2300718 (Refugee) - [2025] ARTA 1253

2300718 (REFUGEE) [2025] ARTA 1253 (7 APRIL 2025)
DECISION AND
REASONS FOR DECISION
Respondent: Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

Tribunal Number: 2300718

Tribunal:General Member J Wilson
Date:7 April 2025

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

CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – China – religion – Christian – underground churches – pyramid marketing scheme – lengthy period of unlawful residence – fear of detention – lengthy delay in applying for protection – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and transitional Provisions No1) Act 2024 (Cth)
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5(1), 5H, 5J – 5LA, 36, 65, 499
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2
CASES
CNI20 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2024] FedCFamC2G 1219
MIAC v SZQRB (2013) 210 FCR 505
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 12 January 2023 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act). On 20 January 2023 the applicant sought a review of the delegate’s decision to refuse the protection visa in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT).
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.
BACKGROUND AND ISSUES
According to the information before the Tribunal, the applicant is [an age]-year-old male Chinese national. The applicant has been living in the Australian community for over 27 years, 20 years of which have been without a visa as an unlawful non-citizen.
According to immigration records available to the Tribunal, the applicant came to Australia in December 1997 as the holder of a visitor visa. The applicant held a second visitor visa for a short period of time that ceased [in] January 1998, after which the applicant failed to hold any valid visa until he lodged his protection visa application on 2 August 2018 and was granted an associated bridging visa. Why the applicant applied for a protection visa in 2018 specifically was not explained to the Tribunal.
The applicant claims to have come to Australia to visit his parents. His parents are now elderly Australian citizens (a fact which is not disputed) who reside in Sydney. His eldest (adult) daughter has also lawfully migrated to Australia where she lives and works in Sydney as an Australian permanent resident. The applicant’s wife and remaining two adult children live in China.
In his protection visa application, the applicant claims, in summary, that he could not safely return to China for reasons of his Christian religious beliefs and his evangelist practises. He later gave evidence that he also feared returning to China because of his earlier involvement in a pyramid marketing scheme that was operating in China in the 1990’s, which was subsequently regulated by the Chinese Government.
The key issue to be determined by the Tribunal is whether the applicant is a non-citizen who is owed protection obligations in Australia because he meets the requirements of s 36(2) of the Act, for reasons of being a refugee per s 36(2)(a) of the Act, or the complementary protection requirements of the Act as specified in s 36(2)(aa), or for reasons of being a member of a family unit per s 36(2)(b) or (c) of the Act.
CRITERIA FOR A 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.
Subject to s 5J(6) of the Act, a person may be a refugee in circumstances where the well-founded fear of persecution is a consequence of events that have occurred since arriving in Australia. Section 5J(6) provides that any conduct engaged in by a person in Australia must be disregarded in determining whether the person has a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, unless the person satisfies the decision maker that he or she engaged in the conduct otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening the claim to be a refugee.
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) of the Act, which are stated 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 (Department), and country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.
SUMMARY OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
Evidence before the Department
The Department’s file relevant to the protection visa application is substantial. The delegate had the following evidence available to inform the primary decision:
a.the prescribed form (the protection visa application); accompanied by;
b.a one-page typed document titled ‘My statement’ written bilingually in Chinese characters with English translations (the Original Statement). In the Original Statement, the applicant claims he attended Christian family churches in China (understood to mean unregistered underground churches) and that his family members were punished by the Chinese government for doing so. He further claims he attended churches and preached the gospel in Australia and that he would continue to preach if he returned to China, which makes him worried about his treatment on return to China, noting that others had been targeted, oppressed and detained;
c.an uncertified copy of three pages of his expired Chinese passport;
d.an uncertified copy of two pages of his Chinese passport issued by the Consulate-General in Sydney in in 2012 with validity until 2022.
In subsequent correspondence with the Department, the applicant provided:
a.a ‘Supplementary statement’ written by the applicant which was officially translated on 14 June 2019 (Supplementary Statement), which states he came to Australia to visit his elderly parents on a temporary basis (his parents being Australian citizens at that point in time) and that he paid money to a person to help him with visa matters. In the Supplementary Statement the applicant also wrote that he had decided to return to China after becoming unlawful, however feared that he was under investigation by the Chinese Government for his prior involvement in fund raising and pyramid sales. He also wrote that his wife converted to Christianity in 2017 and that in 2018 he attended church in Australia, after being encouraged by his wife. He said that in 2019 he had contemplated returning to China again, however was fearful of doing so after learning that his friend has been detained again for religious reasons.
