2215982 (Refugee) - [2024] ARTA 15

DECISION AND
REASONS FOR DECISION
2215982 (Refugee) [2024] ARTA 15 (20 November 2024)
Respondent: Minister for Home Affairs

Tribunal Number: 2215982

Tribunal:General Member Noelle Hossen
Date:20 November 2024

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

Statement made on 20 November 2024 at 3:07pm
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Mauritius – family involvement in legal proceedings – corruption – fear of killing – delay in applying for protection – state protection – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and transitional Provisions No1) Act 2024
Migration Act 1958, ss 5(1), 5H, 5J – 5LA, 36, 56, 65, 499
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2
CASES
BEH15 v Minister for Immigration and border protection 2019 FCAFC 146
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 29 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 Mauritius, applied for the visa on 16 November 2021. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the applicant was not a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on the 25 October 2024 to give evidence and present arguments.
The applicant provided the department with his Passport and his identity documents, and the Department accepted that the applicant was a national of Mauritius. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant is a national of Mauritius and Mauritius is his receiving country.
On 14 October 2024, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) became the Administrative Review Tribunal (the Tribunal). Under the transitional provisions in the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and transitional Provisions No1) Act 2024 ( the Transitional Act), applications for review to the AAT that were not finalised before the 14 October 2024 are taken to be an application for review to the Tribunal. The Transitional Act gives the Tribunal the authority to continue and finalise any aspect of the review not already completed by the AAT. This decision and statement of reasons is made by the Tribunal.
BACKGROUND
The applicant was born on [date] in Mauritius. He attended Primary and Secondary school in Mauritius.
He said that he arrived in Australia [in] February 2016 on a Student [Visa]. He was granted a [further Student Visa] on the 21 March 2017.
On the 1 May 2019 the Student Visa was cancelled, and he was granted a Bridging E visa on the 8 September 2021. He lodged a Protection Visa on the 16 November 2021
The Tribunal accepts the background facts as set out in the preceding 3 paragraphs.
Evidence before the Department
The applicant lodged an application for protection on the 16 November 2021.
The delegate summarised the applicant’s migration history in the Decision as follows:
[February] 2016 The applicant arrived in Australia on a [Student] visa.
21 March 2017 The applicant was granted a [further Student] visa.
1 May 2019 The applicant’s Student Visa was cancelled.
18 August 2021 The applicant was granted a Bridging E (subclass 050) visa.
8 September 2021 The applicant was granted a Bridging E visa.
16November 2021 The applicant lodged a Protection (subclass 886) visa application.
The Delegate summarised the applicant’s claims as follows:
He came to Australia on a student visa in 2016 and after an extension of his student visa in 2017 he was unable to study.
Mauritius is a small country; the community is interlinked, and most people know each other from direct or indirect sources.
He fears that he will be killed, murdered, or mistreated such as being handicapped or incapacitated to work if he returns to Mauritius from a man that was imprisoned for murder in [specified year] because the applicant’s father gave a witness statement against this person.
The man was released in 2020 after serving [term] in prison and he wants to punish his father. His father passed away in 2015.
After the death of his father his sister got married and moved to [Country 1].
He fears harm from this man in Mauritius, the name of which must be kept a secret, to avoid any harm to his mother who is currently in Mauritius.
His mother is making bale arrangements to live his hometown.
The man has been waiting for the applicant to take revenge.
The man has been to his mother’s home and threatened his mother.
The man is a member of a gang which includes bouncers and are drug dealers of drugs and weapons.
At the moment, he cannot see himself relocating within Mauritius as these gangs are very powerful and are interlinked with people in and around Mauritius.
On the 28 April 2022 the applicant was sent correspondence inviting them under s56 of the act to provide additional information in relation to the application at an interview. On the 18 May 2022 the applicant attended an interview by video conference with the department.
At interview the applicant claimed that [Mr A] will seek revenge against him if he returns to Mauritius because the applicant’s father was a witness to the murder.
He was requested to provide further information to the Department at the interview. He was also requested to comment regarding the delay in lodging his Protection Application.
On the 24 May 2022 the applicant provided a response to the request for evidence to the department. He said that he tried to contact his mother, but she was sick and so unable to assist him. At the time of the Department’s Decision no supporting evidence or information had been received from the applicant.
