2213287 (Refugee) - [2025] ARTA 1684

2213287 (REFUGEE) [2025] ARTA 1684 (8 MAY 2025)
DECISION AND
REASONS FOR DECISION
Respondent: Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

Tribunal Number: 2213287

Tribunal:General Member A Anderson
Date:8 May 2025

Place:Melbourne
Decision:The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and remits the application for a protection visa for reconsideration, in accordance with the order that the applicant meets the following criteria:
·s 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act.

Statement made on 08 May 2025 at 1:18pm
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Turkey – race – Kurdish ethnicity – religion – Alevi – political opinion – association with the Communist Party of Turkey/Marxist Leninist – opposition to the AKP Party – Kurdish protests in Australia – detentions – physical assault – killings of family members – mental health issues – decision under review remitted
LEGISLATION
Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024, s 106
Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and transitional Provisions No1) Act 2024
Migration Act 1958, ss 5(1), 5H, 5J – 5LA, 36, 65, 499
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2
CASES
AGA16 v MIBP [2018] FCA 628
SZTEQ v MIBP (2015) 229 FCR 497
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 Immigration and Multicultural Affairs on 1 September 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 Türkiye, applied for the visa on 17 February 2017. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the applicant did not face a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm on return to Türkiye.
The applicant lodged an application for review of that decision with the former Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) on 9 September 2022. The applicant was represented in relation to the review.
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), proceedings in the AAT that were not finalised before 14 October 2024 are to be continued and finalised by the Tribunal. Anything done in relation to the proceeding before 14 October 2024 is taken to have been done by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal notes there have been significant delays in hearing this matter, due to a decline in the applicant’s mental health and concerns raised by the applicant’s representatives about his mental health and capacity to give evidence at hearing.
The applicant was first invited to a hearing on 13 November 2024 to give evidence and present arguments before a differently constituted Tribunal. The applicant’s representative made a request for postponement on 16 October 2024. In this request the applicant’s…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading 2213287 (Refugee)

Details

AGLC: 2213287 (Refugee) [2025] ARTA 1684
Case: [2025] ARTA 1684
Decision Date: 8 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, a [age]-year-old male from Istanbul, Türkiye, sought a protection visa based on his Kurdish ethnicity, Alevi faith, and opposition to the Turkish government. He lodged his application on 17 February 2017, detailing his experiences of persecution, including detention, physical assault, and harassment due to his political beliefs and religious practices. The Tribunal reviewed the case under s 106(3) of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024, determining that a hearing was unnecessary as the issues could be resolved without the parties' presence.

The legal issues the court had to decide included whether the applicant met the definition of a refugee under s 5H of the Migration Act, and if there was a real chance of persecution upon return to Türkiye based on his race, religion, and political opinion. The applicant argued that his Kurdish ethnicity and Alevi faith, combined with his political activities, placed him at risk of serious harm if he returned to Türkiye. The court needed to assess whether the applicant’s fear of persecution was well-founded and if the persecution involved serious harm, systematic and discriminatory conduct.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant faced a real chance of serious harm if he returned to Türkiye. The evidence showed that the Turkish authorities had targeted individuals with similar profiles for persecution. The applicant’s activities in Australia, such as participation in Kurdish cultural events and political demonstrations, further enhanced his risk upon return. The Tribunal found that the applicant’s mental health issues exacerbated his vulnerability, making even short-term detention or scrutiny a significant threat. The Tribunal was satisfied that the persecution related to his actual and imputed political opinion, Kurdish ethnicity, and involved systematic and discriminatory conduct. It was also determined that the applicant could not reasonably be required to alter or conceal his political beliefs or Kurdish-Alevi identity to avoid persecution.