b.on 4 July 2022, in response to a Departmental request for further information, the applicant provided further supporting documentation consisting of a translated National ID card, notarial certificate as evidence of his birth, a certificate of Baptism and corresponding photographs of the baptism, a letter from the Senior Pastor of the church, a translated copy of the Household Register together with a written cover page that sought to respond to concerns the Department had raised with the applicant (together, the Response to the Request for Further Information). In the Response to the Request for Further Information the applicant wrote that he had been taken advantage of by a ‘so-called agent’ who was subsequently referred to by the applicant as a ‘guy’ and ‘him’;
c.on 29 November 2022, four separate letters of support being from a member of the church, his eldest daughter, his parents and a staff member of the church (together, Letters of Support);
The Department conducted an interview with the applicant on 5 December 2022 (the interview). The interview was conducted via video, because of COVID pandemic arrangements in place at that time.
On 21 December 2022, after the interview, the applicant provided further information to the Department consisting of a letter (Further Supplementary Statement) accompanied by a copy of his baptism certificate, medical certificates as evidence of him being unwell, a receipt from the Australian Tax Office and a medical document related to his daughter’s health. The Further Supplementary Statement expressed the view that the applicant was not satisfied with the quality of the answers he provided to the Departmental officer at the interview and sought to provide further explanations.
Delegate’s decision – refusal of the protection visa
On 12 January 2023 the delegate refused to grant a protection visa to the applicant on the basis that he was not satisfied that the applicant’s claims were credible. In forming that view, the delegate considered the extended delay in the applicant’s lodgement of a protection visa together with the timing of the applicant’s church attendance. The delegate considered the operation of s 5J(6) of the Act relevant to the application before him, and concluded that the applicant had engaged in religious activity in Australia for the sole purpose of creating protection claims and proceeded to subsequently disregard the religious activity for the purpose of assessing the application. The delegate concluded that the applicant was not a refugee per s 5J(H)(1) for the purposes of s 36(2)(a) the Act, nor did the applicant satisfy the criteria for complementary protection per s 36(2)(aa) or s 36(2)(b) or(c) (as a member of the family unit) and therefore was a not a person with respect to whom Australia owed protection obligations.
Evidence before the Tribunal
The evidence before the Tribunal consists of:
a.the Departmental file;
b.an application for review dated 20 January 2023 which attaches the delegate’s decision and notification of decision;
c.an official letter dated 6 November 2024 from the senior pastor of the [Church 1];
d.pre-hearing submissions from the applicant’s representative dated 22 January 2025 (Submissions) which were accompanied by:
i.a 10-page PDF document containing photographs and descriptions of the photographs;
ii.a two-page document containing a personal statement from a person the Tribunal will refer to as ‘[Person A]’, together with an uncertified photocopy of [Person A’s] NSW Driver Licence;
iii.a two-page document containing a personal statement from a person the Tribunal will refer to as ‘[Person B]’, together with an uncertified copy of [Person B’s] NSW Driver Licence;
iv.an 11-page personal statement by the applicant’s parents and eldest daughter, which contained uncertified copies of the parents’ Australian passports and the daughters NSW Driver Licence;
v.a two-page personal statement by a person the Tribunal will refer to as ‘[Person C]’, together with an uncertified copy of [Person C’s] NSW Driver Licence;
vi.a two-page personal statement by a person the Tribunal will refer to as ‘Person D’, together with an uncertified copy of [Person D’s] NSW Provisional Driver Licence;
vii.a further two-page document containing a total of 12 photographs and descriptions;
e.oral evidence (detailed further below) received in two hearings that took place virtually by video conference on 4 February 2025 and 17 February 2025, respectively. The Tribunal hearings were conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Cantonese and English languages; and
f.post- hearing evidence received by the Tribunal on 24 February 2025 consisting of a Letter of Support from the applicant’s wife (Wife’s Letter of Support), a certified copy of their marriage certificate, and a certified copy of her Chinese National Identity Card.
Oral evidence provided at hearing
First hearing
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 4 February 2025 via video to give evidence and present arguments. The applicant appeared from his representative’s office, a registered migration agent, together with his eldest daughter.
When asked by the Tribunal, the applicant gave evidence that he had prepared his protection visa application with the assistance of his daughter and her friend, who had assisted him to translate his words to English. He stated that he believed the content of his protection visa application was accurate.
The applicant indicated he was born and raised in [Village 1] of the Guangdong province of China. He said he has [specified siblings] who continue to reside there with their families. His stated his father migrated to Australia before the June 4 massacre in Beijing. (The Tribunal understood he was referring to the Tiananmen Square massacre). He was not sure what visa his father had used to enter Australia. He said his mother followed his father to Australia some time afterwards. He stated they are both now elderly Australian citizens living in Sydney. The applicant states he now lives with them, and provides them with care, including driving them to hospital appointments and to the acupuncturist.
