2314908 (Refugee)

[2024] AATA 2388

2314908 (Refugee) [2024] AATA 2388 (14 March 2024)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  2314908

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Tonga

MEMBER:L Symons

DATE:14 March 2024

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 14 March 2024 at 4:51pm

CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Tonga – single mother – child born out of wedlock – earning capacity – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5H, 5J, 36, 65
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2

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 dependant.

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 6 September 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 Tonga, arrived in Australia [in] November 2022 as the holder of a Temporary Work (International Relations) (Class GD) (Subclass 403) visa that was valid [until] August 2023.

3. On 16 August 2023, the applicant applied to the Department of Home Affairs (the Department) for a Protection (Class XA) (Subclass 866) visa. On 19 August 2023, she was granted an associated Bridging visa. On 6 September 2023, the Department refused to grant her a Protection visa on the basis that she is not a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations. On 20 September 2023, she applied to the Tribunal for review of that decision.

4. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 1 December 2023 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Tongan and English languages.

5. The applicant was not represented in relation to this matter.

6. The issues that arise on review are whether the applicant is owed Australia’s protection under the refugee criterion or under the complementary protection criterion.

   CRITERIA FOR A PROTECTION VISA

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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).

10. 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.

11. 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

12. 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 AND FINDINGS

13. The applicant’s claims in her application for a Protection visa, dated 16 August 2023, are summarised as follows:

    ·She was born on [date] at [location] in Tonga.

    ·She arrived in Australia under the Seasonal Worker Program so that she could support her family in Tonga.

    ·She experienced financial hardship in Tonga. She would find it difficult to return to Tonga because she is due to have a baby.

    ·She will face financial hardship if returned to Tonga as her family in Tonga is poor and she will have no financial means to support herself and her family.

14. The applicant provided the Department with the bio data page of her Tongan passport issued [in] 2019 and valid [until] 2024.

15. On 19 August 2023, the Department wrote to the applicant acknowledging receipt of a valid application and informing her that she could provide additional information relating to her claims and how she could do this. The letter also informed her that a decision on her visa application could be made without another opportunity for her to present any further information. The applicant did not provide any further information and her application for a Protection visa was refused on 6 September 2023.

16. The applicant has filed with the Tribunal a copy of the Department’s Decision Record dated 6 September 2023.

    Receiving Country

17. The applicant claims to be a citizen of Tonga and has provided a copy of her Tongan passport to the Department. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Tribunal finds that she is a citizen of Tonga. The Tribunal finds that Tonga is the receiving country for the purpose of assessing her claims for protection under the refugee criterion and the complementary protection criterion.

    Third Country Protection

18. The Tribunal finds that the applicant is outside her country of nationality. There is no evidence before the Tribunal to suggest that she has the right to enter and reside in any country other than her country of nationality.

    Assessment of Claims

19. During the hearing, the applicant gave evidence that she has not obtained immigration advice from a lawyer or registered migration agent in Australia. Her application for a Protection visa was prepared by a friend of her partner who is not a lawyer or a migration agent. She gave this person her passport, documents asked for and her full name. She was not asked any questions in relation to her application for a Protection visa and does not know what is in her visa application. Another friend of hers applied for the same visa and explained to her that she needed to fill out this visa application.

20. The Tribunal discussed with the applicant her background, her family, her education, her employment, where she lived in Tonga, why she left Tonga and why she fears returning to Tonga.

21. The Tribunal asked the applicant why she applied for a Protection visa. She responded that her mother was a single mother and she grew up in a broken family. When she was growing up, people looked down on her because she had no father. Her mother was not popular in the community. Her mother sent her to school on the main island and she grew up on that island. Her mother earned money weaving and sent her money for her education. She had no place to live on the main island except with a few families who were willing to support her while she was getting an education. She had a tough time living on the main island. She had no real home and sometimes lived with her maternal aunt. She was mistreated and subject to domestic violence at her aunt’s home.

