2213604 (Refugee)
[2025] ARTA 1388
•20 May 2025
2213604 (REFUGEE) [2025] ARTA 1388 (20 MAY 2025)
DECISION AND
REASONS FOR DECISION
Respondent: Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs
Tribunal Number: 2213604
Tribunal:General Member F Sneath
Date:20 May 25
Place:Canberra
Decision:The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
Statement made on 20 May 2025 at 2:08pm
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Taiwan – particular social group – women – victims of family violence – physical assault – divorce – state protection – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5(1), 5H, 5J – 5LA, 36, 56, 65, 499
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2
CASES
MIAC v SZQRB (2013) 210 FCR 505
MZYXS v MIAC [2013] FCA 614
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 23 August 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 Taiwan[1] applied for the visa on 10 September 2018. On 23 August 2022, the delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the applicant is not a person in respect of whom Australia has refugee or complementary protection obligations as provided for by s36(2)(a) or s36(2)(aa) of the Act, nor are they a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations and who holds a Protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant.
[1] The delegate’s decision refers to the applicant’s country of citizenship as People’s Republic of China, Receiving Country as People’s Republic of China and Country of Issue of passport as People’s Republic of China. See further discussion of this at paragraphs 22-25
The applicant applied for a review of the decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) on 14 September 2020. 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 applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 6 March 2025 to give evidence. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Mandarin and English languages.
BACKGROUND
The applicant is [an age]-year-old woman, who was born in mainland China. She holds a Republic of China (Taiwan) passport. She arrived in Australia from Taiwan [in] July 2017 and applied for a protection visa on 10 September 2018. In the protection visa application, the applicant claims she cannot return to Taiwan due to fear of violence from her ex-husband.
Evidence before the Department
Evidence before the Department included the Departmental file with the protection visa application and country information. The applicant was not interviewed but was invited pursuant to s 56 of the Act to provide additional information to support her claims. There is no record of a response to that invitation from the applicant.
The delegate was not satisfied there was a real chance that the applicant would be persecuted for one or more of the reasons in s 5J(1)(a) of the Act and so was not satisfied that the applicant was a refugee and a person to whom Australia had protection obligations as provided in s 36(2)(a) of the Act. The delegate was also not satisfied that there was a real risk the applicant would suffer significant harm and therefore was not satisfied the applicant was a person to whom Australia had protection obligations as provided in s 36(2)(aa) of the Act. The delegate expressed concerns about the sufficiency of information provided by the applicant to support her claims and was not satisfied that the claims of continuing domestic or family violence were credible.
Evidence before the Tribunal
The applicant appeared in person before the Tribunal. She gave evidence that she holds Taiwan citizenship and has no right to citizenship of the People’s Republic of China. She said that she had assistance from an agent to complete the visa application form and that she was satisfied the application was complete and accurate.
The applicant was asked about her family and gave evidence that she was brought up in [a named region in] China and had only attended primary school. She said that her family in China consisted of a [specified siblings], and that she went to Taiwan due to marriage.
When asked about why she came to Australia, the applicant gave evidence that that she came to Australia for fun and then found out it was a very good place where the air was safe, so she stayed. She did not apply for a protection visa for over 12 months because she thought she could stay in Australia for 12 months but was wrong. She said she found out about protection visas when a friend introduced her to an agent.
The applicant gave further evidence that she wanted to stay in Australia because it is safe. She said it was not safe in Taiwan because her ex-husband would hit her, and they had frequent arguments and fighting. When asked about any serious incidents of harm that had occurred to her, the applicant said on one occasion her mother-in-law intervened when her husband beat her, but the injury was not serious. She said she did not report any matters to the police.
The protection visa application included details of the applicant’s [children] in China and described details of past harm differently to what the applicant provided at the hearing. The Tribunal put to the applicant that what she was saying at the hearing was different to what was in her protection visa application.