The applicant gave evidence that he is married and has [number] children. His eldest daughter is now an Australian permanent resident who lives and works in Sydney, having arrived some years ago as an international student. His [other] children, born in [specified years], each remain living and working in China near his wife. He said his wife does not have stable employment, but does intermittent farm work and casual work. He said he sends his wife money now and then.
With respect to his education and work, the applicant gave evidence that in China he completed Junior High School and went on to work as [an occupation 1] and then operated a small retail shop that sold [products 1]. He said he sold Amway products at his shop during the 1990’s. He said he also did farm work to help his family, noting that after the reforms in China each family was given their own plot of land to cultivate. He said that since arriving in Australia he has always worked as [an occupation 2].
Reflecting on why he came to Australia, the applicant said he came to Australia at the request of his father who wanted him to visit. He explained his father had a health concern for which he was hospitalised, and that he stayed with him during his period of hospitalisation.
He said that he realised he needed to extend his visitor visa, and that he sought assistance of a migration agent named [name], based in [Sydney] who had told him to apply for a protection visa claiming to be falun gong. He said he did not proceed with the application because he thought it was dishonest, and instead paid her $AUD900 to seek a further visitor visa. After waiting approximately one year and having not received any information about his visa renewal, he went in search of her to find her office closed and that she was uncontactable. He said he started to worry about his immigration status at this time but did not dare approach the Department because he was told by others not to bring himself to the attention of the authorities, which could lead to him being deported.
He said he started attending the [Church 1] in Sydney and that the brothers and sisters of that church told him about the option of applying for a protection visa. He said he was baptised in 2020 and has continued as an active member of the church. He said that since becoming Christian, and after being baptised, he was very worried about returning to China, particularly, that he would be arrested for attending the family church. He stated he would evangelise, and that it is not allowed in China. He also said he is worried about his involvement in the Amway marketing scheme during 1995-1996, although was not sure whether he has a profile in China for his involvement, noting he stopped selling the products immediately once the pyramid selling schemes had been outlawed in China. He stated that around the end of 1997 his wife was questioned by police about his involvement in the Amway scheme, and that she advised him not to return to China at that time for his safety, and for the safety of the children.
The Tribunal took evidence from the applicant concerning his religious life. He said it started in 2017 when his wife started attending the local family church in China and persuaded him to join her faith. The applicant recounted his baptism and cited his knowledge of the four gospels. He said he spreads the gospel to others and recommends people learn biblical knowledge.
He said if he must return to China, he would attend the family church with his wife – noting that the state-sanctioned Protestant churches do not practise religion with the same religious freedoms enjoyed in Australia and that he would not be inclined to attend a state-sanctioned church for that reason.

The applicant gave evidence that his uncle had been penalised in China for being a Christian believer and had been forced to pay a fine. The applicant also referred to a friend that had been detained for engaging in underground church activity. The applicant cited both examples as part of the reasons he feared returning to China.
His daughter gave oral evidence at the first hearing. She said she was not aware he did not hold a visa at the time she arrived in Australia and only became aware of his immigration status when she assisted the applicant make an application for a new Chinese passport during the COVID pandemic (a pursuit they ultimately abandoned because of concerns the applicant would bring himself to the attention of the Chinese authorities). When asked why she believed her father had remained in Australia she said she believed it was because her grandfather had asked the applicant to stay and that he had then been scammed by a person purportedly offering migration services. She said she considered her father to be a genuine Christian, and that she believes he commenced attending church services in a variety of churches in Sydney during 2016-2017-2018, although later revised her evidence to suggest he began attending church in 2014-2015. She gave evidence that her parents remain in a committed long-distance marriage. She said she believed her father’s primary reason for wishing to remain in Australia was because out of fears relating to his religious claims firstly, and to be available to care for his parents as secondary concern.
Second hearing
A second hearing took place on 17 February 2025 by video, also with the assistance of an interpreter in the Cantonese and English languages. The hearing was attended by the applicant, his representative and his daughter again, with his daughter attending in the capacity of a support person.
