2300816 (Refugee) - [2025] ARTA 1707

2300816 (REFUGEE) [2025] ARTA 1707 (1 JULY 2025)
DECISION AND
REASONS FOR DECISION
Respondent: Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

Tribunal Number: 2300816
Tribunal:General Member T H R Baggiano
Date:1 July 2025

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

Statement made on 01 July 2025 at 7:59am
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Solomon Islands – particular social group – homosexual man – feminine presentation and activities with tourist – bullying at school and abuse, threats and attacks from brother, other family members and community – police inaction and advice to resolve with community and church leaders – unable to relocate in small country with customary land ownership – occasional contact with mother only – casual relationships in Australia – mental health – supporting statements – country information – criminalisation and social stigma – decision under review remitted
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5H(1)(a), 5J(1)(a), (3), (5), 36(2)(a), 65
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2
CASES
Kopalapillai v MIMA (1998) 86 FCR 547
Randhawa v MILGEA (1994) 52 FCA 437
Selvadurai v MIEA (1994) 34 ALD 347
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 on 14 January 2023 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
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 No. 1) Act 2024 (the Transitional Act), applications for review to the AAT that were not finalised before 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. The decision and statement of reasons is made by the Tribunal.
The applicant who claims to be a national of Solomon Islands, applied for the visa on 18 December 2019. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the applicant is not a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 30 June 2025 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the partial assistance of an interpreter in the Pidgin (Solomon Islands) and English languages. The applicant had English language abilities which allowed him to respond to questions in the English language, but he also sought the interpreter’s assistance whenever needed.
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.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
Background and receiving country
The applicant is a [Age]-year-old national of Solomon Islands.
The applicant has claimed his place of birth as Malaita, his ethnicity as Melanesian and his religion as Christianity.
The applicant last arrived in Australia [in] October 2019 on a Visitor (subclass 600) visa.
The applicant provided a copy of the passport biodata page of his Solomon Islands passport of his protection visa application. The delegate accepted that the applicant is a citizen of the Solomon Islands and there is no information before me to the contrary. I find that the applicant is a citizen of the Solomon Islands, and that the Solomon Islands is his receiving country for the purposes of assessing his claims for protection.
Evidence before the Department
In his protection visa application, the applicant made the following claims in relation to his past experiences:
a.He made the sad decision to leave the Solomon Islands;
b.He lost every single thing he worked hard for, including his home, family, friends, a permanent job and upcoming promotion into a senior post;
c.The applicant was always fighting with, having arguments with and receiving death threats from his [brother] and people from his community;
d.The applicant’s [brother] is a drug-addicted alcoholic and unemployed;
e.The main cause of all the fighting and arguments is that the applicant’s [brother] hated the applicant for who he was, and his sexuality;
f.The applicant is gay and life in the Solomon Islands is not easy for a gay person like him;
g.Every day, the applicant received threats from his brother and other people in his community, including other family members. They would say they would kill him or chop his head off because he is gay;
h.In August 2019, the applicant’s brother was drunk and demanded money;
i.When the applicant refused to give him the money, his [brother] got angry and punched him in the face and kicked him;
j.The applicant ran out from the house but was chased by his brother who was holding a knife and throwing stones at him;
k.The stones caused the applicant bruises on the back of his head and body;
l.The applicant’s [brother] shouted at the applicant stating that he would chop his head off as the applicant brought shame on the family;
m.The applicant went to the police for help but nothing was done. When the applicant followed up for weeks, nothing was done;
n.The applicant’s [brother] sent him threatening messages by phone stating that when they next meet, he would chop off the applicant’s head of kill him and feed him to the sharks;
o.The applicant was assaulted and threatened on so many occasions;
p.Despite the threatening messages were brought to the attention of police, nothing has been done and the applicant continued to experience degrading treatment;
q.The applicant did not try to move within the Solomon Islands as it is a very small country. Even if he moved, he would still be located and killed.
The applicant made the following claims in relation to his future:
a.The thought of going back to Solomon Islands has resulted in the applicant having sleepless nights;
b.If he returned to the Solomon Islands, he would risk being threatened by his brother who is a drug-addicted alcoholic and who hates gay people like the applicant;
c.The applicant’s brother and other people from the community warned the applicant that if they see him around again, they would chop his head off or kill him. This is why returning to the Solomon Islands is risky for the applicant;
d.The applicant believes that he will be harmed or mistreated in the Solomon Islands. His brother and other people from the community will continue to mistreat him and this is a huge risk. The applicant fears having his head chopped off or being killed;
e.The applicant does not believe that the authorities in Solomon Islands would protect him. The applicant recalls going to the police for protection but nothing was done on his case. This lack of action from the police gave him no hope that the police would protect him. If he were to return to the Solomon Islands, he thinks that he would be killed by his brother or any other person from his community;
f.The applicant does not think that he would be able to relocate within the Solomon Islands to avoid harm as the country is very small and made up of very small islands owned by tribes in different provinces which he cannot simply relocate to whenever he wanted to. Due to the small size of the Solomon Islands, people will still be able to see him and know about his sexuality as a gay person.
With his protection visa application, the applicant provided a copy of his biodata page and committed to providing his birth certificate, letter from his parent (mother), letter from a church pastor, letter from the community chief and letter from police.
The above listed documents were provided by the applicant to the Department under cover of a letter dated 10 March 2020.