With respect to the past harm, the protection visa application referred to an incident in October 2012 where the applicant’s husband had poured a bottle of boiling water on her back. When the Tribunal brought this to the applicant’s attention, the applicant stated that this was an incident where he threw a hot cup of tea at her, not down her back, and that it had caused redness but was not very serious. The Tribunal drew the applicant’s attention to the sentence in the application that said that she had stayed in hospital for one week. The applicant stated that this was because of other pain, not related to being burnt. The Tribunal also drew the applicant’s attention to the statement that in the application that she went to the police station to seek help and that this was contrary to her oral evidence that she did not report matters to the police. The applicant said there was at least one time that police came to her home but if there is no serious injury they could not help.
The Tribunal put to the applicant that there are laws in Taiwan that criminalise domestic violence, referring to the Domestic Violence Prevention Act which was passed in 2015 and which expanded the definition of domestic violence to include harassment and coercion, and includes various types of protection orders.[2] The Tribunal also put to the applicant that authorities in Taiwan effectively enforce laws criminalising domestic violence,[3] the police are effective[4] and the courts are independent and fair[5]. In response the applicant reiterated she desired to stay in Australia for reasons such as the air quality is good, that medical conditions she had previously suffered from had healed, and it was very safe.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
[2] US Department of State, Taiwan – Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2015, 13 April 2016, 8-9; Hsiao-wei Kuan, The Law on Domestic Violence and its Practice in Taiwan, Ca’Foscari University of Venice, January 2021, 28
[3] US Department of State, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2022 – Taiwan; 20 March 2023, 8-9
[4] Ministry of Interior (Taiwan), Public Satisfaction with the Police is over 80% in 3 Consecutive Years Citizens Support Drug Enforcement, Fraud Prevention and Various Measures by the Police, 25 February 2022
[5] Bertelsmann Stiftung, BTI 2022 Country Report-Taiwan, 22 February 2022, 10-11
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 has a well-founded fear of persecution, or if not whether there is a real risk of significant harm to her in Taiwan in the reasonably foreseeable future. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
Nationality and country of reference
The Tribunal notes that the delegate’s decision refers to the applicant’s country of citizenship as the People’s Republic of China and the receiving country as the People’s Republic of China. The decision refers to the applicant having provided a copy of the biodata page of a passport issued in the People’s Republic of China. The Tribunal notes that the copy of the passport on the Department file has a similar number, and the same issue date as the one referred to in the delegate’s decision but is issued by Republic of China (Taiwan).
The applicant brought her passport to the hearing. The biodata page of that passport is identical to the copy on the Departmental file and is of a passport issued by the Republic of China (Taiwan).
The Tribunal accepts the documents provided to the Tribunal are the same as those provided to the Department. There is no evidence that the passport is a bogus document, and the Department was satisfied the applicant had not given a false identity.
The Tribunal accepts the passport as true. The applicant provided evidence that she has no entitlement to citizenship of the People’s Republic of China. Notwithstanding reference in the delegate’s decision to the applicant’s country of citizenship and the receiving country being the People’s Republic of China, the Tribunal notes that applicant’s passport and that her claims relate solely to return to Taiwan. Therefore, the Tribunal assesses the claims only against the Republic of China (Taiwan) as the receiving country.
Does the applicant satisfy the refugee criterion for protection?
The applicant claims to fear harm from her former husband in Taiwan. The applicant was divorced from her husband in 2013 and moved to another city in Taiwan. In the protection application the applicant refers to an incident of harm from her husband in 2012, prior to their divorce; an incident in 2016 after he found out where she was living; and a threat of harm in 2017 following which she left the country.
At the hearing, when questioned about the level of harm experienced, the applicant provided evidence that was inconsistent with the application, and described physical harm of less seriousness and which did not result in hospitalisation as claimed in the application.
The Tribunal acknowledges that past trauma, language, culture, unfamiliarity with official documents and the Tribunal environment may affect the articulation of applicants claims and the information provided by applicants at hearing. However, the Tribunal is concerned about the credibility of the applicants claims because of the level of inconsistency between what is written in the protection visa application and the evidence given at the hearing. The Tribunal also notes the primary reasons the applicant provided at the hearing for wanting to stay in Australia did not concern fear for her safety in Taiwan.