The second hearing focussed on evidence concerning the applicant’s adoption of the Christian faith. The applicant gave oral evidence that his wife was encouraged to adopt the Christian faith by her elder brother, and she converted and was baptised in 2007. The applicant later revised the timing to say it was Easter of 2017. He said he did not think she was born into any faith, however, may have worshipped Buddhist gods and the Marvu God prior to becoming Christian. He said that she is a now Protestant Christian who practises as an ordinary member of a family church, which has no fixed location. He said the responsibility for hosting church services is shared between members, with meetings being hosted privately in their homes. When asked who the leader was of the church he said he thinks it had a pastor, but did not offer a name. He said his wife evangelises secretly, out of concern that she could be arrested. When asked if she had ever considered joining him in Australia, he first said that he considered she had perhaps thought about it, and then added that they had discussed it but had not made an application at that time. The applicant explained that via mobile telephone conversations, she had encouraged him to become Christian and repent his sins.
The Tribunal attempted to contact his wife in China by telephone during the hearing to give evidence with the assistance of the interpreter. The telephone number provided was not answered and appeared to be turned off. The applicant’s daughter said she also tried to contact her mother during the hearing to encourage her to answer the Tribunal’s call, however she did not return the call. The Tribunal attributes neutral weight to the fact the applicant’s wife was not available to provide evidence during the hearing.
The Tribunal raised its concern that evidence provided orally at the first hearing appeared to be different to that provided in the submissions written by the representative dated 22 January 2025. Specifically, the Tribunal highlighted that a difference existed between the applicant’s oral evidence that he never attended a church in China, whereas the submissions clearly stated that ‘the applicant attended a Christian family church in his origin’. In response, the applicant confirmed his oral evidence was correct.
The Tribunal also raised its concerns that it appeared on some limited instances in the first hearing that the applicant may have been reading from notes in front or to the side of him. The applicant said that was not the case. The representative explained he had been taking notes during the hearing, which is a usual part of his work, however it was written in English and that the applicant would not be able to read it. The Tribunal gave the applicant the benefit of the doubt and accepts the explanation provided by the applicant and his representative.
The applicant was provided with a further 10 days to seek any additional evidence from his wife.
Post-hearing submissions
Following the hearing, the applicant provided an official translation of his Wife’s Letter of Support, a certified copy of their marriage certificate, and a certified copy of her Chinese National Identity Card.
In summary, the Wife’s Letter of Support states she began attending a house church in China in early 2017 and was baptised during Easter 2017 and that her church belongs to the Protestant Christian denomination but is not recognised by the Chinese Government. In contrast to the evidence provided by the applicant in the second hearing (that his wife was introduced to Christianity by her elder brother), his wife wrote that she was introduced to Christianity by her cousin. She further wrote that she started to preach to her husband in 2017 and that to her knowledge, he commenced attending church in Australia in 2018. She also described the current religious environment in China as extremely severe however did not include any suggestion that she was personally at risk of harm, although did note that sometimes her church would need to suspend gatherings for safety reasons. She expressed the view that her husband has genuine Christian beliefs. The Wife’s Letter of Support contained no references to the applicant’s involvement in the Amway scheme or any pyramid marketing scheme, nor did it refer to any contact with Chinese authorities or the immigration scam the applicant may have fallen victim of in Australia.
Country Information
The Tribunal has considered the most recent Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) Country Information Report for China dated 27 December 2024 (the DFAT Report).
In summary, and relevantly to the applicant’s claims, the DFAT Report states that:
a.Protestantism is officially recognised in China[1], although in 2021 the Government of China significantly increased its efforts to force unregistered churches to submit to the authority of the official governing body of Protestant churches in China – with a failure to comply possibly resulting in the electricity being cut off, forcing landlords to evict members, and using procedural grounds to shut them down;[2]
b.members of unregistered churches were unlikely to face arrest or detention in 2023, however may receive verbal warnings to worship only at registered churches;
c.evangelism, of any variety, is prohibited and those who proselytise face greater scrutiny by authorities and arrest;[3]
d.the extent of religious freedoms enjoyed in China have been curtailed since 2016 when President Xi launched a campaign, followed by legislative efforts, to tighten the Chinese Communist Party’s control over religious communities by integrating religious beliefs with Chinese culture;[4]
e.with respect to treatment on return, that failed asylum seekers were not specifically targeted by authorities and did not face official discrimination merely for having sought asylum;[5] and
f.individuals wanted for outstanding warrants may still be charged upon their return to China.[6]
[1] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, DFAT Country Information Report People’s Republic of China (DFAT Report) (27 December 2024) 28 [3.49].
[2] Ibid, 33 [3.84].
[3] Ibid, 34 [3.86].
[4] Ibid, 28 [3.51].
[5] DFAT Report, 69 [5.27].
[6] Ibid 28, [5.28].
