions. The applicant did not reply to this correspondence.
The applicant filed a change of address details form to the department on 27 April 2022.
The applicant did not file any supporting documents with his application.
The applicant was not offered an interview with the delegate.
The delegate in their decision noted the applicant’s claims ‘lacked substance and detail and did not provide sufficient evidence to support his claims’. The delegate invited the applicant to provide further information in support of his claims to which he did not respond. The delegate in their final remarks regarding their findings of fact noted that the ‘applicant’s failure to provide further details about his claims in his application raises concerns about the credibility of his claims’.
The delegate considered country information regarding Dera Sacha Sauda against the applicant’s claims. The delegate has not accepted the applicant is now or was previously a supporter of the DSS and as such did not accept the applicant would be harmed and or harassed by opponents of DSS or that he is a person of interest to Indian authorities because of this.
The delegate found that the applicant is not a refugee as defined by s 5H(1) of the Act and that he is not a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations as provided for in s 36(2)(a) of the Act. The delegate also found that they were not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations as provided for in s 36(2)(aa) of the Act.
Evidence before the Tribunal
Prehearing submissions
The applicant has not provided the Tribunal with any prehearing submissions apart from his application for review, the delegate’s decision record and a copy of his passport.
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 meets the criteria for the grant of a protection visa and is therefore someone to whom Australia owes protection obligations. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
Receiving Country
The applicant provided a copy of his Indian passport to the Department. Given this and the fact the delegate did not indicate any issues with his identity claim or nationality the Tribunal accepts he is an Indian national and India is his receiving country for the purposes of assessing his protection claim.
Does the applicant satisfy the refugee criterion for protection?
To determine if the applicant satisfies the refugee criterion for protection the Tribunal must consider if there is a real chance of harm if the applicant were returned to their home area of the receiving country in the reasonably foreseeable future. To be a refugee, the applicant must have a well-founded fear of persecution in their home country of India. This means that the Tribunal must be satisfied there is a real chance the applicant will face serious harm if they return to India. Not all harm will be serious harm for the purposes of a refugee definition in s . The harm must be directed at them for one or more of 5 reasons. Those reasons are – their race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.
In considering this point the Tribunal has had regard for s 5AAA which asserts the Tribunal does not have any responsibility or obligation to specify, or assist in specifying, any particulars of the applicant’s claims, or to establish or assist in establishing the claims. Nor is the Tribunal required to accept uncritically any and all claims made by an applicant[5].
[5] Randhawa v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1994) 52 FCR 437 at 451.
The Tribunal accepts the following claims:
-The applicant to be a now [age] year old national of India who came to Australia first in 2013 as a dependent on his former partners student visa.
-the applicant has then undertaken study and remained in Australia during 2015.
-He has then applied for a Vocational Education Student visa and this was refused in 2016 to which he applied to the Tribunal for a review of this decision to which the review was affirmed in 2017.
-He applied for judicial review of this decision and this decision was further affirmed in 2018.
-Six weeks after this he applied for a protection visa.
The Tribunal has firstly considered the claims made by the applicant in his 2018 protection visa application. The applicant has provided limited information in support of his claims and has not provided any further submissions to the delegate on their request, or to the Tribunal.
The Tribunal does not accept the following claims made by the applicant:
-The applicant is a follower of the Dera Sacha Sauda and it’s guru/leader Baba Ram Rahim.
-The applicant fears persecution/ harm and or harassment from locals in his community because of his following of the DSS.
The applicant in his protection visa application has stated he had not been harmed in the past but fears harm in the future if he were to return to India and the police will not assist him because he is a follower of DSS. The Tribunal does not accept this claim as the Tribunal does not accept, he is in fact a follower of DSS at all.
The Tribunal in following from this does not accept the applicant’s claim he could not relocate to avoid harm because he has no money and does not have any friends or relatives in other areas of India.
The Tribunal does not accept the applicants claims individually or cumulatively and as such does not accept there is a real chance of harm to the applicant if he were returned to his home area of India in the reasonably foreseeable future.
The Tribunal makes this finding for the following reasons:
-The Tribunal does not accept the applicant is a follower of DSS and therefore has not or will not be in the future persecuted, harassed or harmed for this belief system.
-The applicant states he has not been harmed in the past as per the definition considered in s 5(J) of the Act.
-The applicant fears harm if he were to return to India in the reasonably foreseeable future from local community members because he follows DSS. As the Tribunal does not accept the applicant follows DSS it then does not accept the applicant will be harmed in the future because of this.

The Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution as defined under s5J of the Act and for these reasons given above and is not satisfied the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(a).
Does the applicant satisfy the complementary protection criterion for protection?
Having concluded that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), the Tribunal has considered the alternative criterion in s 36(2)(aa).
Having found there is no real chance of harm of any kind, there is no real risk, as the real chance and real risk tests are the same, and the Tribunal has adopted the same findings as those for the real chance test as outlined in paragraphs 38 to 48 above.
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)(aa).
CONCLUDING PARAGRAPHS
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.
…