22. The applicant gave evidence that her mother met and married her step-father. They had a daughter who is disabled. After she finished her education, her mother, step-father and half-sister moved to the main island as her step-father was not in good health. He passed away in 2017. They then had no home and had to stay with family and friends. She was working at that time but her wages were insufficient for them to survive. Her mother travelled to Australia and met her biological father. She looked after her half-sister and took her to a special school while her mother was in Australia. They had to move around as they had nowhere to live.

23. The applicant gave evidence that her biological father was living in Australia unlawfully. She met him in Australia. He and her mother returned to Tonga in 2019 and got married. Their communication was not good and there was a lot of misunderstanding in her family at that time. Her biological father did not form a bond with her half-sister. He mistreated her mother and this caused a big disruption in her family. Her mother has contacted her and told her that when he gets angry he beats her. He is now working as a [Occupation 1].

24. The applicant gave evidence that she had a tough life growing up in Tonga and did not have sufficient income. She came to Australia on a “fruit picking visa” to work and get a better life. She would like her half-sister to come to Australia. There is not much for her in Tonga. Since coming to Australia, she has been sending money to her family in Tonga. She met a Tongan man in Australia and formed a relationship with him. He is currently married and is applying for a divorce in Tonga. They consider their relationship to be a long term relationship and plan to get married once his divorce is finalised. They now have a child of their relationship, a daughter, who was born in Australia on [date]. Her partner has also applied for a Protection visa and is awaiting the outcome. They live with his brother and family in Sydney.

25. The Tribunal asked the applicant whether she would have any difficulties returning to Tonga with a baby. She responded that it is their custom to look down on people who have  “illegitimate children”. She will have no financial help to care for her baby in Tonga. When asked to explain what she meant by looking down on people, she responded that when she was growing up they did not welcome anyone with “illegitimate children”. There may be people who are not friendly towards her. They call children names because of their upbringing. This affects them. When asked whether the situation would change if she got married, she responded yes. When asked whether that was irrespective of whether the marriage occurred before or after the birth of the baby, she responded yes. When asked what she thought would happen if she returned to Tonga, she responded that she would have a problem because she does not know where and how to find help for herself and her child.

26. The applicant stated that she would prefer to live in Australia and bring her child up in a different environment instead of going back to the lifestyle she grew up in Tonga. When asked whether she had told the Tribunal all the reasons why she did not want to return to Tonga, she responded yes. When asked whether she understood why the Australian government gives people Protection visas, she responded no.

27. The Tribunal discussed with the applicant country information which indicates that “children born out of wedlock are not perceived or treated in a pejorative manner in Tonga and that these children are generally accepted into Tongan families.”[1] She agreed with this assessment. When the Tribunal noted that this was different from what she said earlier, she responded that, although she can return to Tonga with her child, if someone has a misunderstanding with her they could make comments about her child because of their anger towards her.

    [1] US Department of State 2015, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices 2014 – Tonga.

28. The applicant stated that when she was growing up she experienced people’s bad manners towards her mother because she was a single mother. If someone in the family got upset they would bring up her past and make comments about her and her mother. Sometimes this made her cry because it hurt her feelings. She does not want her child to experience what she did in the past.

29. The Tribunal raised as an issue with the applicant its doubts that she satisfied the requirements for a Protection visa. She declined to respond.

    Findings

30. Having considered all of the applicant’s claims and all the evidence, the Tribunal accepts that the applicant was born on [date] in Tonga. The Tribunal accepts that her mother was a single mother and they had financial difficulties. The Tribunal accepts that her mother sent her to the main island to get an education. The Tribunal accepts that her mother worked and supported her financially. The Tribunal accepts that living and studying on the main island away from her mother was difficult for her particularly because she did not have a family home.

31. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant completed a Diploma of [Discipline 1]. The Tribunal accepts that she thereafter obtained employment and worked in various jobs including as a [Occupation 2], a [Occupation 3], an [Occupation 4] and a [Occupation 5]. The Tribunal accepts that she financially supported her family.

32. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant’s mother married a man and they had a daughter who has a disability. The Tribunal accepts that her step-father became ill and her family moved to the main island. The Tribunal accepts that her step-father passed away in 2017. The Tribunal accepts that her mother travelled to Australia and met up with her biological father. The Tribunal accepts that they returned to Tonga and got married. The Tribunal accepts that her biological father does not have a close relationship with her half-sister and has been violent towards her mother. The Tribunal accepts that he works as a [Occupation 1].

33. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant travelled to Australia [in] November 2022 as the holder of a Temporary Work (International Relations) (Class GD) (Subclass 403) visa. The Tribunal accepts that she came here so that she could earn a higher income and support her family and because she wanted a better life for herself. The Tribunal accepts that she worked as a fruit picker in Australia until April 2023. The Tribunal accepts that she met a Tongan man in Australia and formed a relationship with him. The Tribunal accepts that he is currently married and is applying for a divorce in Tonga. The Tribunal accepts that they plan to get married once his divorce is finalised.

34. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant and her partner now have a daughter who was born in Australia on [date]. The Tribunal accepts that they live with her partner’s brother and his family in Sydney. The Tribunal accepts that she would like to live in Australia permanently with her partner and daughter and bring her daughter up in Australia.

35. The Tribunal notes that despite not having a father when she was growing up, her mother being a single mother and being born out of wedlock, the applicant was able to get a good education and find employment. The country information indicates that children born out of wedlock are not perceived or treated in a pejorative manner in Tonga and that these children are generally accepted into Tongan families. The applicant agreed with this country information. In any event, her parents are now married and according to her she will no longer be considered to be born out of wedlock.

36. Despite agreeing with the country information, the applicant claimed that sometimes when there was a misunderstanding and family members got upset they made unkind comments about her or her mother that hurt her feelings or upset her when she was young. The Tribunal is not satisfied that this amounted to persecution. Whilst she may be concerned that she and/or her daughter may also be subject to unkind comments because her daughter was born out of wedlock, the Tribunal is not satisfied that this would amount to persecution. In any event, her evidence is that she and her partner intend getting married when his divorce is finalised and that her daughter will not be considered to be born out of wedlock once they are married.

37. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant’s earning capacity in Australia is greater than in Tonga. This is a reflection of the comparative economies of these two countries and affects all Tongans not just the applicant. She has been able to obtain employment in Tonga in the past and has considerable work experience there. Whilst she will be returning to Tonga with a young child, she will have the support of her mother and her partner if she wishes to return to paid employment. She has not made any claims in relation to being subject to domestic violence by her biological father or expressed any fears that she will be on her return to Tonga. In any event, she now has a partner and would most likely live with him and his family in Tonga.

38. In view of the above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is at risk of serious harm or significant harm for any of the reasons claimed if she returns to Tonga now or in the reasonably foreseeable future. 

    Does Australia have protection obligations to the applicant under the refugee criterion?

39. Having considered all of the applicant’s claims, individually and cumulatively, and all the evidence and in view of the findings above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution for any reason set out in s.5J(1)(a) of the Act, that there is a real chance that she would be persecuted for one or more of those reasons and the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of Tonga. Therefore, she does not meet the definition of refugee as set out in s.5H of the Act. Accordingly, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(a) of the Act.

    Does Australia have protection obligations to the applicant under the complementary protection criterion?

40. As the Tribunal has found that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a) of the Act, the Tribunal has considered whether she may nevertheless meet the criterion for the grant of a Protection visa pursuant to the complementary protection criterion.

41. Having considered all of the applicant’s claims, individually and cumulatively, and all the evidence and in view of the findings above, the Tribunal is not satisfied there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Tonga, there is a real risk that she will suffer significant harm. Therefore, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(aa) of the Act.

    CONCLUSION

1. 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) or s.36(2)(aa) of the Act.

2. There is no suggestion that the applicant satisfies s.36(2) of the Act on the basis of being a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfies s.36(2)(a) or (aa) of the Act and who holds a Protection visa. Accordingly, she does not satisfy the criterion in s.36(2) of the Act.

   DECISION

3. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection visa.

L. Symons
         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.

…