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
The Tribunal acknowledges that through the lodgement of a protection visa application the applicant has taken steps to regularise his immigration status in Australia after a long period of not holding any visa. The Tribunal has sympathy for views expressed by the applicant’s family and accepts that the applicant provides care for his elderly Australian citizen parents. The Tribunal is, however, required to apply the law and notes that the provision of care and other family or community services is not a relevant criterion upon which a determination of a protection visa rests.
The issue for determination by the Tribunal is whether the applicant faces a real chance of serious harm, or a real risk of significant harm on return to China.
On the evidence before it, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant faces a real chance of serious harm, or a real risk of significant harm on return to China, and accordingly affirms the delegates decision based on the findings and reasons set out below.
Nationality, Identity and Receiving Country
The Applicant provided a copy of his Chinese passport to the Department of Home Affairs. There was no evidence available to the delegate to suggest that his passport was a bogus document. According to the Department’s decision record, it undertook a check of relevant systems which revealed no concerns about the applicant’s identity. Accordingly, the Tribunal accepts the applicant’s identity.
There is no evidence to suggest the applicant has a right to enter and/or reside, whether temporarily or permanently, in any other country.
Based on the documents provided by the applicant and accepted by the Department, the Tribunal finds the applicant is a citizen of China and accordingly his protection will be assessed against China as the receiving country.
A victim of a migration scam?
The applicant claimed that he became an unlawful non-citizen because he was the victim of a migration scam. The Tribunal acknowledges that, regrettably, migration scams do occur in Australia. However, on the evidence supplied by the applicant, the Tribunal does not accept the applicant was a victim of a migration scam in Australia. The Tribunal forms this view because of differences in the account of the event, notably that in the Response to the Request for Further Information provided to the Department in 2022 the applicant referred to being scammed by a ‘guy’ and ‘him’, whereas in oral evidence provided in the first hearing the applicant provided the identity of a female. The Tribunal recognises that the passage of time may interfere with a person’s recollection, however considers it unlikely that a person would forget the identity or gender of a person, whose actions, or inactions, had compromised the applicant’s early prospects of obtaining a visa to start a life in a foreign country.
Even if the Tribunal were to accept that a migration scam may be the reason for the applicant becoming an unlawful non-citizen initially (which it does not), it does little to explain why the applicant failed to regularise his immigration status for a period exceeding 20 years. On the basis of the oral evidence provided at hearing, the Tribunal finds the applicant had an awareness of his unlawful immigration status and elected to avoid the detection of Australian authorities.
Accordingly, the Tribunal does not accept the applicant’s claims concerning him being a victim to a migration scam and has not considered this issue further, other than to note it adds another element to the Tribunal’s concerns about the credibility of the applicant’s claims.
Christian Claims
Did the applicant practise Christianity in China?
In the Original Statement and the Submissions received from the applicant’s representative, the applicant claims to have practised Christianity in family churches in China. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant ever practised Christianity in China. The Tribunal reaches this finding having regard to other evidence provided by the applicant, including his Supplementary Statement which states ‘There were two main reasons why I dare not practise religion in China…’ and the applicant’s oral evidence provided at hearing that states he adopted the Christian faith in 2017-2018 in Australia.
Is the applicant a genuine practising Christian?
The applicant claims he is a practising, baptised, Protestant Christian who spreads the gospel in Australia. On the basis of the photographic evidence, witness statements and evidence given by the applicant, the Tribunal accepts the applicant is a regular attendee at the [Church 1].
There is a question as to when the applicant commenced attending Christian services in Australia. The question is relevant to an assessment of the genuineness of the applicant’s claimed faith. In oral evidence provided at the hearing the applicant claims he commenced his practise of Christianity at the insistence of his wife and that he attended a variety of local churches in western Sydney prior to settling at the [Church 1] in 2018. This evidence is also consistent with written evidence contained in the Supplementary Statement and the Submissions provided by the applicant’s representative. The Tribunal notes his wife’s letter of support contains no reference to him attending any churches prior to joining [Church 1 variant] in 2018 and that his daughter’s oral evidence also provides a point of contrast as to the timing of his claimed religious activities. The Tribunal considers that owing to the passage of time, it is possible that his daughter’s recollection of the relevant timeframes may not be accurate. Having regard to the totality of the evidence on this issue, the Tribunal prefers the volume of evidence that suggests the applicant commenced attending Christian church services in Australia between 2017-2018. The evidence does not contain any greater degree of specificity as to the day or month. The Tribunal notes this timing coincides generally with when the time the applicant prepared and lodged his application for a protection visa, some two decades after arriving in Australia.