At the interview the applicant had provided further details of what allegedly transpired regarding the murder case and further matters. The applicant admitted to the Tribunal at the hearing that he had fabricated the evidence.
He said to the Department that he was unable to provide supporting documents which is not surprising as the story was fabricated.
The Tribunal accepts the country information contained in the Delegate’s Decision which states that Mauritius is a stable and viable democracy with a thriving market economy.
The delegate of the Department found that there was no credible evidence before the delegate that the alleged murderer would seek revenge against the applicant due to a murder that his father witnessed in [year]. The Delegate was not satisfied that the murdered would seek revenge and that the claims are credible.
Evidence before the Tribunal
The applicant provided a copy of the Delegate’s Decision to the Tribunal.
The Applicant did not provide any supporting documents to the Tribunal.
The applicant said at the hearing that he arrived in 2015 to Australia to study firstly English and then a [specified qualification]. He said that his sister got married to a [Country 1] national and moved to live in [Country 1]. His mother wanted him to make a life in Australia.
He said that his mother owns the family home and that she lives with his grandmother and aunt in the home. There are no other family members in Mauritius.
He said that although it is mentioned in his Application for Protection that his mother is deciding to leave her hometown that this is not the case. He said that he was not responsible for some of the contents of his application as he had a female friend who drafted it for him.
He said that the claim about the man being a danger to him because of his incarceration due to a witness statement made by his father was untrue. He said that the contents of the claim is a lie and that he did so because he was told that this is what was needed for him to be able to remain in Australia.
He said that he had attended secondary school in Mauritius. He said that his mother could no longer afford the cost of his course, so the college cancelled his student visa which resulted in the student visa being cancelled. The tribunal accepts that the evidence of the applicant is correct regarding the Student Visa.
After his Visa was cancelled, he was able to get a Bridging Visa E because of the covid pandemic.
At the time of the hearing the applicant had been in Australia for almost 8 years.
He said that he has not had working rights since lodging his Application for Protection on the 16 November 2021.
He said that he needed to live so he had to resort to completing work for cash. He [does certain work] so that he can have funds to pay for his lifestyle. He presently lives with a family friend that he refers to as auntie who provides him with accommodation for free.
He has lived at that address for 2 years. He has never married and is presently single.
He was asked whether his sister travels to Mauritius to visit his mother from [Country 1]. He said that since he has left Mauritius, he believes that she has returned to visit their mother on 2 occasions. He said that he thinks that she went back last year for a period of 2 weeks.
He knows that his sister sends money to his mother. He has not sent any money since he has had no working rights.
He said that he had worked previously as [an occupation 1] for 8 months. He had worked at a [named business]. He has continued to [do certain work] for a living.
He said that he filed for a Protection visa as he researched it and found out about it on the internet.
He was asked why his mother or himself had not reported to the police that he had been threatened by the alleged person who was incarcerated because of his father’s evidence. He said that they did not report it to the police and when the Tribunal pressed for an answer, he eventually said that it was fabricated by a friend. He said that his mother still lived at the same residence. He did not provide further documentation and proof that the event took place because the evidence was fabricated.
The Tribunal explained to him that he could not claim protection from Australia if he did not have a well-founded fear of persecution by reason of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or a member of a particular social group.
He said that he did not want to return to Mauritius as he felt that the government was corrupt. He said that it is close to election time which is expected to take place on the 11/11/2024.He said that it was corrupt because he had heard on the news that the government was asking the public to register their SIM card from their phones so the government could spy on them. He did not know what section of the public was being sanctioned. He said some police officers were also corrupt.
He said the government was increasing the pensions which was increasing the cost of living.
He said that a friend of a friend had been targeted by the police and drugs were planted on him. When the Tribunal asked further questions, it turned out that the friend of a friend was not convicted of any offences. The Tribunal told him that this proves that some of the country information is correct which was what was stated in the reports contained in the Delegate’s Decision.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
Criteria for protection visa
The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s 36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations). An applicant for the visa must meet one of the alternative criteria in s 36(2)(a), (aa), (b), or (c). That is, he or she is either a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion, or on other ‘complementary protection’ grounds, or is a member of the same family unit as such a person and that person holds a protection visa of the same class.
