2314153 (Refugee) - [2024] ARTA 232

2314153 (Refugee) [2024] ARTA 232 (22 November 2024)
DECISION AND
REASONS FOR DECISION
Respondent:Minister for Home Affairs

Tribunal Number: 2314153
Tribunal:Denis Dragovic
Date:22 November 2024

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

Senior Member D. Dragovic

Statement made on 22 November 2024 at 2:25 PM

CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – Protection Visa – Algeria – race – Amazighen ethnicity – applicant does not have a well-founded fear of persecution – applicant does not face a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm – credibility concerns – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 5, 36, 65, 499
Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 369 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information.

STATEMENT OF REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 30 August 2023 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The applicant is a national of Algeria. He applied for the visa on 26 August 2016. The delegate refused to grant the visa and the applicant appealed the decision to the then Administrative Appeals Tribunal.
The applicant appeared before the Administrative Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) on 8 November 2024 to give evidence and present arguments.
The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Arabic (Standard) and English languages.
The applicant was represented in relation to the review. The representative attended the Tribunal hearing.
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.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
The applicant is a [age]-year-old male from [Town 1], Tizi Ouzou province, Algeria. He is of Amazighen ethnicity, an ethnicity known colloquially in English as Berber.
The applicant held a supervisory role with [a] company before coming to Australia to visit his brother. He was posted to Skikda, in the east of the country in 2011. In 2015 he moved his family, his wife and two children, to Skikda as commuting to see his family on weekends was too difficult.
While living in Skikda with his family his son encountered some challenges at school that led to the applicant meeting with the teacher.
When the applicant met with the teacher, the teacher asked about his family name and whether he knew someone by the name of [name]. The applicant explained that he was his uncle.
Subsequently, the applicant spoke to a friend of his from Skikda about this conversation and this friend told him that the teacher was formerly a part of the Islamist resistance but as a part of the peace agreement some Islamists took up an amnesty offer by the government including to return to live in the cities and to work. The friend warned the applicant about the Islamist.
The applicant had already applied to come to Australia at this stage and so before travelling in January 2016 to visit his brother he moved his family back to Tizi Ouzou where they stayed with the wife’s sister.
The applicant claims that while in Australia, after some months, he got back in touch with the friend to see if his previous paperwork was still valid such as his access pass to the port. This is when the friend told him that the home he was living in was graffitied with Islamic words accusing the applicant of being close to the government. The applicant noted that around the same time the government had killed some Islamists in the area.
The applicant explained that between 1992 and 2000 during the civil war the Islamists kept lists of names of people working for the government. His uncle was a ‘patriot’ and patriots were given a weapon which they were supposed to use to protect the village as well as to collect information to pass onto the government.
The applicant’s uncle was a patriot in [Town 1], which he described as being like the Australian suburb of [name], but smaller, comprising of [number] villages. He said that his uncle along with other patriots, sometimes 5-10, in each village were tasked with those duties.
The applicant claimed that he and his family were discriminated against in Skikda for reasons of their ethnicity. I noted that he was working in Skikda since 2011 and suggested that his name would have revealed him to be a non-Arab, an outsider. He acknowledged that they would have known this based on his accent as well. I asked how he wasn’t discriminated against before his family arrived. He gave the example that despite his manager, who was based in Algiers being Amaziah, all the people at the top of Algerian companies were Arabs. He noted that there has never been a Amaziah president since independence.
The applicant described Tizi Ouzu as being the home of the Amaziah. But he claimed that even there, they are being persecuted. He gave an example from 2001 when a child was killed by a special police force that in turn led to protests and a confrontation and eventually 128 people were killed. This information aligns with country information about an event known as Black Spring.[1]
[1] >
I put to the applicant information about the post-civil war (1992-2002) situation as detailed in country information, noting that there was a split among the Islamists after the war. Some continued to fight later forming what became Al Qaeda in the Maghreb based in the south of the country while others integrated into civil and political society.[2]
[2] >
The applicant responded that Islamists are still around including in Tizi Ouzu. I put to him that a 2022 report by the U.S. government assessed that the country’s security forces could credibly reduce the likelihood of domestic terrorist threats to a negligible level within the coming year and that in 2022 there were no terrorist incidents. The applicant disagreed and gave an example of a woman sitting in a café in the south of the country and someone walking by and slitting her through.[3] This narrative aligns with reporting of a Swiss tourist who was killed in the same manner in October 2024 in the south of the country. There is little information on the assailants. I put to the applicant during the hearing that this being an incident in the south is not representative of the security situation in the north of the country based on the country information describing the history of Islamists in the south.
[3] >
The applicant said that even in Tizi Ouzu there are Islamists and gave the example of the second in command of Al Qaeda being killed there. I asked about the timeframe, but he could not remember. This aligns with country information which describes the death of Sofiane el-Fassila, second-in-command of Al Qaeda in North Africa who was killed by Algerian security forces in 2007 in the Kabylie region which includes Tizi Ouzu.[4] Noting that country information indicates that it was 2007 and the latest US reports on terrorism in Algeria portray a very different picture of the circumstances of Islamists, I place limited weight on the presence in 2007 of an Al Qaeda leader in the area.
[4] >
The applicant claimed that the 2022 fires in the Amaziah areas killed 250 people and were started by the government using flammable liquids dispersed out of helicopters. He believes that the government did that because they don’t want the Amaziah people. Country information supports the claim that there were widespread fires in northern Algeria that killed at least 43 people and injured over 200.[5] There is no evidence before this Tribunal that supports the applicant’s view that the fires were deliberately lit.
[5] >
He said that his uncle has his own gun, and is not considered a patriot anymore, instead he works as a [occupation] for a [workplace]. The applicant confirmed that his uncle has never been attacked but he added that his uncle doesn’t leave the Tizi Ouza area.
When asked if his wider family have been harmed, he said that his wife and children only move around in the locality and that his broader family also stay close. I noted that he moved around widely through the country for twenty years without facing harm which he confirmed to be the case.