On the evidence provided the Tribunal also accepts:
a.that the applicant was baptised into the Christian faith in 2020 (despite the information contained in the Further Supplementary Statement indicating he was accepted for baptism in 2018); and
b.on the witness statements provided, the applicant has encouraged [Person C], [Person D] and his parents to adopt Christian beliefs and attend church in Australia. The letter of support provided by [Person A variant] also suggests that the applicant ‘tries his best to spread the gospel to those who have not yet believed the Lord’. The Tribunal notes that at least [Person C] and his parents were already known to the applicant, suggesting that any evangelism performed by the applicant in Australia may only extend to a limited circle of existing contacts. This view is supported by the letter prepared by [Person E] who said that the applicant ‘share[d] the gospel with others, especially his parents and friends’; and
c.the witnesses who provided their statements to the Tribunal may regard the applicant as a genuine Christian.
The Tribunal has also formed its views having regard to the country information contained in the DFAT Report, summarised at paragraph 42.
Notwithstanding that the Tribunal accepts the applicant has been a regular attendee of the [Church 1] since 2018 and was baptised at the church in 2020, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant is a genuine adherent of the Christian faith.
For reasons below, the Tribunal considers that the applicant’s adoption of the Christian faith has been for the sole purpose of strengthening his protection claims, to enable him to achieve a permanent migration outcome in Australia. In doing so, the Tribunal acknowledges it is not an authority on matters of religious dogma,[7] nor does it make findings that challenge the veracity of a person’s religious convictions lightly.
[7] CNI20 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2024] FedCFamC2G 1219 [38].
Section 5J(6) of the Act provides that any conduct engaged in by a person in Australia must be disregarded in determining whether the person has a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, unless the person satisfies the decision maker that he or she engaged in the conduct otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening the claim to be a refugee.
When the Tribunal put its concern about the genuineness of his Christian convictions to the applicant in the hearing, the applicant responded by saying he was attracted to the Christian faith by his wife’s religious convictions and that he only learnt of the possibility of obtaining a protection visa from the brothers and sisters at the [Church 1], after he commenced attendance. There is no evidence, other than the applicant’s oral evidence, to suggest that other church attendees prompted the applicant to make a protection visa application and accordingly the Tribunal does not accept this claim.
With respect to his wife’s religious convictions and her role in encouraging the applicant towards a Christian life, the Tribunal has considered her Letter of Support however attributes it only little weight, owing to the differences in how she is said to have been introduced to the faith (by her cousin, rather than her elder brother as stated by the applicant in the second hearing), because it provided little detail about her church and beliefs, and because the evidence was provided post-hearing, in circumstances where the applicant was on notice of the Tribunal’s concerns and because the applicant would have had sufficient opportunity to guide her in the construction of her evidence. While the Tribunal accepts the wife’s evidence that she is a superstitious woman who has a history of worshipping different Gods (consistent with the oral evidence provided by the applicant) the Tribunal is not satisfied that she is a practising Christian or that she is the reason the applicant adopted the Christian faith.
Having regard to the applicant’s immigration history, the delay in lodging protection claims and the contemporaneous timing between his first attendance at church services and the lodgement of his protection visa, the Tribunal finds the applicant commenced his practise of Christianity between 2017-2018 for the sole purpose of enhancing his ability to remain in Australia. The Tribunal considers he did so ultimately for the purpose of caring for his elderly parents and to earn money to support his family. In making that finding, the Tribunal has placed weight on the applicant’s immigration history, noting the applicant had been an unlawful non-citizen for over 20 years at the time he lodged the protection visa application and in circumstances where he would have had few other lawful options available to assist him remain in Australia. The Tribunal has also attributed some weight to the oral evidence that he cares for his parents and sends money to his wife, and witness statements that supports the view that he has carer responsibilities.
Notwithstanding the Tribunal’s finding at paragraph 57, having regard to the Letters of Support the Tribunal accepts that over the approximate seven years since the applicant first began attending the [Church 1] that he has formed connections with the church community and has acquired some knowledge of the Christian faith, however, finds that his reasons for doing so were not motivated by a genuine religious conviction.
Will the applicant practise Christianity or evangelise on return to China?

The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s evidence that he evangelises in Australia and his claims that he will continue to evangelise in China and attend unregistered churches, which would place him at risk of harm. The Tribunal notes the applicant makes general references in his claims to preachers and missionaries being ‘ill-treated, repressed and persecuted’ in China.[8] The Tribunal has also considered witness evidence provided by [Person C], [Person D] and his parents, that he encouraged their adoption of Christian beliefs and spreads the gospel in Australia.
[8] Applicant’s Supplementary Statement.