Section 36(2)(a) provides that a criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee.
A person is a refugee if, in the case of a person who has a nationality, they are outside the country of their nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country: s 5H(1)(a). In the case of a person without a nationality, they are a refugee if they are outside the country of their former habitual residence and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to return to that country: s 5H(1)(b).
Under s 5J(1), a person has a well-founded fear of persecution if they fear being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, there is a real chance they would be persecuted for one or more of those reasons, and the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of the relevant country. Additional requirements relating to a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ and circumstances in which a person will be taken not to have such a fear are set out in ss 5J(2)-(6) and ss 5K-LA, which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
If a person is found not to meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), he or she may nevertheless meet the criteria for the grant of the visa if he or she is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that he or she will suffer significant harm: s 36(2)(aa) (‘the complementary protection criterion’). The meaning of significant harm, and the circumstances in which a person will be taken not to face a real risk of significant harm, are set out in ss 36(2A) and (2B), which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
Mandatory considerations
In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.84, made under s 499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken account of the ‘Refugee Law Guidelines’ and ‘Complementary Protection Guidelines’ prepared by the Department of Home Affairs, and country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.
REASONS AND FINDINGS
The issue in this case is whether the government and the police force in Mauritius is corrupt. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
While he claims on return that he will be facing difficulties by local authorities because of corruption in government, this claim is limited, vague and lacking in detail, despite being asked to provide further evidence by the Department and Tribunal.
The Tribunal has carefully considered the claims of the applicant in his original application for protection and the subsequent oral application contained at the hearing, individually and cumulatively.
The Tribunal’s task finding may include an assessment of the applicant’s credibility.[1] The mere fact that a person claims to fear persecution for a particular reason does not establish the genuineness of the asserted fear or that it is well founded or that it is for the reason claimed. Similarly, the fact that an applicant claims to face a real risk of significant harm does not establish that such a risk exists, or that the harm feared amounts to “significant harm.” It remains for the applicant to satisfy the Tribunal that the statutory elements have been made out.
[1] BEH15 v Minister for Immigration and border protection 2019 FCAFC 146 at 36-38.
The Tribunal has concerns regarding the credibility of the applicant’s claims particularly with respect to his claim to fear harm on return to Mauritius due to persecution on account of a murderer seeking revenge as he admitted that he fabricated the story. The claim regarding corruption was not raised until late in the protection visa process. The claims are not supported with corroborative evidence regarding the applicant’s involvement in incidents in Mauritius. The claim is different to the original claim for protection. The Tribunal has serious concerns regarding the credibility of the subsequent claim made by the applicant.
Does the applicant satisfy the refugee criterion for protection?
The Tribunal has considered the information regarding the alleged corruption that he says is occurring with government officials and the police force. The Tribunal is of the view that the evidence is vague and generalised. He has not lived in Mauritius for the last 8 years. The detail of the corruption is not specific to him. The Tribunal does not accept that there was corruption in the police force that will impact the applicant directly.
Once the applicant travelled to Australia in 2016, he had the intention to travel to Australia and expand his opportunities for a better life. The Tribunal does not accept that if he returns to Mauritius that he will encounter corruption that will be elevated to such a level that it would cause him serious harm.
The Tribunal was not provided any specific evidence from the applicant regarding the direct impact that the corruption in the government and the police force issues affect him and his family. It is a problem that faces most countries presently and is not a specific problem that affects the applicant and his family personally. The country information explains that the police force covers the whole country and therefore the applicant would be able to rely on state protection.
Therefore, having considered the applicant’s claim both individually and cumulatively, the Tribunal finds that the applicant does not have a real chance of serious harm arising from corruption, if he was to return to Mauritius from Australia, now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.
As the Tribunal explained at the hearing, such forms of harm would not appear to be directed at him for reasons of their race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group and/ or political opinion for the purposes of the refugee criteria. The Tribunal finds that the harm feared by the applicant would not amount to serious harm because of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group and/or political opinion.
Considering the applicant’s claim individually and cumulatively, the Tribunal finds that there is not a real chance the applicant will suffer persecution now or in the reasonably foreseeable future in Mauritius.
