2214360 (Refugee)

[2023] AATA 1813

2214360 (Refugee) [2023] AATA 1813 (7 June 2023)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

REPRESENTATIVE:  Ms Kate Gillingham (MARN: 1682468)

CASE NUMBER:  2214360

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Romania

MEMBER:Luke Hardy

DATE:7 June 2023

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

Statement made on 07 June 2023 at 4:39pm

CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Romania – member of particular social group – young single female with no family or social connections or Romanian language ability – education, employment and ability to subsist – family violence by mother and step-father and apprehended domestic violence order – application for partner visa as dependant withdrawn by mother – period as unlawful non-citizen – accommodation and services provided by charity organisation – waiver of right to hearing and request for referral for ministerial consideration – compassionate circumstances – age and potential health and psychological impacts – referred for ministerial consideration – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5H(1)(a), 5J(1), 36(2)(a), (aa), 65, 417, 425
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2

Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other dependants.

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa (PV) under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).

2. The applicant is a citizen of Romania. She applied for the visa on 2 September 2021. The delegate refused to grant the visa Affairs on 2 September 2022. The applicant then lodged a review application in this Tribunal.

   CRITERIA FOR A PROTECTION VISA

3. The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s.36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (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.

4. 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.

5. A person is a refugee if, in the case of a person who has a nationality, he or she 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: s.5H(1)(a). In the case of a person without a nationality, he or she is a refugee if he or she 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 that country: s.5H(1)(b).

6. Under s.5J(1), a person has a well-founded fear of persecution if he or she fears being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, there is a real chance he or she 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.  

7. 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

8. 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.

   CONSIDERATION OF Claims and evidencE

9. The key issue for the Tribunal in this case is whether, on accepted evidence, the applicant Lahai is entitled to Australia’s protection as a refugee or, if not, on complementary protection grounds.

10. In this case, the applicant made the following claims in her original PV application:

    ·The applicant confirmed her identity as [the applicant], a Romanian citizen.

    ·She was born in [City] Romania on [Date] to [Mr A] and [Ms B].

    ·She fears that she will be forced to return to Romania by her mother and step-father.

    ·She would face serious harm due to her status as a vulnerable, young, single female if she returns.

    ·She never met her biological father though he is listed in her Birth Certificate.

    ·She had no contact with her biological father or his family.

    ·Her mother was married to another man, but divorced him when the applicant was around [age] years old.

    ·She lived with her maternal grandparents in Romania.

    ·Her mother worked in [Country] and provided financial support to her grandparents to take care of the applicant until she was [Age] years old.

    ·Her mother met her current Australian partner (step-father) in [Country]. They lived in [Country] for two years.

    ·Her mother married her step-father in May 2014 in Australia. They lodged a partner visa with the applicant as a dependant.

    ·The applicant stated that she was in a family violence situation. She started to experience abuse from her mother and step-father when she was in year [Number] ([Age] years old). They planned to send her back to Romania.

    ·On 15/08/2019, her step-father had told her mother to pack the applicant’s clothes and give her the money that she had earned because he was going to kick her out that weekend.

    ·The next day (Friday) the applicant dropped her things at her friend’s house and went to school.

    ·She went to the police station to report because she was afraid that she will be hurt or that they will send her back to Romania.

    ·The applicant moved to [Accommodation/services 1] at the end of 2019 and in March 2020, she was transferred to [Accommodation/services 2].

    ·Her mother reached out to her in around June or July 2020 to request for a police report for their partner visa application.

    ·In September 2020 her mother had told the [worker] in [Accommodation/services 2] that she has no interest to restore their relationship.

    ·The applicant became unlawful because she had no knowledge that her partner visa application (as a dependant) was withdrawn by her mother.

    ·She claimed that she cannot return to Romania because she will be a vulnerable, young single female with no family or social connections for support.

    ·She has limited contact with her grandparents since she left Romania. She has only spoken to them twice through her mother. They have not contacted each other directly.

    ·She has no contact or personal relationship with her mother’s brothers or their family. She does not believe they would want to help her. She does not know where they live in Romania.

    ·The applicant has no other family members or friends in Romania who would help her, thus she would not have any support network in Romania.

    ·She is unable to speak or understand the language, nor read and write the language which would make it very difficult for her to find employment or further her education in Romania.

    ·Without employment, she would not be able to support herself financially or be able to afford suitable accommodation.