On the basis that the Tribunal does not consider the applicant is a genuine adherent of the Christian faith, it follows that the Tribunal does not accept he will practise Christianity on return to China nor will he engage in evangelist activities. For this reason, the Tribunal has not engaged further with the relevant country information but accepts the country information that evangelism is illegal in China.[9] The Tribunal considers that country information will not apply to the applicant because he will not engage in evangelist activities in China, nor will he attend an unregistered church that would place him at risk of harm by Chinese authorities.
[9] DFAT Report, 34 [3.86].
It follows, the Tribunal does not consider the applicant faces any harm on return to China, now or in the reasonably foreseeable future for reasons concerning his claimed Christian faith.
Does the applicant have a profile in Australia that could give rise to imputed Christian claims?
Per paragraph 57, while the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant is a genuine Christian, it has considered whether his profile in Australia may be of such a character that the Chinese authorities may consider the applicant to be a Christian, and therefore to be at risk for reasons of imputed Christian beliefs.
Having regard to the evidence, the applicant is a general member of a church in Australia however has not provided any evidence to suggest that he has a public profile owing to his religious views. Additionally, the applicant provided no evidence to suggest he has been contacted by Chinese authorities whilst in Australia about his religious conduct. Accordingly, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant faces any risks owing to claims concerning imputed Christian beliefs.
Claims concerning involvement in an outlawed pyramid/multi-level-marketing scheme
Did the applicant participate in a pyramid marketing scheme in China?
The Tribunal accepts that pyramid schemes, including Amway, became popular in China during the early 1990’s.[10]
[10] Haiyuan Liu and Bo Yin, ‘Regulation of pyramid schemes in China’ (4 September 2024) Law Ethics Technology 2004 (3):0002 available at <https:// pdf.elspublishing.com/paper/journal/open/LETE/2024/let20240007.pdf> accessed 14 March 2025, 5.
On the applicant’s oral evidence, the Tribunal accepts the applicant was involved in the distribution of Amway products in China during the period 1995-1996 and that he ceased to sell the products as soon as there was any question about Amway being a type of multi-level-marketing that was subsequently regulated by the Chinese government.
Does the applicant face harm because of his prior involvement in a pyramid marketing scheme?
The Tribunal is prepared to accept the applicant’s oral evidence that police questioned his family about his involvement in a pyramid marketing scheme. The Tribunal makes this finding having regard to the applicant’s oral evidence that towards the end of 1997 the applicant’s wife telephoned him in Australia to tell him she had been questioned by police about his involvement in the pyramid scheme. The Tribunal has also considered the applicant’s written Response to the Request for Further Information where he states ‘he was told by his family that the police questioned them at least about 3 times’, a claim which also appears in the Submissions.
The applicant gave oral evidence that he is not aware of whether he has a profile with, or is facing any charges from, Chinese authorities related to his involvement in the scheme.
The DFAT Report does not contain any information concerning the lawfulness of pyramid schemes in China, or the treatment of persons who have participated in the schemes historically. However, scholarly research[11] exists that states that the operation of multi-level marketing schemes has had no legal basis in China since May 1998,[12] and that the Chinese government is continuing to legislate and strengthen regulation, including criminal offences, surrounding the operation of pyramid schemes.[13]
[11] Ibid 2.
[12] Ibid 5.
[13] Ibid 7.
The Tribunal has considered the possibility that the applicant may be facing charges and has had regard to the DFAT Report which indicates that individuals wanted for outstanding warrants may still be charged upon their return to China and that a statute of limitations of five years generally applies, however apply up to 20 years.
The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant will face any harm on return to China for reasons of being involved in the Amway scheme. The Tribunal arrives at this finding because the applicant’s involvement in the scheme was over 27 years ago, there is no evidence to suggest that the applicant faces charges on return to China, neither the applicant nor his wife provided have provided any evidence to suggest that the applicant has been of continued interest to the Chinese authorities since 1997, and even if the highest statute of limitation of 20 years were to apply to the applicant, his involvement with the scheme was prior to the 20 year limitation.
Other claims – treatment on return
While the applicant has not expressly raised claims concerning his treatment on return to China owing to his extended unlawful stay in Australia, the Tribunal considers a claim may arise on the facts.
The Tribunal has heard his daughter’s evidence that they chose not to renew the applicant’s Chinese passport in Australia because the Chinese authorities in Australia commenced asking questions and requiring information that made the applicant worry. In this regard, the Tribunal is also informed by the letter of support provided by his parents dated 25 January 2025 which states that when the applicant attempted to renew his Chinese passport during the COVID pandemic the ‘Chinese consulate requested a written ‘self-criticism’ to clarify why he has applied for a protection visa and a request he provide the details of relatives. On the evidence, the Tribunal accepts that the applicant has come to the attention of the Chinese Consulate in Australia in the process of a making a passport renewal application.