For the reasons given above, The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s36(2)(a).
COMPLEMENTARY PROTECTION CRITERIA
The Tribunal has considered whether the applicant meets the complimentary protection criterion under section 36(2) (aa). The real risk test imposes the same standard as the real chance test applicable to the assessment of well-founded fear. The Tribunal has considered whether it has substantial grounds for believing that as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to a receiving country there is a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm of any kind.
The Tribunal has made earlier findings that the applicant does not face a real chance of serious harm arising from his claim. Based on the applicant’s own claims and in the absence of any independent evidence to support his claim that he will be harmed if he is returned to Mauritius, the Tribunal does not accept that this is the case. As the real risk test is the same as the real chance standard it follows that the Tribunal does not accept that there are substantial grounds for believing, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia, that there is a real risk of significant harm. This includes torture, being subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment for being subjected to degrading treatment or punishment, for reasons based on the applicant’s claim that he will suffer because of their economic circumstances.

In addition, the Tribunal has considered that if there are any reasons to believe the applicant will face a real risk of significant harm arising from corruption in government and the police force as contemplated by s.36(2) (aa). Significant harm is different from the concept of serious harm as required by s5J(4)(b) in the context of s36(2)(a).
Whilst the Tribunal acknowledges the applicant may face difficulties arising from corruption in government and the police force, which will affect the applicant. As a result, the Tribunal finds that there is no real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm if he returns to Mauritius by reason of corrupt individuals in government and the police force. Given his overall experience and based on the available country information the Tribunal finds that as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia the applicant will not be significantly harmed as required by section 36(2A).
At no stage did the applicant advance any other reason in his written or oral claims that he is owed Australia’s protection obligations. As such having regard to all the circumstances and findings above considered individually and cumulatively the Tribunal finds that as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Mauritius there is no real risk the applicant will suffer significant harm if he is returned to Mauritius because of corrupt government officials and the police force as claimed pursuant to s36(2) (aa).
CONCLUDING PARAGRAPHS
For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(a).
Having concluded that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), the Tribunal has considered the alternative criterion in s 36(2)(aa). The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(aa).
There is no suggestion that the applicant satisfies s 36(2) on the basis of being a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfies s 36(2)(a) or (aa) and who holds a protection visa. Accordingly, the applicant does not satisfy the criterion in s 36(2).
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.
ATTACHMENT - Extract from Migration Act 1958
5 (1) Interpretation
…
cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment means an act or omission by which:
(a)     severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person; or
(b)     pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person so long as, in all the circumstances, the act or omission could reasonably be regarded as cruel or inhuman in nature;
but does not include an act or omission:
(c)     that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(d)     arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
degrading treatment or punishment means an act or omission that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation which is unreasonable, but does not include an act or omission:
(a)     that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(b)     that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
torture means an act or omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person:
(a)     for the purpose of obtaining from the person or from a third person information or a confession; or
(b)     for the purpose of punishing the person for an act which that person or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed; or
(c)     for the purpose of intimidating or coercing the person or a third person; or
(d)     for a purpose related to a purpose mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c); or
(e)     for any reason based on discrimination that is inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant;
but does not include an act or omission arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
receiving country, in relation to a non-citizen, means:
(a)     a country of which the non-citizen is a national, to be determined solely by reference to the law of the relevant country; or
(b)     if the non-citizen has no country of nationality—a country of his or her former habitual residence, regardless of whether it would be possible to return the non-citizen to the country.
…
5H    Meaning of refugee
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person in Australia, the person is a refugee if the person is:
(a)     in a case where the person has a nationality – is outside the country of his or her nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country; or
(b)     in a case where the person does not have a nationality – is outside the country of his or her former habitual residence and owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to return to it.
Note:     For the meaning of well-founded fear of persecution, see section 5J.
…
5J     Meaning of well-founded fear of persecution
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person has a well-founded fear of persecution if:
(a)     the person fears being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion; and
(b)     there is a real chance that, if the person returned to the receiving country, the person would be persecuted for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(c)     the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of a receiving country.
Note:     For membership of a particular social group, see sections 5K and 5L.
(2)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country.
Note:     For effective protection measures, see section 5LA.