On 3 December 2022, the delegate wrote to the applicant requesting further information under s 56 of the Act. The delegate stated that the applicant’s claims lacked key details, which raised concerns about the genuineness of his protection claims. The delegate invited the applicant to provide further information, details and evidence relating to specific aspects of the applicant’s sexuality, including past and current relationships with men in the Solomon Islands and Australia. The delegate also asked the applicant to provide details and evidence of any harm or threats he received due to his sexual orientation and to comment on matters relating to state protection and relocation, and explain why he stated in his application that he is still in contact with his family if his family are trying to kill him due to his sexual orientation.
The applicant did not respond to the s 56 request letter.
The applicant was not offered an interview by the delegate.
Evidence before the Tribunal
Pre-hearing information form
On 6 March 2025, the Tribunal invited the applicant to complete a pre-hearing information form. The applicant subsequently returned a completed pre-hearing information form to the Tribunal dated 13 April 2025. When the form asked if the applicant had any other information about his claims for protection, he provided a response, summarised as follows:
a.In the Solomon Islands, it is hard for a person who is born different and gay;
b.It is hard to be accepted in the community or by your own family when you grow up differently;
c.People mock you every day of your life;
d.It is illegal for a gay person like the applicant to have a relationship and express himself;
e.He has been abused by people he loved and trusted;
f.He hoped for support from them but they did not accept him;
g.The public and community saw him every day in town and called him names and threatened him;
h.It was difficult to find a safe place, peace and freedom;
i.His own parents could not protect him;
j.He lived with the threat of being killed by his own brother, uncle and the public;
k.The thought of going back to the Solomon Islands scares him a lot.
The applicant provided to the Tribunal letters of support referenced at paragraph 17.
Additional pre-hearing evidence
On 16 June 2025, the applicant provided the following documentation:
a.Unsigned statement from [Mr A], who confirmed that he has known the applicant for one year and five months. They met through an online application and have been seeing each other casually once a week. [Mr A] confirms that he and the applicant are gay men who catch up intimately when they see one another;
b.Further statement of claims from the applicant, summarised as follows:
i.In the Solomon Islands, it is hard for a person born different or gay like the applicant;
ii.As the applicant was growing up, he knew he was different due to his feminine body, the way he walked and talked and the feelings of admiration and sexual desire he had towards men;
iii.The hardest and saddest part of his life was wanting acceptance in the family, home, community and Melanesian culture;
iv.He lived with fear his whole life from his [brother] and uncles who hated him and wanted him dead. They always threatened to kill him;
v.Life is hard in the Solomon Islands as it is illegal for a gay person to have relationships or express who they really are;
vi.The applicant’s brother, uncles, cousins, aunts do not accept him and want him dead and to disappear from the family;
vii.They said that the applicant brought shame on the family;
viii.The applicant has no freedom, peace of a safe place to call home and his own parents could not protect him;
ix.His brother and uncles hated him a lot. They always threatened him by sending death threats, saying they would kill or chop his head off because he is gay;
x.A lot of the time, his brother was drunk and demanded money from the applicant, which he refused to give;
xi.The applicant’s brother got angry and punched him. His brother then called his uncles and they chased him out of the house with knives;
xii.The applicant injured himself with a cut on his [body parts] when he escaped from them;
xiii.The applicant’s brother and uncles shouted at him saying that they would kill him, chop him up and feed him to the dogs, and that he should disappear and go ‘live in the gay world’;
xiv.If they saw him in the Solomon Islands, they threatened to kill him, hide his body so that he could be forgotten;
xv.The applicant has a lot of fear of returning to the Solomon Islands, being killed by his own family who do not accept him due to Melanesian culture;
xvi.The police in the Solomon Islands cannot protect the applicant as they will say it is a family issue which needs to be sorted out with the community and church leaders;
xvii.Moving any of the provinces is not an option as he could be located quickly as Solomon Islands is a small country and people would not allow a stranger on their lands;
xviii.The worst part is that it is illegal for a gay person to practice a gay lifestyle in the Solomon Islands;
xix.No human being deserves to be treated the way he was;
xx.We should all be treated equally and loved no matter who we are, what we look like and what colour we are;
xxi.Everyone deserves love, peace and freedom;
xxii.There is nothing but death for the applicant in the Solomon Islands.
The Tribunal requested that [Mr A] provide his statement on Commonwealth Statutory Declaration form, and provide documentary evidence of his identity. Both a signed and witnessed statutory declaration (confirming the contents referenced in paragraph 24(a)) and certified copy of [Mr A]’s passport biodata page were provided to the Tribunal prior to the scheduled hearing.
Applicant’s oral evidence at hearing
Preparation of protection visa application
The applicant recalls preparing, lodging his protection visa application. He confirmed that he did not receive any assistance from anyone else.
The applicant read and understood the delegate’s decision dated 14 January 2023.
Asked what the applicant meant when he referred to fraudulent documents used to depart from the Solomon Islands, the applicant clarified that he must have ticked or written the wrong thing. He confirmed that both his passport and visa were genuine documents.
Personal details and family background
The applicant was born in Malaita province but subsequently moved to [Town] with his family.
The applicant’s father, with whom he did not have a good relationship with, passed away in 2017. In the Solomon Islands, his remaining family members consist of his mother, [brothers], [sisters], a half-brother and an adopted brother. It is his [brother], [Mr B], who he does not get along with and is central to his claims.
The applicant has not kept in contact with his siblings since he left the Solomon Islands for Australia. While he is still in contact with his mother, he does not contact her on a regular basis.
After completing high school, the applicant when on to complete short courses in [Subject].