While treatment on return can be a relevant factor for a protection visa, the Tribunal has considered the information contained in the DFAT Report that indicates that failed asylum seekers returned to China were not specifically targeted by authorities and do not face official discrimination merely for having sought asylum overseas.[14]
[14] DFAT Report, 69 [5.27].
The Tribunal has also turned its mind to the treatment of Chinese overstayers on return to China. The DFAT Report does not contain any information about the treatment on return to China of nationals who have overstayed their Australian visas. Other information available to the Tribunal from the International Organisation of Migration suggests that overstayers or those nationals who engage in illegal employment outside of China may face a bar for applying for a new Chinese passport ranging from 6 month to 3 years[15] and may face an exit ban for a period.[16]
[15] Lili Song, ‘Exit regulation in the People’s Republic of China: Law, policy and practice’ (22 August 2022) International Migration 2022;00:1-15, 4.
[16] Ibid 8.
Accordingly, the Tribunal accepts the applicant may face questions, a time bar applicable to the renewal of a Chinese passport and possibly an exit ban for a period when he returns to China but finds that these factors do not, separately or cumulatively, constitute serious harm or significant harm to support the grant of a protection visa.
REASONS
Does the applicant satisfy the refugee criterion for protection?
Following the Tribunal’s consideration in paragraphs 52-68 above, the Tribunal finds that the applicant engaged in Christian religious practises in Australia for the sole purpose of strengthening his claims to be a refugee.
Applying s 5J(6) of the Act, the Tribunal disregards the religious activities undertaken by the applicant in Australia. There is no evidence to suggest the applicant will be persecuted for any other reasons consistent with s 5J(1)(a) of the Act.
Accordingly, the Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant faces a well-founded fear of persecution per s 5J (1) of the Act. As the Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution, it is not satisfied that the applicant is a refugee per s 5(H) of the Act. Because the applicant does not satisfy the definition of s 5H, the Tribunal is not satisfied he is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under 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) of the Act. Section 36(2)(aa) refers to a ‘real risk’ of an applicant suffering significant harm. In MIAC v SZQRB (2013) 210 FCR 505, the ‘real risk’ test was held to impose the same standard as the ‘real chance’ test applicable to the assessment of ‘well-founded fear’ in the Refugee Convention definition and that reasoning appears equally applicable to the refugee criterion in s 5J(1)(b) of the Act.[17]
[17] See Explanatory Memorandum, Migration and Maritime Powers Legislation Amendment (Resolving the Asylum Caseload Legacy) Bill 2014 (Cth), pp.170-1 at [1169], [1180].
‘Significant harm’ for these purposes is exhaustively defined in s 36(2A): s 5(1). A person will suffer significant harm if he or she will be arbitrarily deprived of their life; or the death penalty will be carried out on the person; or the person will be subjected to torture; or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or to degrading treatment or punishment. ‘Cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment’, ‘degrading treatment or punishment’, and ‘torture’, are further defined in s 5(1) of the Act.
The Tribunal has considered whether the applicant faces a real risk of significant harm because of his religious claims. Having regard to the Tribunal’s findings at paragraphs 52 – 68, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant will practise Christianity on return to China or that he will evangelise. Additionally, the Tribunal has considered whether imputed religious claims arise on the facts, however, considers the applicant does not have a profile in Australia owing to his religious beliefs that would place the applicant in a position of facing real risk of significant harm. Accordingly, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant faces a real risk of significant harm for religious reasons, now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.
The Tribunal has considered whether the applicant faces a real risk of significant harm because of his prior involvement in the Amway scheme. Having regard to the Tribunal’s findings at paragraphs 69-75, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant will face any harm on return to China for those reasons, and accordingly, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant faces a real risk of significant harm for that reason, now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.
The Tribunal has also considered whether the applicant faces a real risk of significant harm for treatment on return owing to having failed asylum claims and for overstaying his Australian visas. Per paragraph 80 above, the Tribunal notes it possible that the applicant may face questioning, a time bar on applying for a renewal of his Chinese passport and an exit ban from departing China for a period of time, however finds that these factors do not constitute torture, cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment, or degrading treatment or punishment for the purposes of s 36(2A) of the Act.
CONCLUSION
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.
Date of hearing/s:  4 February 2025 and 17 February 2025
Representative for applicant:        [Details deleted.]
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.
…