(3)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if the person could take reasonable steps to modify his or her behaviour so as to avoid a real chance of persecution in a receiving country, other than a modification that would:
(a)     conflict with a characteristic that is fundamental to the person’s identity or conscience; or
(b)     conceal an innate or immutable characteristic of the person; or
(c)     without limiting paragraph (a) or (b), require the person to do any of the following:
(i)alter his or her religious beliefs, including by renouncing a religious conversion, or conceal his or her true religious beliefs, or cease to be involved in the practice of his or her faith;
(ii)conceal his or her true race, ethnicity, nationality or country of origin;
(iii)alter his or her political beliefs or conceal his or her true political beliefs;
(iv)conceal a physical, psychological or intellectual disability;
(v)enter into or remain in a marriage to which that person is opposed, or accept the forced marriage of a child;
(vi)alter his or her sexual orientation or gender identity or conceal his or her true sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.
(4)If a person fears persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a):
(a)     that reason must be the essential and significant reason, or those reasons must be the essential and significant reasons, for the persecution; and
(b)     the persecution must involve serious harm to the person; and
(c)     the persecution must involve systematic and discriminatory conduct.
(5)Without limiting what is serious harm for the purposes of paragraph (4)(b), the following are instances of serious harm for the purposes of that paragraph:
(a)     a threat to the person’s life or liberty;
(b)     significant physical harassment of the person;
(c)     significant physical ill‑treatment of the person;
(d)     significant economic hardship that threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(e)     denial of access to basic services, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(f)     denial of capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist.
(6)In determining whether the person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a), any conduct engaged in by the person in Australia is to be disregarded unless the person satisfies the Minister that the person engaged in the conduct otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening the person’s claim to be a refugee.
5K    Membership of a particular social group consisting of family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person (the first person), in determining whether the first person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for the reason of membership of a particular social group that consists of the first person’s family:
(a)     disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced, where the reason for the fear or persecution is not a reason mentioned in paragraph 5J(1)(a); and
(b)     disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that:
(i)the first person has ever experienced; or
(ii)any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced;
where it is reasonable to conclude that the fear or persecution would not exist if it were assumed that the fear or persecution mentioned in paragraph (a) had never existed.
Note:     Section 5G may be relevant for determining family relationships for the purposes of this section.
5L    Membership of a particular social group other than family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person is to be treated as a member of a particular social group (other than the person’s family) if:
(a)     a characteristic is shared by each member of the group; and
(b)     the person shares, or is perceived as sharing, the characteristic; and
(c)     any of the following apply:
(i)the characteristic is an innate or immutable characteristic;
(ii)the characteristic is so fundamental to a member’s identity or conscience, the member should not be forced to renounce it;
(iii)the characteristic distinguishes the group from society; and
(d)     the characteristic is not a fear of persecution.
5LA Effective protection measures
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country if:
(a)     protection against persecution could be provided to the person by:
(i)the relevant State; or
(ii)a party or organisation, including an international organisation, that controls the relevant State or a substantial part of the territory of the relevant State; and
(b)     the relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (a) is willing and able to offer such protection.
(2)A relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) is taken to be able to offer protection against persecution to a person if:
(a)     the person can access the protection; and
(b)     the protection is durable; and
(c)     in the case of protection provided by the relevant State—the protection consists of an appropriate criminal law, a reasonably effective police force and an impartial judicial system.
…
36     Protection visas – criteria provided for by this Act
…
(2)A criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is:
(a)     a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee; or
(aa) a non-citizen in Australia (other than a non-citizen mentioned in paragraph (a)) in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the non-citizen being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that the non-citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b)     a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:
(i)is mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant; or
(c)     a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:
(i)is mentioned in paragraph (aa); and
(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant.
(2A)A non‑citizen will suffer significant harm if:
(a)     the non‑citizen will be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life; or
(b)     the death penalty will be carried out on the non‑citizen; or
(c)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to torture; or
(d)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or
(e)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment.
(2B)However, there is taken not to be a real risk that a non‑citizen will suffer significant harm in a country if the Minister is satisfied that:
(a)     it would be reasonable for the non‑citizen to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b)     the non‑citizen could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(c)     the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the non‑citizen personally.
…