The applicant has worked several jobs in the Solomon Islands as [an occupation 1], in [a job task] role, and most recently as [an occupation 2].
Since relocating to Australia and receiving work rights, he has worked on a [workplace 1] and at [workplace 2s]. He is currently employed in a [workplace 2].
Reasons for leaving the Solomon Islands
The applicant explained that he was born gay. He stated that in high school, he knew that he was gay.
His family did not accept him for who he was. In particular, his brother, [Mr B], did not like him. The applicant’s father stopped talking to him. The applicant felt as though his family had disowned him. Growing up, he experienced a lot of abuse and violence.
When the applicant got a place of his own in around June or July 2015, the male family members would still come around to his rental property to threaten him. They kicked down the door, smashed windows and entered the property. He recalls his brother and paternal uncles to his home with bush knives, threatening to chop off his head, and chop him up into pieces to feed to the dogs. When he saw the bush knives, he knew that they would be intent on chopping him up. The applicant explained that his family members on his father’s side are not educated and their beliefs are deeply rooted in Melanesian culture. As a result of the threats from his male relatives, the applicant’s landlord ejected him from the rental property as the applicant’s relatives were causing disturbance to the neighbours and due to the property damage.

While the applicant was able to escape from his male relatives, he did sustain injuries and showed me the scar on his [body part 1] and indicated that he had a scar on his [body part 2] as well.
The applicant’s brother and uncles would call him a ‘poofter’, ‘slut’, ‘whore’ and other derogatory and homophobic terms in their language. They always told the applicant that they wanted him to die.
The threats and abuse started after they had heard stories about what the applicant apparently did with a visiting tourist. The applicant had met this tourist who he thinks was of [Country] descent at a local bar. For around one week, the applicant and tourist casually spent time together and had sexual relations together. This was the applicant’s first sexual experience with a man.
The applicant’s [brother], [Mr B], confronted him about these alleged interactions with a male tourist, and demanded money from the applicant because of this. The applicant described his brother as an alcoholic. As the applicant refused to give his brother the money, his brother called his uncles and told them about the alleged incident. The applicant’s brother also informed their father, who also showed immense anger and aggression in that moment, and told the applicant that he had brought shame on the family. However, after that time and up until his father’s passing, the applicant’s father stopped talking to him.
The applicant believed that people must have seen him and the tourist together. In addition, the applicant had a best friend, [Ms C], who he trusted and confided in at the time who disclosed details about this event to others. He and [Ms C] had gone to school together from kindergarten. While the applicant never told [Ms C] directly that he was gay, he knew that [Ms C] was aware of the applicant’s sexuality. The applicant was excited about his first sexual encounter and told [Ms C] of this. He thought that he could trust her with this information, as she tended to share with him her own sexual experiences. Unbeknownst to the applicant, when he told [Ms C] of his first sexual encounter with the tourist, she was angry at him for having made a passing joke about her then boyfriend being attractive. As a result, [Ms C] disclosed information about the applicant’s sexual encounter with others, which meant that other members of the community then found out. The applicant has not kept in contact with [Ms C] since that incident.
The harassment and verbal abuse continued at the applicant’s last workplace in the Solomon Islands. The applicant’s brother and uncles would confront him at his workplace. They would insult him and throw stones at the windows. They wanted to bash him up. The applicant thinks that these workplace confrontations occurred around three times. The first time, they were turned away by security, the second time there was a new security team so they were able to come into the work premises and started yelling at the applicant, resulting in them being chased out, and the third and final time was on the last weekend that the applicant worked at his workplace. They were swearing at the gate and in front of the applicant and his boss. They called him derogatory names. People were looking at the applicant and he was surrounded by people that knew him. The applicant ended up hiding in the back office.
While the applicant’s workplace gave him a warning about the commotion that his brother and uncles were causing at the workplace, the applicant confirmed that his colleagues were generally nice to work with as they were expatriates. However, the applicant made the difficult decision to tender his resignation. He felt that he could no longer work there with his relatives continuing to harass and abuse him and vandalise company property. As a result, the applicant lost the opportunity to be promoted into a more senior and supervisory role.
Aside from his own family, the applicant explained that whenever he was in public, particularly whenever he was catching a bus to work, community members would throw items at him. Sometimes, he was scared and would stay home and not go to work. He was unable to defend himself in public, so he just kept quiet.
The applicant knew that his family and neighbours suspected that he was gay. He did not have male friends and would always be drawn to female friends. People also saw his connection with [Ms C], and also judged the way he walked and talked. While the applicant never openly admitted to being gay to members of the community, many people suspected that this was the case.
The applicant tried his best to hide his sexuality by adjusting his actions and personality and denying being gay or being involved in certain incidents, but it was very difficult for the applicant to live this way given that he was born gay. The applicant stated that the way that he walked and talked was natural for him but not normal to others.
The only person he told about his sexuality or attraction to men was his mother. When he told her this, she immediately told him to keep this information quiet to protect himself.
In high school, the applicant recalls being bullied a lot and being called a ‘girly’ man and other derogatory and homophobic terms. During this time, he said that he felt like taking his own life. In addition to the verbal abuse, the applicant would have his ears and hair pulled by classmates. They would also slap him across the head. While the teachers intervened to stop the physical harassment, he felt that they did not really understand that the verbal and physical abuse was breaking him.