    ·If she returns to Romania she would not be given the support and assistance as she is receiving form [Accommodation/services 2].

    ·She also fears of being trafficked as a single vulnerable female in Romania considering Romania is one of the largest sources of sex trafficking and labour trafficking in Europe and there is a high chance that she will be a victim.

    ·She cannot relocate to European Union (EU) countries because of her status as a vulnerable young single female for the same reasons outline above. She does not know anyone in any of the EU countries.

    ·She has visited [Country] a few times but she cannot recall the dates since she was only [Age] years old at that time.

    ·The applicant also mentioned in her Permanent Protection Visa(PPV) application4 that she fears harm if she were to return on the basis that she is a vulnerable young single female who:

    ·has no Romanian language skills;

    ·has no family or social connections in the country;

    ·has been subject to family violence as a child;

    ·has no finances or access to financial support or housing;

    ·would be at a higher risk of being trafficked.

11. The delegate found that her claims did not engage Australia’s protection under s.36(2)(a) or s.36(2)(aa).

12. In a lengthy and detailed submission to the Tribunal dated 24 October 2022, the applicant waived her rights under s.425 of the Act to a hearing and requested that the Tribunal refer her matter for Ministerial intervention under s.417 of the Act.

13. S.417 gives the Minister a discretion to substitute for a decision of the Tribunal another decision that is more favourable to the applicant, if the Minister thinks that it is in the public interest to do so.

14. The Tribunal provides the following extracts from the applicant’s recent submission and supporting material at length. Suffice it to say that her representative has accurately identified a number of Ministerial guidelines and other migration policy factors that are potentiality relevant in this case:

    We … ask the Tribunal to recommend that the Minister substitute the Tribunal's
    decision with a decision more favourable to the Applicant.

    2.4 We submit that, for the reasons outlined below, the Applicant's case has the
    following unique and exceptional circumstances [:]

    (a) Circumstances not anticipated by relevant legislation, or clearly unintended consequences of legislation, or the application of relevant legislation leads to unfair or unreasonable results in a particular case.

    (b) Strong compassionate circumstances that if not recognised would result in serious, ongoing and irreversible harm and continuing hardship to an Australian citizen or Australian family unit, where at least one member of the family is an Australia citizen or Australian permanent resident.

    (c) Compassionate circumstances regarding the age and/or health and/or psychological state of the person that if not recognised would result in serious, ongoing and irreversible harm and continuing hardship to the person.

    (d) A person's particular circumstances or personal characteristics provide a sound basis for believing that there is a significant threat to their personal security, human rights, or human dignity if they return to their country of origin, but the mistreatment does not meet the criteria for the grant of any type of protection visa.

    2.5 We also submit that:

    (a) for the reasons set out below, it is in the public interest for the Minister to substitute a decision of the Tribunal with a more favourable decision; and (b) there is other information, outlined below and referred to in Section 5 of the Policy Guidelines, which is relevant to the exercise of the Minister's discretion in favour of the Applicant.

15. The submission provides the following information:

    4.1 As set out in the Applicant's statement dated 20 September and the Decision dated 2 September 2022:

    (a) The Applicant was born in Romania on [Date].

    (b) She never met her biological father and has had no contact with him or his immediate family.

    (c) The Applicant lived with her mother in Romania until she was [age] years old at which time she went to live with her maternal grandparents in Romania until she was [age] years old.

    (d) At that time, the Applicant's mother took her to live in [Country] with her mother and her mother's partner (now, the Applicant's step-father). They lived together in [Country] until her mother and step-father decided to move to Australia. Her step-father is Australian and he and her mother wished to live their life in Australia.

    (e) The Applicant arrived in Australia [in] March 2014 when she was [Age] years old. She has subsequently learnt that she arrived on an Evisitor visa.

    (f) The Applicant's mother and step-father married in May 2014.

    (g) On 31 May 2014 the Applicant's step-mother lodged a Partner visa application. The Applicant was included on the application as a secondary applicant.

    (h) The Applicant was subject to family violence from her step-father and mother from when she was [Age] years old. In addition to the physical and emotional abuse, from time to time they would threaten to send the Applicant back to an orphanage in Romania.

    (i) In 2019 her mother fell pregnant with the Applicant's half-sister.

