2307599 (Refugee)

[2023] AATA 4382

2307599 (Refugee) [2023] AATA 4382 (26 September 2023)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  2307599

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Timor-Leste

MEMBER:Alison Murphy

DATE:26 September 2023

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 26 September 2023 at 9:16am

CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Timor-Leste – original claims as homosexual man – incoming passenger card and social media references to wife and children – claims acknowledged to be untrue – information provided by friend who assisted with application – new claims of fear of harm from group for helping friend they wanted to kill escape, many years before  – stones thrown at him many years later – no reasonable explanation for not making new claims to primary decision maker – vague claims and unpersuasive evidence – no knowledge of why group wanted to kill friend – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5H(1)(a), 5J(1), 36(2)(a), (aa), 56, 65, 423A
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2

CASE
MIAC v SZQRB [2013] FCAFC 33

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

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 12 May 2023 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).

2. The applicant, who claims to be a citizen of Timor-Leste, applied for the visa on 6 April 2022. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the applicant is not owed protection by Australia.

3. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 19 September 2023 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Tetum and English languages.

   CRITERIA FOR A PROTECTION VISA

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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).

7. 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.

8. 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

9. 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 (DFAT) expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.

10. The Tribunal records that DFAT has not prepared a country information assessment expressly for protection status determination purposes in respect of Timor-Leste.

    CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

11. The issue in this case is whether the applicant is 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. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.

    Country of nationality

12. The applicant travelled to Australia on an apparently genuine Timor-Leste passport, a copy of which is contained on the Departmental file along with a copy of his Timor-Leste National Identity Card. He has at all times stated that he is a citizen of Timor-Leste, he has been assessed on that basis by the Department. The Tribunal finds he is a citizen of Timor-Leste and has assessed his claims against Timor-Leste as his country of nationality and the receiving country.

    The applicant’s personal background

13. The applicant is a [age]-year-old male from Dili in Timor-Leste. At hearing he stated that his father is deceased, his mother remains living in Dili and he is one of [number] children.

14. In the visa application he states he has never been married, but at hearing he confirmed that he is married with [children].

15. He completed high school in Dili before working as [an occupation]. He also helped his mother make food to sell.

16. He came to Australia [in] January 2020 as the holder of a [Specified] visa in [a Specified] Stream.

17. At hearing he stated that since his arrival in Australia he has worked on farms as well as in [factories] and that he currently has a good job in a [product] factory that allows him to send money back to Timor-Leste to support his family and to give his children a good future.

18. The Tribunal accepts each of the above matters to be true.

    The applicant’s claims for protection before the Department

19. In the visa application dated 6 April 2022, the applicant stated that he had never married. He stated that he left Timor-Leste because he is gay; that Timor-Leste did not recognise gay marriage and that the LGBTIQ+ community had no rights in that country. He said his own family would punish him if they found out he was gay and he would be discriminated against and chased out of their lives. He claimed that his LGBTIQ+ peers were being punished and pushed away from their homes and that he was happy his Australian visa was approved because he knew that Australia was the 26^th country to legalise same sex marriage in December 2017 and he knew he would be accepted here and live a normal life.

20. In a written statement dated 5 April 2022, the applicant provided further information about the claims in his protection visa. He repeated some of the information in his visa application and stated among other things that he realised he was attracted to men on 8 March 2021 when he was [age] years old.

21. In response to a request by the Department on 3 December 2022 to provide further details about his claims, the applicant provided a further written statement dated 19 December 2021 (it would appear that the date should be 19 December 2022). In that statement he provided further detail about his claims, including that he had to hide his sexuality and feelings in Timor-Leste; that he had had one night stands with men but not relationships because he wanted to have fun before settling down and having a family; that he had never told his family about his sexuality but that someone had told his father who was frustrated and beat him and kicked him out of the house and told him never to return. He stated that some of his friends knew about his sexuality and that some accepted him but others verbally insulted him and made fun of him. He also provided photographs of himself and other persons in a night club and screenshots of chats in Grindr containing explicit photographs.