The applicant detailed his attempts to seek help. He recalls going to the police around 10 to 15 times to report the verbal and physical violence from his brother and uncles. However, despite the numerous visits to police, the police never provided a formal report of any of the incidents and did not do anything to help. They did, however, provide a letter dated 12 December 2019 which confirmed that the applicant had been rejected by his family as a gay person and that the matter was referred to chiefs and community elders within the community to resolve. The applicant stated that while he did not personally know the supervising officer that issued this letter, he recalls meeting this officer on several occasions whenever he would come in to report abuse and violence, or simply to hide from those who were attacking or pursuing him on the streets.
When the applicant’s matter was referred to the chief and community elders, the chief would call a date for a meeting between the applicant and his family. They would sit down together and be asked to apologise to one another, pray, and then go their own ways. The applicant recalls having three of these meetings throughout 2017, 2018 and 2019. Despite these meetings, his brother and uncles would continue to threaten and attack him. He believes that they simply came to these meetings since they were being requested to by community leaders and the applicant’s father but they had no intention on accepting the applicant or reconciling with the applicant due to his sexuality.
The applicant confirmed that he spoke directly to both the community leader and church pastor who both gave him letters of support respectively dated 10 December 2019 and 16 January 2020.
In relation to the applicant’s mother’s letter of support, the applicant confirmed that his mother’s command of the English language is good and that she wrote the letter independently. He also confirmed that the spelling of his mother’s name in the protection visa application is incorrect and that the spelling of her name as it appears on the letter of support is correct.
The applicant stated that his other brother is a quiet person and has stayed away from the family issues. As for his sisters, they accept him but their views, as females, cannot override those of the men in the family, who are deemed to be the heads of their families. The applicant stated that he does not like his own culture where men are the heads. All women are brought with a bride price and so women and children are owned by men.
Since the applicant relocated to Australia, he stated that one of his uncles has tried to contact him through the WhatsApp application in 2020. When his uncle called him to ask where he was and called him a derogatory and homophobic term, the applicant then hung up on his uncle, blocked his uncle’s number and then deactivated that particular WhatsApp account. The applicant stated that he does not share his contact details with anyone else, aside from his mother.
Given that the incident with the male tourist happened in around 2015, I asked the applicant whether there was a reason he did not try to leave the Solomon Islands earlier than 2019. The applicant stated that he did not have money at the time to leave the Solomon Islands permanently. He could not afford to runaway to any location and pay rent. He earned so little back in those days. He said that once he was able to save up sufficient money, he then moved to Australia. He explained that life during 2015 and 2019 was not good. During those years, he did not feel safe at all. He was constantly looking over his shoulder and needed to be aware of his surroundings, especially to see if his brother or uncles were following him, or whether other members of the community had noticed him. He did not feel safe and could not call anywhere his home during those years.
With respect to the applicant’s experiences in Australia, he confirmed that he has been in casual relationships with other men since arriving in Australia, including backpackers who have come to live in his share house.
Currently, he is casually seeing an Australian man known to him as [Mr A]. They have known each other for around one-and-a-half years and met on [an] application. They see each other regularly on weekends and have a sexual relationship together. The applicant stated that they are still building trust between one another. The applicant likes [Mr A] as he looks after the applicant and treats him well.
The applicant stated that being able to have same-sex relationships in Australia has made him long for peace and a place to call home. In Australia, he does not receive threats and does not get bashed in his own home. He has gone out to gay pubs and met other gay people, and, in that process, has also discovered a lot about himself. The people that he has met, including [Mr A], have taught him how life should be and how he deserves to be treated as a gay man.
The applicant has yet to reach out to any LGBTQIA+ organisation. He is still doing his own research into these organisations. However, his dream is to attend the Mardi Gras next year if he is able to remain in Australia. He is excited about the prospect of attending such an event.
Asked what the applicant thinks would happen to him if he returned to the Solomon Islands, he stated that he would suffer violence at the hands of his brother and uncles. They would continue to abuse and harm him like they did previously and they might take his life away. He does not believe that reconciliation between him and his male relatives is possible. He believes that the public will still harass him just like they did in the past when they would throw things at him and slap him across the head. He would also be mentally affected by depression and anxiety. While he has had suicidal thoughts in the past, he has been practising an approach which helps him clear his mind, bring positive thoughts to the forefront and push negative thoughts to the back of his head. The applicant also stated that if he returns to the Solomon Islands, he could not be part of the church community. As people would know he is gay, they would tell him that he has no place in the church and the church would turn into a prejudicial and discriminatory environment.
The applicant also mentioned that he fears being imprisoned in the Solomon Islands as one of his former housemates from the Solomon Islands gained access to the applicant’s phone and [app] where there was an explicit video of the applicant saved. The housemate allegedly shared that video with other Solomon Islanders. The applicant stated that he does not quite understand why his housemate would do this but that the housemate was known to be an ‘odd person’ and would always touch things that did not belong to him.
Asked if the authorities in the Solomon Islands could protect the applicant if he returned, the applicant stated that he knows that they will not. He tried seeking their help in the past but nothing happened. Being gay is illegal in the Solomon Islands and he would not be recognised there. The applicant stated that there is no safe place for gay people like him, unlike in Australia where there are safe places for LGBTQIA+ people.
Asked if the applicant could relocate to another part of the Solomon Islands to avoid harm, the applicant stated that he could not. He said that relocation is not a good idea as lands are owned by tribes. He would need to pay them to relocate. Further, news would travel quickly by word-of-mouth and it would take only one phone call for his brother and uncles to locate him.