Notwithstanding the above, the Tribunal accepts that the applicant has experienced intermittent, irregular occurrences of harassment and ill treatment from her former husband and accepts she has experienced harm from her former husband in the past.
Section 5J(5) of the Act provides a non-exhaustive list of instances of serious harm at the level required for persecution. The Tribunal acknowledges that any form of domestic violence is unacceptable, and although the applicant’s evidence about the harm she experienced in the past from her former husband is inconsistent, the Tribunal is prepared to accept that the harassment and ill treatment the applicant experienced in the past reached the requisite level of significance to be considered serious harm.
The level of past harm can be an indicator of the level of future harm that may be faced by the applicant, and the Tribunal gives some weight to this when considering the chance of serious harm to the applicant if she returns to Taiwan in the reasonably foreseeable future. However, the Tribunal also notes the length of time the applicant has been absent from Taiwan, the passage of time since the last contact from her former husband, and the nature of the contact and harm to the applicant from her former husband since their divorce. The Tribunal gives weight to these matters and is not satisfied that there is a real chance that the applicant will face serious harm from her former husband if she returns to Taiwan in the reasonably foreseeable future.
Additionally, the Tribunal notes that helplines are available for to victims of domestic abuse[6], and the country information that there are appropriate criminal laws, a reasonably effective police force and impartial judiciary in Taiwan. The Tribunal considers the environment in Taiwan is one where the applicant can access durable state protection. These are effective protection measures as defined in s5LA of the Act and therefore, in accordance with s 5J(2) of the Act, for this additional reason, the applicant does not have a well-founded fear of persecution.
[6] Throughline Findahelpline.com, Helplines in Taiwan for abuse and domestic violence,
The Tribunal finds the applicant is not a refugee within the meaning of s 5H of the Act and therefore is not satisfied that she meets the criterion for a protection visa in s 36(2)(a) of the Act.
Does the applicant satisfy the complementary protection criterion for protection?
Having concluded that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), the Tribunal has considered the alternative criterion in s 36(2)(aa).
Section 36(2)(aa) of the Act requires that there be substantial grounds for believing that as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed to Taiwan, there is a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm.
Courts have held that the ‘real risk’ test imposes the same standard as the ‘real chance’ test applicable to the assessment of ‘well-founded fear’ in the Refugee Convention definition[7], and that reasoning appears equally applicable to the refugee criterion in s 5J(1)(b) of the Act. Courts have also held that the Tribunal has been entitled to rely on its finding that there was no real chance of the relevant harm alleged for Refugee Convention purposes in assessing whether there was a real risk of significant harm for complementary protection purposes, in circumstances when the same essential claims and facts were being relied on.[8]
[7] MIAC v SZQRB (2013) 210 FCR 505
[8] MZYXS v MIAC [2013] FCA 614 at [31]
At paragraphs 27-31 above, the Tribunal assessed the applicant’s claims and found there was no real chance of serious harm to the applicant if she returned to Taiwan. The level of harm required for complementary protection is ‘significant harm’, which is different to the level of harm required for refugee protection. However, tor the same reasons (i.e. the length of time the applicant has been absent from Taiwan, the passage of time since the last contact from her former husband, and the nature of the contact and harm to the applicant from her former husband since their divorce) the Tribunal finds the any harm the applicant may face from her former husband is not so extreme or severe as to reach the threshold of significant harm. Therefore the Tribunal is not satisfied there is a real risk of significant harm to the applicant in the reasonably foreseeable future for the purposes of s 36(2)(aa).
Additionally, the Tribunal notes the country information referred to in paragraph 14, and considers that law enforcement and the judiciary will provide protection for the applicant such that there would not be a real risk the applicant will suffer significant harm if she returns to Taiwan. Section 36(2B)(b) therefore applies so there is taken not to be a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm.
The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s36(2)(aa) of the Act.
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 as the applicant has no family members in Australia. Accordingly, the applicant does not satisfy the criterion in s 36(2).
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.
Date of hearing: 6 Mar 2025
Representative: N/A
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
…
Protection visas – criteria provided for by this Act
…
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.
…
0
2
0