22. The delegate’s decision records that the applicant participated in a Departmental interview on 4 May 2023.

23. As set out in the delegate’s decision, a copy of which was provided to the Tribunal by the applicant, during that interview the applicant provided further information about his claims to be gay. Among other things the delegate’s decision records that the applicant stated that he first realised he was attracted to men at the age of 14; that his parents and siblings are not aware that he is gay; that he was not kicked out of home as stated in his written claims; that he continues to communicate with his parents and most of his [siblings]; that he had some relationships with men in Timor-Leste but nothing too serious and that he was subjected to abuse by men in the community that became aware of his sexuality and he could not report the incidents as he feared reprisals.

24. The delegate’s decision records that during that interview, the delegate put the following information to the applicant for comment:

    ·That he had listed ‘[Ms A]’ as his emergency contact on his incoming passenger card;

    ·That his national ID card listed him as being married in Timor-Leste, as did his [visa] application;

    ·He had sent $12,906 to [Ms A] since his arrival in Australia;

    ·A [Social media] account in the name of ‘[Ms A – Alias] ([Ms A])’ had been located with pictures appearing to show the applicant on his wedding day to [Ms A], as well as multiple photos of him, [Ms A] and [children] with mentions of family including a comment from [applicant name] of ‘Love Family’.

25. The delegate’s decision records that the applicant responded to this information by apologising and stating that the purpose of his travel to Australia was to financially support his family. On this basis, the delegate did not accept that the applicant is gay, nor that he feared persecution in Timor-Leste. For these reasons the delegate concluded that the applicant was not a refugee and was not owed complementary protection and therefore he is not a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations.

    The applicant’s claims for protection before the Tribunal

    Claims in the protection visa application

26. At the Tribunal hearing, the applicant confirmed that contrary to his statements in the protection visa application he is married with [children]; that he is not gay as stated in the protection visa application and that he has no fear of harm on return to Timor-Leste on that basis. He said that the incorrect information was provided in the visa application because he didn’t understand about the visa and so asked for assistance from a friend, that he paid some money to that person who just did it for him and that he didn’t know what reasons they gave in the visa application. He stated that he had told the delegate at interview that he had a wife and [children] and he deeply apologised for the incorrect information.

27. The Tribunal finds that the applicant is not gay as stated in the protection visa application and his other written statements and that the applicant has no fear of harm in Timor-Leste on that basis. The Tribunal does not accept there to be a real chance the applicant will face harm from his father, family members, peers or the wider community as suggested in the applicant’s written claims for reasons of his sexuality if he returns to Timor-Leste, now or in the reasonably foreseeable future. In MIAC v SZQRB, the Full Federal Court held that the ‘real risk’ test imposes the same standard as the ‘real chance’ test applicable to the assessment of ‘well-founded fear’ in the Refugee Convention definition.[1]  For the same reasons the Tribunal does not accept there to be a real risk the applicant will be subjected to significant harm by any person or group for reasons of his sexuality as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to Timor-Leste.

    New claims made to the Tribunal

    [1] MIAC v SZQRB [2013] FCAFC 33 (Lander, Besanko, Gordon, Flick and Jagot JJ, 20 March 2013) per Lander and Gordon JJ at [246], Besanko and Jagott JJ at [297], Flick J at [342].

28. At hearing the applicant claimed that if he returned to Timor-Leste he would be harmed by neighbours and members of [Sport 1] groups because he had helped a friend escape from them in 2006 when they wanted to kill that friend. He said that at that time there was a crisis between the east and the west in Timor-Leste and people sought his help to kill one of his friends, but instead he helped that friend escape. He said he was driving a [vehicle] in [Town 1] at the time and didn’t want to get involved, he just wanted to do his work and not get involved in any problems.

29. When I asked the applicant why those people wanted to kill his friend, he said that people in the east and the west of Timor-Leste hated each other. He didn’t know what problem these people had with his friend, he just helped his friend and didn’t get involved. When I pointed out to him that 2006 was many years before his travel to Australia in 2020, the applicant stated that those people threw stones at him when he was driving past on a motorbike in 2019 and so he decided he wanted to come and work in Australia.