Issues put to the applicant for comment
I discussed with the applicant that his written protection visa application contained brief information about his claims, and that on the following dates, he had the opportunity to provide further details, information and evidence to the Department in support of his claims:
a.13 January 2020 when the Department sent a letter acknowledging receipt of the applicant’s valid protection visa application; and
b.3 December 2022 when the Department issued a specific request for further information letter under s 56 of the Act.
I explained to the applicant that both of these letters had invited the applicant to provide further information and evidence to the Department to support his claims but the applicant did not provide any further information. I said that the lack of detail and response could go to the credibility of the applicant’s claims in part or as a while and it might not show a genuine fear of returning.
In response, the applicant stated that it was his fault that no response was given to the Department. He stated that he takes the blame for this as it was his responsibility to check his emails during this time. The applicant explained that the request letter of 3 December 2022 had gone into his email spam folder, and he had not checked this folder. He was only prompted to check his spam folder after the Department had already refused his application and when he had only five days remaining to lodge a review application with the Tribunal. He recalls reading the Department’s refusal decision which indicated that he had not responded to the s 56 request for information. When he telephoned the Department to enquire about this request letter that he purportedly had not received, they recommended that he check his email spam folder. It was at that point that the applicant located the s 56 request letter in his spam folder. The applicant stated that he regrets not having checked his emails properly as it could have prevented him from having to appear before the Tribunal. He felt that the 28-day period that the Department gave him to respond to their request was sufficient but that it was his fault for not thoroughly checking his emails, namely his spam folder.
Country information
I have taken into consideration country information on the Solomon Islands.
Legislation governing same-sex activities
The Solomon Islands is a Pacific country that criminalises homosexuality and has deeply entrenched homophobia. In 2008, the Law Reform Commission proposed removing criminal sanctions for homosexuality, but the plan did not proceed after fierce public objection. One opponent of the reform stated that ‘legalizing gay and lesbian in the country would only encourage the breed of more’, and the Solomon Islands is a ‘long time Christian country’, that would never think of legalizing gay sex. After his failed attempt at reform in the Solomon Islands, change seems far away. Indeed, churches from as far away as Nigeria are sending pastors to many countries in the Pacific, including Solomon Islands, in an attempt to spread their anti-LGBTI ideology across the region.[1]
[1] ‘Why the Pacific Islands are no gay paradise’, Gerber P, Gay Star News, 12 May 2014.
There were no anti-discrimination ordinances to protect LGBTQIA+ persons. No criminal justice mechanisms existed to aid in the prosecution of bias-motivated crimes against LGBTQIA+ individuals. There were no reports of open discrimination against LGBTQIA+ persons, but lack of reports could have been due to sociocultural pressure and stigma.[2]
Government views on sexual orientation
[2] 2023 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Solomon Islands, US Department of State, page 18.
Several high-profile political leaders have publicly condemned LGBTQI+ people. In July 2023, Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare stated that Solomon Islanders need to uphold their ‘Christian and cultural values’.[3]
[3] ‘No faith in rainbows’, The Island Sun, 9 July 2023.
Prime Minister Sogavare made similar homophobic comments in 2017, when speaking to a local church group against same-sex marriage.[4] In 2018, the then-governor general Sir Frank Kabui, cautioned the nation against the ‘onslaught’ of LGBTQI+ people in the Solomon Islander society.[5]
Societal perception and treatment
[4] ‘PM criticizes same sex marriage’, The Island Sun, 12 September 2017.
[5] ‘No faith in rainbows’, The Island Sun, 9 July 2023.
Sodomy in the Solomon Islands is illegal, as were “indecent practices between persons of the same sex”. The maximum penalty for the former is 14 years’ imprisonment and five years’ imprisonment for the latter. There were no reports of arrests of prosecutions directed at lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and intersex persons under these provisions and authorities generally did not enforce these laws.[6] While there were no reports of violence against persons based on sexual orientation or gender identity, this could have been hindered by stigma relating to sexuality.[7] The US Department of State similarly reports that while there were no reports of ‘open discrimination against LGBTQI+ people during 2023, a lack of reports may be due to sociocultural pressure and stigma.[8]
[6] 2023 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Solomon Islands, US Department of State, page 17.
[7] 2023 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Solomon Islands, US Department of State, page 18.
[8] 2023 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Solomon Islands, US Department of State, page 18.
A transgender activist who works with the LGBTQI+ community in the Solomon Islands stated in 2022 that ‘the visibility of queer people on the ground’ in the country is ‘zero to none’.[9]
[9] ‘Queer Pacific Islanders call for greater acceptance, self-love and decriminalisation during Sydney WorldPride’, ABC News, 5 March 2022.
Reports have been located which indicate that it is difficult for LGBTQI people in the Solomon Islands to live openly due to cultural attitudes and the adverse treatment that can result from doing so. For example, an August 2017 Radio New Zealand report indicated that a gay person in the Solomon Islands is required to keep a ‘low profile’ due to risk of being subjected to verbal and physical attacks, as well as the threat of arrest. It also described homosexual people in the Solomon Islands as being subject to ‘harsh discrimination’.[10]
[10] ‘Cook bill puts spotlight on Pacific’s anti-gay laws’, Hopgood, S J, Radio New Zealand, 21 August 2017.
As a consequence of both criminalisation and social stigma, few lesbian, gay and bisexual people in Solomon Islands are open about their sexual orientation, making it difficult to gather evidence about discrimination in practice against people on the basis of sexual orientation. However, evidence gathered through interviews and focus groups in Solomon Islands indicates high levels of stigma and prejudice against people on the basis of their actual or perceived sexual orientation.[11]
[11] ‘Stand Up and Fight: Addressing Discrimination and Inequality in the Solomon Islands’, Equal Rights Trust, January 2016.