    (j) Due to the family violence, the Applicant moved out of the family home on or about 16 August 2019 (when she was [Age] years old) and reported the abuse to the NSW police. The police took out Apprehended Domestic Violence Orders (ADVOs) against her mother and step-father to protect the Applicant. The ADVO against her mother remained in place until 11
    September 2021. The Applicant only has a copy of the provisional ADVO against her step-father but we expect that the final ADVO remained in place for the same period, until 11 September 2021.

    (k) Since moving out of home the Applicant has been accommodated and received support services primarily from charities which support homeless youth. She had limited contact with her mother and step-father and has not met her half-sister who was born on [Date].

    (l) Without notice to the Applicant, her mother withdrew the Partner visa application (on which the Applicant was a secondary applicant) on or about 27 July 2021, only 18 days before the Applicant turned [Age] years. Her associated Bridging Visa A (BVA) expired on 24 August 2021.

    (m) The Applicant was in the middle of her [School] exams when she was informed on or about 25 August 2022 that her mother had withdrawn the Partner's visa application and that her Bridging Visa had expired, thereby rendering her an unlawful citizen for a short period of time. The Applicant found the situation overwhelming, upsetting and stressful. The Applicant believes that her mother's conduct was deliberate to cause her distress and render her unlawful.

    (n) As soon as the Applicant became aware of her unlawful status she took steps to rectify the situation and lodged an application for a Permanent Protection Visa on 2 September 2021 on the basis that she was a young single female who fears harm if she is forced to return to Romania.

    (o) The Applicant has no Romanian language skills and no family or social connections in Romania. She has no finances or access to financial support or housing in Romania.

    (p) A delegate for the Minister of Home Affairs refused the Applicant's application for a Permanent Protection Visa on 2 September 2022.

16. The submission asserts that the applicant is estranged from her mother and has never met her half-sister. It states that the applicant wishes to establish a relationship with her half-sister, who she presumes to be an Australian citizen, and that the half-sister might yet wish for the same.

17. The submission includes attachments:  

    3. Documents

    3.1   The Applicant relies upon the following material.

    (a)Her statement dated 20 September 2021

    (b) Apprehended Domestic Violence order issued to the Applicant's mother
    dated 12 September 2019

    (c) Provisional Apprehended Domestic Violence order issued to the
    Applicant's step-father dated 16 August 2019

    (d) A support letter from [Ms C], [Job title 2] at [Accommodation/services 2], dated 19 October 2022.

    (e) Support letter from [Mr D], [Job title 1] at [Accommodation/services 2] (undated).

    (f) Letter from [Ms E], [Job title 2], [Accommodation/services 2], dated
    19 October 2022.

    (g) Letter from [Ms F], [Job title 3], [Accommodation/services 2], dated 31 May 2021.

    (h) Letter from [Ms G], Co-Founder and Director of [Recruitment agency],
    dated 31 May 2021.

    (i) Letter from [Ms H], Principal of [School 1],
    dated 30 November 2021.

    (j) Letter from [Ms I], [Employer] (undated).

    (k) Letter of Support from [Mr J], friend, dated 19 October 2022.

    (l) 2020 and 2021 School Reports – [School 1].

18. The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s case and the ministerial guidelines relating to the discretionary power set out in departmental policy ‘Minister’s guidelines on ministerial powers (s351, s417 and s501J)’.

19. In the circumstances of a request for Ministerial intervention, particularly with regard to deciding to refer or not, the Tribunal is expected to identify a potentially relevant Ministerial guideline.

20. At the very least, the Tribunal is of the view that the following Ministerial guideline is potentially relevant:

    Compassionate circumstances regarding [the applicant’s] age and/or health and/or psychological state, that if not recognised would result in serious, ongoing and irreversible harm and continuing hardship.

21. The Tribunal considers this guideline potentially relevant in view of the applicant’s alienage from Romania over so many years and potential health and psychological impacts of the abuse she claims to have suffered in Australia.

22. In view of the applicant’s having waived her rights to a hearing, the Tribunal has been unable to test her original substantive claims and is unable to be satisfied that she is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(a) or that she is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(aa).

23. Meanwhile, 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, she does not satisfy the criterion in s 36(2).

24. However, there is still the matter of the request for Ministerial intervention under s.417 of the Act.

    S.417 request

25. In the circumstances, the Tribunal will refer this matter to the Minister, pointing out that there is a lengthy submission to the Tribunal and other supporting material, but observing that she may need to provide additional material to the Department in support of her request.

    DECISION

26. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

    Luke Hardy

    
    

    Member

    
    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.

    …