30. When I indicated to the applicant that I was having difficulty accepting that he had been attacked in 2019 because of assistance he had provided to a friend 13 years earlier, the applicant stated that people in Timor-Leste can hold a grudge for a very long time. When asked who these people were, he said they were [Sport 1] groups from [Town 1]. He said he did not know their names because he had only driven past them on a motorbike. When I asked why he thought it had anything to do with the events of 2006 if he didn’t know who those people were, he said [Town 1] was the area where he had helped his friend. He said he reported the incident to the police but they told him they could not do anything because he could not identify his attackers. He said that after that attack he returned to his home in Dili and did a course and he was just hiding out until he came to Australia a year later. He fears that if he returns to Timor-Leste, those people will still hate him.

31. Section 423A of the Act requires the Tribunal to draw an inference unfavourable to the credibility of claims or evidence not raised or presented before the primary decision was made, unless the Tribunal is satisfied there is a reasonable explanation as to why that occurred. When I discussed this with the applicant at hearing, he stated that he didn’t know what visa he could get and so he paid someone to make the visa application for him.

32. The Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant has a reasonable excuse for failing to raise his new claims before the primary decision maker. Even if the applicant did not know what was written in the protection visa application at the time it was lodged as he now claims, he could have provided further information to the Department about the reasons he now claims are the true reasons he left Timor-Leste in his response to the s 56 notice sent to him by the delegate in December 2022 or at the Departmental interview in May 2023.

33. The delegate’s decision record indicates that he did neither. Rather he went to the Departmental interview and gave detailed evidence about his claims to be gay, only acknowledging those claims to be untrue after the delegate put to him information located on [Social media] about his wife and family. At hearing the applicant stated this was because the friend who was teaching him said that ‘when immigration asked him like this, he should answer like that’. I consider the applicant’s willingness to continue to make false claims to the delegate at the Departmental interview reflects poorly on his credibility and it causes me to have serious doubts about the truthfulness of his evidence at the Tribunal hearing.

34. The Tribunal also doubts the credibility of the applicant’s new claims for other reasons:

    ·The applicant’s new claims are vague and lacking in meaningful detail. He claims to fear for his life because he refused to help people kill his friend in Timor-Leste, rather he helped that friend escape. Despite being asked to help kill that friend, and deciding to help him instead, the applicant claims he does not know why those people wanted to kill his friend;

    ·The applicant gave evidence that he helped his friend escape the people trying to kill him in 2006, 14 years prior to his travel to Australia. It was only when I pointed out to him that this event had occurred many years before he travelled to Australia that he said that those same people had attacked him in 2019 and this was why he had decided to come to Australia;

    ·The applicant’s evidence about the claimed attack in 2019 is unpersuasive. He claims that the people who threw stones at him recognised him from the events of 13 years earlier, however he did not recognise them because he was just riding past on a motorbike at the time. Although he states that he did not recognise them, he claims to know that they were neighbours and people from [Sport 1] groups.

35. For all of the above reasons, I do not accept the applicant’s claims made at the Tribunal hearing to be true. I do not accept that he had any ongoing conflict or dispute with any person or group in Timor-Leste because of assistance he provided to a friend in 2006, nor do I accept that persons seeking to harm that friend in 2006 attacked the applicant while he was riding a motorbike in 2019. It follows that I do not accept the applicant reported that assault on him to the police as he claims, nor that the police told him there was nothing they could do.

36. For these reasons the Tribunal does not accept there to be a real chance that the applicant will be harmed by neighbours or [Sport 1] groups if he returns to his home in Dili, Timor-Leste, now or in the reasonably foreseeable future. For the same reasons the Tribunal does not accept there to be a real risk the applicant will be subjected to significant harm by those neighbours or [Sport 1] groups as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to Timor-Leste.

37. The applicant does not claim to fear harm from any other person or group for any other reason. Therefore he does not meet the criteria for the protection visa.

    CONCLUSIONS

38. 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).

39. 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).

1. 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 any of the criteria in s 36(2).

   DECISION

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

   Alison Murphy
   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.

   …