The Tribunal set aside and remitted the application for a protection visa for reconsideration, concluding that the applicant satisfied the criteria for a protection visa under s 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act. The court found no evidence to suggest that the applicant had a right to enter and reside in a third country, and thus was satisfied that the applicant met the definition of a refugee. The final orders directed the reconsideration of the applicant's protection visa application.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Having considered all of the information before it, the Tribunal has proceeded to make a decision without a hearing under s 106(3) of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 as the decision is wholly in favour of the applicant (s 106(3)(b)(i)) and it appears that the issues for determination in the proceedings can be adequately determined in the absence of the parties to the proceeding as required by s 106(3)(b)(c).BACKGROUND The applicant is [an age]-year-old male from Istanbul, Türkiye. His parents and [a sibling] reside in Istanbul. The applicant has never been married and does not have any children. The applicant has university qualifications in [subject] and worked as an [occupation 1] at various companies prior to departing Türkiye. In Australia, he works in [industry 1]. The applicant arrived in Australia [in] November 2015 as the holder of a student visa. He lodged his application for a protection visa on 17 February 2017.Evidence before the Department The applicant’s protection visa application was accompanied by a statutory declaration dated 10 February 2017, in which the applicant set out his background, experiences in Türkiye and fears of harm on return. He provided a number of Turkish identity documents[2] with his application as well as his university diploma and a military discharge certificate relating to the completion of his compulsory military service in 2015. [2] Namely translated copies of a current and previous Turkish passport; birth certificate; national identity card; driver’s license. In summary, in his statutory declaration the applicant stated as follows: a.He is of Kurdish ethnicity and Alevi faith and has been persecuted in connection with these characteristics as well as for being in opposition to the government; b.His parents were both born in Erzincan and migrated to Istanbul due to persecution by the authorities. The applicant’s mother was arrested, detained for a month and tortured after the 1980 military coup due to her alleged membership in the Communist Party of Turkey/Marxist Leninist (TKP-ML). One of her first cousins was killed by members of the ultra-nationalist party MHP in [specified year]; [other] cousins were arrested and imprisoned for many years for political reasons;c.The applicant grew up concealing his Kurdish ethnicity and Alevi faith;d.The applicant began experiencing problems from 2006 when he began attending [University 1]. The applicant and other Alevi students were approached by Muslim students trying to offer reward for following their Muslim practices;e.The applicant complained to the university and otherwise resisted this intimidation, culminating in a fight in March 2007 between the applicant and his friends and Muslim students. The fight was broken up by police who arrested the applicant and his friends. The applicant was taken to a police station and held for hours, during which time he was interrogated, warned about the Kurdish Workers Party (PKK), and threatened not to be involved in illegal activities before being released without charge; f.The applicant was subsequently arrested and detained for short periods as follows:i.In March 2012 following his attendance at the Newroz celebration in Istanbul;ii.In June 2013 following his attendance at demonstrations following the Gezi Park resistance. The applicant attended on multiple days aligned with the ‘[Group 1]’.g.The applicant was beaten by the police and/or subject to tear gas and other demonstration of excessive force: i.while attending Newroz celebrations and other demonstrations;ii.while attending the funeral of a [person] named [Mr A] in March 2014. [Mr A] was killed by a tear-gas canister fired by the police in June 2013;iii.while part of a group of people attacked by the police near the People’s Democracy Party (HDP) office in [Town 1] in September 2015. The applicant had gone to the HDP office upon hearing that a large group of Justice and Development Party (AKP) supporters were headed there;h.The applicant experienced discrimination, bullying and harassment on account of his ethnicity and/or religion from members of society as follows:i.At his workplaces, particularly at [Employer 1] where the majority of staff were AKP members who made comments about the way the applicant dressed, and why he did not have a beard or pray the way they did;ii.During his compulsory military service in 2015, during which time his superiors, who were nationalist Turks, made negative comments about Alevi Kurds;iii.In July 2015, when the applicant was beaten by a group of Muslim men with beards because he had earrings and a hat they did not approve of. They told the applicant a ‘proper man does not use earrings’. The police took the applicant’s report of this incident but did not take further action;i.In April 2014 two undercover police officers went to the applicant’s home in [Town 2]. The applicant was not home, but the police told his parents they wanted to talk to him and said the applicant should be careful because he was under surveillance. They questioned the applicant’s parents for an hour and said they would visit again. They did not return.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

The applicant arrived in Australia [in] November 2015 as the holder of a student visa. He lodged his application for a protection visa on 17 February 2017.Evidence before the Department The applicant’s protection visa application was accompanied by a statutory declaration dated 10 February 2017, in which the applicant set out his background, experiences in Türkiye and fears of harm on return. He provided a number of Turkish identity documents[2] with his application as well as his university diploma and a military discharge certificate relating to the completion of his compulsory military service in 2015. [2] Namely translated copies of a current and previous Turkish passport; birth certificate; national identity card; driver’s license. In summary, in his statutory declaration the applicant stated as follows: a.He is of Kurdish ethnicity and Alevi faith and has been persecuted in connection with these characteristics as well as for being in opposition to the government; b.His parents were both born in Erzincan and migrated to Istanbul due to persecution by the authorities. The applicant’s mother was arrested, detained for a month and tortured after the 1980 military coup due to her alleged membership in the Communist Party of Turkey/Marxist Leninist (TKP-ML). One of her first cousins was killed by members of the ultra-nationalist party MHP in [specified year]; [other] cousins were arrested and imprisoned for many years for political reasons;c.The applicant grew up concealing his Kurdish ethnicity and Alevi faith;d.The applicant began experiencing problems from 2006 when he began attending [University 1]. The applicant and other Alevi students were approached by Muslim students trying to offer reward for following their Muslim practices;e.The applicant complained to the university and otherwise resisted this intimidation, culminating in a fight in March 2007 between the applicant and his friends and Muslim students. The fight was broken up by police who arrested the applicant and his friends. The applicant was taken to a police station and held for hours, during which time he was interrogated, warned about the Kurdish Workers Party (PKK), and threatened not to be involved in illegal activities before being released without charge; f.The applicant was subsequently arrested and detained for short periods as follows:i.In March 2012 following his attendance at the Newroz celebration in Istanbul;ii.In June 2013 following his attendance at demonstrations following the Gezi Park resistance. The applicant attended on multiple days aligned with the ‘[Group 1]’.g.The applicant was beaten by the police and/or subject to tear gas and other demonstration of excessive force: i.while attending Newroz celebrations and other demonstrations;ii.while attending the funeral of a [person] named [Mr A] in March 2014. [Mr A] was killed by a tear-gas canister fired by the police in June 2013;iii.while part of a group of people attacked by the police near the People’s Democracy Party (HDP) office in [Town 1] in September 2015. The applicant had gone to the HDP office upon hearing that a large group of Justice and Development Party (AKP) supporters were headed there;h.The applicant experienced discrimination, bullying and harassment on account of his ethnicity and/or religion from members of society as follows:i.At his workplaces, particularly at [Employer 1] where the majority of staff were AKP members who made comments about the way the applicant dressed, and why he did not have a beard or pray the way they did;ii.During his compulsory military service in 2015, during which time his superiors, who were nationalist Turks, made negative comments about Alevi Kurds;iii.In July 2015, when the applicant was beaten by a group of Muslim men with beards because he had earrings and a hat they did not approve of. They told the applicant a ‘proper man does not use earrings’. The police took the applicant’s report of this incident but did not take further action;i.In April 2014 two undercover police officers went to the applicant’s home in [Town 2]. The applicant was not home, but the police told his parents they wanted to talk to him and said the applicant should be careful because he was under surveillance. They questioned the applicant’s parents for an hour and said they would visit again. They did not return.