The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has stated that the state parties to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights have an obligation to ensure enjoyment of Covenant rights – including the rights to work and to education without discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Whilst difficult to prove in the absence of other evidence, a number of the gay men interviewed by the Trust believed that their sexual orientation had resulted in discrimination in education and employment. Two interviewees, both from Malaita, believed that being gay resulted in discrimination in receiving scholarships, something which is vitally important to a country where education is not widely or freely available.[12]
REASONS AND FINDINGS
[12] Ibid.
Credibility and findings of fact
In determining whether the applicant engages protection obligations, it is necessary to make findings of fact on relevant matters which may involve an assessment of the credibility of the applicant’s claims. I have had regard to the UNHCR’s Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status and accept that the benefit of the doubt should be given to asylum seekers who are generally credible but unable to substantiate all of their claims.[13] However, the Tribunal is not required to accept uncritically any or all of the allegations made by an applicant, and nor does the Tribunal require rebutting evidence before it can find that a particular factual assertion by an applicant has not been made out.[14]
[13] United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status, Geneva, 2019, pages 43-44.
[14] Randhawa v MILGEA (1994) 52 FCA 437 at [451] per Beaumont J; Selvadurai v MIEA (1994) 34 ALD 347 at [348] per Heerey J; Kopalapillai v MIMA (1998) 86 FCR 547.
I have accepted the applicant’s explanation for the lack of response to the Department’s s 56 request letter in that the request letter had been redirected to his email spam folder. I accept that had the applicant been aware of this letter he would have responded within the specified timeframe. This is based on the applicant’s previous efforts and level of engagement with the Department and Tribunal. At the time the applicant lodged his protection visa application, he noted in the application that he would be providing a number of documents, including letters of support from his mother, the police and other community or religious leaders, which he did do. When the Tribunal invited him to complete a pre-hearing information form, he did so without delay. Further, the applicant provided an additional statement of claims and a supporting statement from [Mr A] voluntarily and without any prompting by the Tribunal. I have not drawn any adverse credibility findings on this basis.
I give weight to all the letters of support provided by the applicant’s mother, police and community and religious leaders. They provide a consistent account of the harms that the applicant has suffered. The applicant’s mother’s letter also outlines her own observations of the applicant’s perceived feminine behaviours and characteristics while growing up. These letters were provided voluntarily shortly after the applicant lodged his protection visa application. The applicant’s oral evidence at hearing was generally consistent with his original written claims and these letters of support. He answered all questions spontaneously and became visibly emotional when detailing the verbal and physical abuse inflicted upon him due to his sexuality. I found the applicant to be a credible witness.
I also give weight to [Mr A]’s statement as this indicates that the applicant continues to live as a gay man.
Considering the above, I find the following claims to be credible:
a.The applicant knew from around his high school year that he was attracted to men and was gay;
b.The applicant’s feminine mannerisms and way of speaking made his family and community members suspect that he was gay;
c.The applicant was bullied and physically harassed at school due to his perceived sexuality;
d.The applicant’s [brother], [Mr B], and uncle became angry and aggressive towards him when they discovered that he had been seeing a foreign male tourist;
e.News of the applicant’s casual relationship with the male tourist became known through the applicant’s former best friend, [Ms C], and other community members who witnessed the applicant and tourist together;
f.[Mr B] demanded money from the applicant, which the applicant refused to give;
g.The applicant’s father found out about the alleged incident and also became angry and aggressive, but after that point, he ceased talking to the applicant;
h.Fuelled by anger, alcohol and aggression, [Mr B] and the applicant’s uncles attacked him at his home with bush knives;
i.The applicant was able to escape but sustained some injuries;
j.The verbal and physical abuse from the applicant’s brother and uncles was ongoing both outside the applicant’s home and workplace;
k.As a result of the confrontations by [Mr B] and the applicant’s uncles at the applicant’s workplace, the applicant chose to resign from his place of employment and forego the opportunity to step into a senior supervisory role;
l.The applicant was verbally and physically abused by members of the community who also suspected that he was gay;
m.The applicant sought help from police in the Solomon Islands but received no help;
n.The applicant’s matter was referred to community and religious letters to resolve within the family;
o.Despite several family meetings with these leaders, [Mr B] and the applicant’s uncles continued to pursue him and physically and verbally abuse him;
p.Since arriving in Australia, one of the applicant’s uncles has attempted to contact him by WhatsApp and used derogatory terms on him. The applicant has since blocked this uncle and deactivated the WhatsApp account;
q.The applicant lives in Australia as a gay man. He is casually seeing [Mr A].
I cannot make a finding on the applicant’s claims that some explicit video content involving him has been disseminated to other Solomon Islanders as there was no further corroborating evidence to support this.
Refugee criterion assessment
To be eligible for grant of a protection visa on the basis of satisfying the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a) of the Act, the applicant must have a well-founded fear of persecution in the Solomon Islands, and owing to that fear, is unable or unwilling to avail himself of the protection of Solomon Islands. This requires me to be satisfied that there is a real chance the applicant would suffer serious harm for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. A ‘real chance’ is one that is not remote or insubstantial or a far-fetched possibility. An applicant may have a well-founded fear of persecution even though the possibility of the persecution occurring is well below 50 percent.[15]
[15] Chan Yee Kin v MIEA (1989) 169 CLR 379.