The applicant expressed concern finding work were he to return to Algeria. When asked about his siblings, he explained that his brother works for a [company]. Another brother works as a [occupation] locally. A third brother isn’t working. I noted that they have jobs including with a government employer. The applicant said that it is very hard to find a job.
The applicant confirmed that he has not been involvement in political activities and has not done anything in Australia that puts him at risk.
The applicant raised the situation of a Canadian Algerian being mistreated by the Algerian government as an example of what would happen to him. His description aligned with a news report from September 2024 about a Canadian Algerian activist whose family were mistreated in Algeria.[6] But I noted at the hearing that he isn’t an activist with the same profile. He said that you never know until the government picks you up.
[6] >
In oral submissions by the representative, she raised concerns over the applicant’s ability to access medical treatments. The applicant [has a medical condition]. He has ongoing mental health challenges that require support. Medical reports from [a] counselling and family therapy services were provided.
The most recent report by a counsellor and family therapist identifies the applicant as ‘presenting’ with depression associated with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. The counsellor indicates that the applicant has made ‘very slow progress towards his identified goals’ and that he would require ‘long term therapeutic interventions’. I accept that the applicant has symptoms that present as PTSD.
I asked the applicant about the availability of medication in Algeria. He said that it was hard to come by, giving the example when he was [age] or [age] years old that he had issues with his stomach and his brother would bring medication from [overseas] because they didn’t have it in Algeria. He said that he sees on websites people asking for medication to be sent from abroad. He acknowledged that simple medication such as paracetamol is available.
I suggested to the applicant that there is no evidence that medication is being withheld from certain groups of people. I asked if it was that someone would prevent him from accessing the medication or that it was simply not available in Algeria. He said that there isn’t a lot of medication but also that the generals keep resources to themselves. He gave the example of how sugar is hoarded by the elites.
Country information generally aligns with the applicant’s assessment in that the availability of medication ‘remains a problem’ with ‘repeated stock shortages’[7] but there is no evidence available to the Tribunal that suggests that what is available is discriminatorily rationed.
[7] >
The applicant speaks with his immediate family daily. He communicates with his brothers once a month or more. I asked if some of the family would help him re-establish himself in Algeria. He said that they would not. He claimed that they have their own responsibilities. I noted that his sister-in-law has helped for eight years by giving his wife and family a home. I asked why his brothers wouldn’t do the same for him temporarily. He said that he gave his part of the house to his other brothers.
I do not accept the applicant’s claims that his family would not help him. It is clear from the applicant’s past experiences that he has received support from the extended family and that he remains in good standing with the extended family. There is no reason to doubt, other than based on the applicant’s claims, that he would be left to his own devices. As such I find that the applicant will receive sufficient support from his wider family that will prevent him from being destitute or unable to subsist.
FINDINGS AND REASONS
I find the applicant to be credible. I accept his narration of events other than where explicitly rebutted, but do not accept unquestioning his interpretation of them, which I now turn my mind to.
The applicant fears harm for reasons intrinsically arising from his ethnicity, the wider political struggle in Algeria, and general hardship.
With regards to his ethnicity, Amazigh, the applicant provided examples of discrimination including the languages being taught through to fires being intentionally started to kill off the Amazigh people. Regarding the language, the applicant is a [age]-year-old and as such he would not be returning to school. Instead, what is relevant is how his lived experiences would impact him. The applicant said that in his area they speak Amazigh. The applicant was able to reach a level as a supervisor in a national company where he travelled the country which suggests that he was able to communicate in other national languages. In the applicant’s application he writes that he can speak, read and write in French and that he can speak and read Arabic. Noting that the applicant would be returning to an area that speaks his native tongue and that he can also operate in French and Arabic, I find that the applicant does not face a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm arising from the language situation in Algeria.
The applicant claimed that the Algerian government was targeting the Amazigh by intentionally starting fires and through discrimination. Noting that the fires spread far beyond the Kabylia region (home of the Amazigh) and across large parts of northern Algeria and the implausibility of such a conspiracy not being reported, I do not accept that the government intentionally started the fires to target the Amazigh. The applicant also mentioned the case of a Canadian Algerian and raised a fear of targeted harm from the government. Based on the evidence before me, I do not accept that someone of the applicant’s profile, namely without any political background or having previously come to the attention of the authorities in the past, would be of interest to the authorities into the future. The applicant also suggested that there is discrimination in the political and senior corporate spheres against Amazigh people. While it is accepted, as fact that there hasn’t been an Amazigh person as president that only suggests a correlation and not necessarily a causation. With regards to the corporate world, it was the applicant’s own evidence that his boss was Amazigh and as such the roles the applicant may return to appear not to be closed to Amazigh people. For these reasons, considering the claims of harm arising from the Algerian government and society, I find that the applicant does not face a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm from discriminatory practices or treatment within the government or society.
The applicant wrote in his statement, ‘I am originally from Amazieh background so where I used to live before I was living among Amzieh people and never had any clashes or problems with other people from any Arab background.’ This summary was reflected in his oral evidence. As for the Islamists, the applicant’s only adverse experience was when he met an individual who subsequently acted against him by graffitiing his former home in Skikda. I find that such a situation would not repeat itself in the areas the applicant would return to and move around in. I make this finding based on the applicant’s family and particularly his uncle not having been harmed over the years including when the uncle was a ‘patriot’ and in addition to the current country information regarding the state of the Islamist resistance even taking into consideration the death of the Swiss tourist. I find that it would be speculative to conclude that the applicant would once again find a job that would require him to relocate to another area where there were Islamists and that those Islamists would identify him and then choose to harm him. Instead, I find that he would be employed locally. In such a circumstance, I find that the applicant does not face a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm from Islamists or the wider Arab community.