Decision

Reasons for decision

The Tribunal also considers that the applicant’s activities in Australia – both his Kurdish cultural activities and his participation in political demonstrations – enhance the applicant’s risk on return to Türkiye. The Tribunal considers that Kurdish cultural activities and ‘political’ activities cannot be neatly delineated in this particular context. In the Tribunal’s view, the above country information indicating arrests and detention following attendance at Kurdish Nowruz celebrations are indicative of the politicisation of Kurdish cultural events. While it is not clear whether the Turkish authorities are already aware of the applicant’s activities in Australia, the Tribunal cannot discount this as a real possibility given that country information indicates that the Turkish intelligence services have increased their surveillance of critics of the Turkish government in Western countries.[20] Media reports on the recent arrest and detention in Türkiye of Cigdem Aslan and other members of Australia’s Kurdish community[21] supports both the Turkish government’s awareness of, and importantly, their extreme sensitivity to, pro-Kurdish activism in Australia. [20] Abdullah Bozkurt, ‘Turkey escalates covert intelligence activities in Europe and North America’ Nordic Monitor (7 March 2024); ‘Erdogan’s top diplomat Çavuşoğlu confirms systematic spying on Turkish government critics on foreign soil' Nordic Monitor (2 March 2020); ‘Turkish Influence and Intelligence Operations in Germany' The Institute of World Peace (6 January 2021).[21] Danny Tran, ‘Friend denies Melbourne woman Cigdem Aslan has any connection to terrorism after arrest in Türkiye’ ABC News (24 September 2024) <>Based on the applicant’s accepted cumulative profile as an Alevi Kurdish man with a record of detention and interrogation for protest activity against the Turkish government; with family members with a history of pro-Kurdish activity; who has publicly promoted Kurdish rights and culture in Türkiye and Australia; and protested against the Turkish government in Australia, the Tribunal accepts the applicant faces a real chance of serious harm if he returns to Türkiye. Additionally, the Tribunal has considered the applicant’s psychological condition in assessing the real chance of facing serious harm in Türkiye and considers that in light of his particular vulnerability, scrutiny and questioning even for a short period would amount to serious harm in the applicant’s circumstances.[22] Given the country information highlighted above, the Tribunal considers there to be a real chance in any event that the applicant would be subject to a longer period of detention and physical mistreatment based on his cumulative profile. As such, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant faces serious harm for the purposes of s 5J(4)(b) including a threat to his liberty, significant physical harassment and significant physical ill-treatment.[22] SZTEQ v MIBP (2015) 229 FCR 497 at [153]; AGA16 v MIBP [2018] FCA 628. The Tribunal is also satisfied that the harm will be directed at the applicant for the essential and significant reasons of his actual and imputed political opinion and his Kurdish ethnicity and that it will involve systematic and discriminatory conduct for the purposes of s 5J(4).As the applicant fears harm from the Turkish state the Tribunal is satisfied that the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of Türkiye as required by s 5J(1)(c). For the same reason, the Tribunal is also satisfied that effective protection measures are not available to the applicant. Pursuant to s 5J(3), the applicant cannot be reasonably required to alter or conceal his political beliefs or Alevi-Kurdish identity to avoid a real chance of persecution. For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant’s conduct in Australia has not been undertaken for the purpose of strengthening his claim to be a refugee: s 5J(6).Accordingly, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution and is a refugee within the meaning of s 5H(1) of the Act.CONCLUSIONSFor the reasons given above, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(a).There is no evidence before the Tribunal to suggest that the applicant has a right to enter and reside in a third country for the purposes of s 36(3) of the Act. DECISIONThe Tribunal sets aside and remits the application for a protection visa for reconsideration, in accordance with the order that the applicant satisfies s 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act.ATTACHMENT - Extract from Migration Act 19585 (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 familyFor 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 familyFor 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.…

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.