Based on the applicant’s circumstances, I find that if he were to return to the Solomon Islands, he would likely return to [Town] given that he has spent much of his formative and adult years there and this is where his family members reside. I am satisfied that there is a real chance, being a possibility that is not remote or far-fetched, that the applicant would be subjected to serious harm at the hands of his family, by society in general and by authorities if he were to return to [Town].
I accept on the basis of the applicant’s past experiences and the above country information that there is a real chance that he will suffer serious harm by male family members by way of loss of family network, familial violence including physical and verbal abuse and threats to his life and by members of society by way of discrimination in the community or in relation to education or employment opportunities, physical and verbal abuse and threats to his life, and by Solomon Islander authorities due to the criminalisation of same-sex activities in the country if he returns to his previous place of residence, [Town], now or in the reasonably foreseeable future. I accept that the harm may include significant physical and verbal harassment and significant ill-treatment of the applicant, such that would constitute serious harm for the purposes of s 5J(5).
In considering whether the harm the applicant fears is for reasons of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, I consider that it is for the reason of the applicant’s membership to the following social group:
a.Homosexual men in the Solomon Islands.
I consider that this group is identifiable by the characteristics of gender, sexual orientation, nationality and health status and that the common characteristics or attributes are not a shared fear of persecution. I am satisfied that the harm that the applicant fears is for reason of his membership of particular social groups for the purpose of s 5J(1)(a).
I accept that if the applicant were to hide his sexual identity, he would be doing so to avoid the threat of serious harm. Any modification of the applicant’s behaviour to avoid harm in the Solomon Islands for reasons of his membership of the particular social group of ‘homosexual men in the Solomon Islands’ would conflict with a characteristic that is fundamental to his identity or conscience, conceal an innate or immutable characteristic or alter his sexual identity or conceal his true sexual orientation. I also note the applicant’s evidence of his perceived feminine mannerisms and speech which would draw unwanted attention to him by family and members of the community and elevate the risk of harm to the applicant. Therefore, he cannot be required to take steps to modify his behaviour, such as by returning to the Solomon Islands and living discreetly to avoid the feared persecution pursuant to s 5J(3).
I accept on the basis of the applicant’s experiences and above country information that community and government attitudes and hostility towards the LGBTQIA+ community are pervasive and underpinned by anti-gay Christian teachings, a religion followed by the majority of Solomon Island citizens[16] and are such that the real chance of persecution cannot be said to be restricted to a particular area of the Solomon Islands, and that the risks faced by the applicant would not be mitigated by relocation to another area outside of [Town]. Relocation to any other area of the Solomon Islands would require agreement and acceptance from the tribes that own that land. According to the United Nations Development Programme, 85 per cent of the land in the Solomon Islands is customary land. It is held and accessed in accordance with traditional laws and customs passed down from generation to generation.[17] This country information aligns with the applicant’s claim that relocation to other areas of the Solomon Islands due to these customary laws on tribal lands would not be an automatic right and would be difficult.
[16] 2022 Report on International Religions Freedom: Solomon Islands, US Department of State.
[17] ‘Enjoying land rights in Solomon Islands’, United Nations Development Programme, 3 December 2021, Accessed 30 June 2025.
I am not satisfied that the applicant would have access to effective protection from harm. Country information indicates that same-sex relations are criminalised under the Criminal Code 1996,[18] the government publicly condemns LGBTQIA+ people[19] and the laws of the country do not prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation.[20] Further, although country information stipulates that same-sex sexual relations are illegal in the Solomon Islands but that the authorities do not generally enforce these provisions,[21] I have taken into account the applicant’s evidence which aligns with the experiences of many LGBTQIA+ members of the Solomon Islands whereby they are forced to keep their sexuality a secret to avoid harm and discrimination and that such stigma surrounding their sexuality would impact the rate of reports against homophobic attacks. Further, this lack of enforcement does not do away with the verbal and physical abuse that individuals such as the applicant are subjected to due to their perceived or actual sexuality.
[18] ‘Solomon Islands’, Human Dignity Trust, 17 December 2024 Accessed 30 June 2025.
[19] ‘No faith in rainbows’, The Island Sun, 9 July 2023.
[20] 2023 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Solomon Islands, US Department of State, page 18.
[21] 2023 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Solomon Islands, US Department of State, page 17; ‘Solomon Islands’, Human Dignity Trust, 17 December 2024 Accessed 30 June 2025.
I am also satisfied that the applicant does not have a right to enter and reside in a third country and meets s 36(3).
I find that the applicant is a refugee as defined in s 5H(1) of the Act. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(a).
DECISION
The Tribunal sets aside and remits the application for a protection visa for reconsideration, in accordance with the order that the applicant satisfies s 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act.
T H R Baggiano
General Member
ATTACHMENT - Extract from Migration Act 1958
5 (1) Interpretation
…
cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment means an act or omission by which:
(a)     severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person; or
(b)     pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person so long as, in all the circumstances, the act or omission could reasonably be regarded as cruel or inhuman in nature;
but does not include an act or omission:
(c)     that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(d)     arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
degrading treatment or punishment means an act or omission that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation which is unreasonable, but does not include an act or omission:
(a)     that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(b)     that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
torture means an act or omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person:
(a)     for the purpose of obtaining from the person or from a third person information or a confession; or
(b)     for the purpose of punishing the person for an act which that person or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed; or
(c)     for the purpose of intimidating or coercing the person or a third person; or
(d)     for a purpose related to a purpose mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c); or
(e)     for any reason based on discrimination that is inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant;
but does not include an act or omission arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
receiving country, in relation to a non-citizen, means:
(a)     a country of which the non-citizen is a national, to be determined solely by reference to the law of the relevant country; or
(b)     if the non-citizen has no country of nationality—a country of his or her former habitual residence, regardless of whether it would be possible to return the non-citizen to the country.