Arising from the country information, I find that the applicant does not face a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm from being collateral damage in a terrorist attack undertaken by Islamists based on the latest country information about their very limited presence in Algeria.
The applicant also fears harm arising from the economic situation in Algeria which may impact his ability to source medication, receive adequate treatment, obtain work, and provide for his family. The applicant will have a reduced income relative to what he has in Australia and less than he had previously in Algeria which will create some hardship. He may have periods without work. He will struggle to obtain the same level of medication, though with a brother in Australia, the impact of this may be partially alleviated. The quality of care and treatment for his ongoing illnesses will lead him to experience additional suffering. He will bear the emotional burden of not being able to provide for his family to the degree he would prefer. While undoubtedly the situation in Algeria would put the applicant into a worse off situation and create some degree of harm, I find that in no way does it amount to serious or significant harm and in addition there is no evidence that the situation he faces is for discriminatory reason or that there is some intentionality behind it, be it from the community, segments of the community or the government. I acknowledge that the applicant will need to rely on his family to re-establish himself, but I find that this reliance in of itself does not amount to serious or significant harm.
When considering the applicant’s claims cumulatively, some of the applicant’s fears overlap and potentially compound the risk of harm and the severity of harm. For example, the applicant struggling to find work may impact his mental health which in turn will compound his vulnerability to any harm that arises from being Amazigh. But even when considering all of the possible permutations and how they interact, I find that the applicant does not face a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm.
For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(a).
Having concluded that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), the Tribunal has considered the alternative criterion in s 36(2)(aa). The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(aa).
There is no suggestion that the applicant satisfies s 36(2) on the basis of being a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfies s 36(2)(a) or (aa) and who holds a protection visa. Accordingly, the applicant does not satisfy the criterion in s 36(2).
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
Date of hearing: 8 November 2011
Representative: Ms Kristin Louise Robson (MARN: 1277227)
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.
…