…
5H    Meaning of refugee
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person in Australia, the person is a refugee if the person is:
(a)     in a case where the person has a nationality – is outside the country of his or her nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country; or
(b)     in a case where the person does not have a nationality – is outside the country of his or her former habitual residence and owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to return to it.
Note:     For the meaning of well-founded fear of persecution, see section 5J.
…
5J     Meaning of well-founded fear of persecution
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person has a well-founded fear of persecution if:
(a)     the person fears being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion; and
(b)     there is a real chance that, if the person returned to the receiving country, the person would be persecuted for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(c)     the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of a receiving country.
Note:     For membership of a particular social group, see sections 5K and 5L.
(2)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country.
Note:     For effective protection measures, see section 5LA.
(3)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if the person could take reasonable steps to modify his or her behaviour so as to avoid a real chance of persecution in a receiving country, other than a modification that would:
(a)     conflict with a characteristic that is fundamental to the person’s identity or conscience; or
(b)     conceal an innate or immutable characteristic of the person; or
(c)     without limiting paragraph (a) or (b), require the person to do any of the following:
(i)alter his or her religious beliefs, including by renouncing a religious conversion, or conceal his or her true religious beliefs, or cease to be involved in the practice of his or her faith;
(ii)conceal his or her true race, ethnicity, nationality or country of origin;
(iii)alter his or her political beliefs or conceal his or her true political beliefs;
(iv)conceal a physical, psychological or intellectual disability;
(v)enter into or remain in a marriage to which that person is opposed, or accept the forced marriage of a child;
(vi)alter his or her sexual orientation or gender identity or conceal his or her true sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.
(4)If a person fears persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a):
(a)     that reason must be the essential and significant reason, or those reasons must be the essential and significant reasons, for the persecution; and
(b)     the persecution must involve serious harm to the person; and
(c)     the persecution must involve systematic and discriminatory conduct.
(5)Without limiting what is serious harm for the purposes of paragraph (4)(b), the following are instances of serious harm for the purposes of that paragraph:
(a)     a threat to the person’s life or liberty;
(b)     significant physical harassment of the person;
(c)     significant physical ill‑treatment of the person;
(d)     significant economic hardship that threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(e)     denial of access to basic services, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(f)     denial of capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist.
(6)In determining whether the person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a), any conduct engaged in by the person in Australia is to be disregarded unless the person satisfies the Minister that the person engaged in the conduct otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening the person’s claim to be a refugee.
5K    Membership of a particular social group consisting of family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person (the first person), in determining whether the first person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for the reason of membership of a particular social group that consists of the first person’s family:
(a)     disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced, where the reason for the fear or persecution is not a reason mentioned in paragraph 5J(1)(a); and
(b)     disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that:
(i)the first person has ever experienced; or
(ii)any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced;
where it is reasonable to conclude that the fear or persecution would not exist if it were assumed that the fear or persecution mentioned in paragraph (a) had never existed.
Note:     Section 5G may be relevant for determining family relationships for the purposes of this section.
5L    Membership of a particular social group other than family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person is to be treated as a member of a particular social group (other than the person’s family) if:
(a)     a characteristic is shared by each member of the group; and
(b)     the person shares, or is perceived as sharing, the characteristic; and
(c)     any of the following apply:
(i)the characteristic is an innate or immutable characteristic;
(ii)the characteristic is so fundamental to a member’s identity or conscience, the member should not be forced to renounce it;
(iii)the characteristic distinguishes the group from society; and
(d)     the characteristic is not a fear of persecution.
5LA Effective protection measures
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country if:
(a)     protection against persecution could be provided to the person by:
(i)the relevant State; or
(ii)a party or organisation, including an international organisation, that controls the relevant State or a substantial part of the territory of the relevant State; and
(b)     the relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (a) is willing and able to offer such protection.
(2)A relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) is taken to be able to offer protection against persecution to a person if:
(a)     the person can access the protection; and
(b)     the protection is durable; and
(c)     in the case of protection provided by the relevant State—the protection consists of an appropriate criminal law, a reasonably effective police force and an impartial judicial system.
…
36     Protection visas – criteria provided for by this Act
…
(2)A criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is:
(a)     a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee; or
(aa) a non-citizen in Australia (other than a non-citizen mentioned in paragraph (a)) in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the non-citizen being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that the non-citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b)     a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:
(i)is mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant; or
(c)     a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:
(i)is mentioned in paragraph (aa); and
(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant.
(2A)A non‑citizen will suffer significant harm if:
(a)     the non‑citizen will be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life; or
(b)     the death penalty will be carried out on the non‑citizen; or
(c)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to torture; or
(d)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or
(e)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment.
(2B)However, there is taken not to be a real risk that a non‑citizen will suffer significant harm in a country if the Minister is satisfied that:
(a)     it would be reasonable for the non‑citizen to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b)     the non‑citizen could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(c)     the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the non‑citizen personally.
…

[21] ‘No faith in rainbows’, The Island Sun, 9 July 2023.