2318176 (Refugee)

[2024] AATA 3400

2318176 (Refugee) [2024] AATA 3400 (10 May 2024)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  2318176

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   East Timor

MEMBER:Catherine Carney-Orsborn

DATE:10 May 2024

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 10 May 2024 at 10:07am

CATCHWORDS

REFUGEE – protection visa – Timor-Leste – violence from money lenders –- physical assault – fear of killing – economic conditions – employment – state protection – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, ss 5(1), 5H, 5J – 5LA, 36, 65, 91, 499
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2

CASES

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 9 November 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 4 October 2023. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that he was not a person to whom Australia owed protection.

3. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 24 April 2024 to give evidence and present arguments. The applicant was assisted at the hearing by a Tetum interpreter.

   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.

   Claims of harm

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

   Nationality

10. The applicant claims to be a citizen of Timor-Leste and has provided a copy of his passport. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Tribunal finds that he is a citizen of Timor-Leste and that he is outside of his country of nationality. As such, the Tribunal finds that Timor-Leste is the applicant’s receiving country for the purpose of assessing his claims for protection.

11. There is no evidence before the Tribunal to suggest that the applicant holds any other citizenship or has any third country visas.

    CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

12. The issue in this case is whether the applicant is owed Australia’s protection under either the refugee criterion or the complementary protection criterion. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.

13. The Tribunal has before it the Department file and the Tribunal file. The Department file contains the application forms, a copy of the applicant’s passport, and a copy of the delegate’s decision record.

14. The Tribunal file contains a copy of the application for review and a copy of the delegate’s decision record both provided by the applicant.

15. The applicant claims that he will be threatened and harmed, and his life will be endangered if he is returned to his home country.  He claims that he has these problems due to debt.  He claims he owes a lot of money to neighbours and many of his acquaintances.  He claims he was beaten as a result of being in debt.  He claims his wife ran away due to the debt.  

16. The following information is provided in the application forms. The applicant was born on [date] in Timor-Leste, he speaks, and reads Tetum and English. The applicant stated he was single. The applicant stated that he had completed schooling in Timor-Leste and had no previous travel history.

17. The applicant entered Australia on a work visa.  He had been working at a farm at a regional area in Australia. 

    The hearing

18. On 24 April 2024 the applicant attended a hearing at the Tribunal.  The Tribunal had the assistance of a Tetum interpreter.  The Tribunal went through the procedure and explained that it was considering the applicant’s claims in relation to the refugee criteria and complementary protection.  The applicant indicated he understood.

19. The applicant gave the following oral evidence.  The Tribunal asked the applicant if the information contained in the application for protection was true and correct.  The applicant responded that it was.  The Tribunal asked if the applicant needed full interpretation as in his application, he lists he can read and speak English and Tetum.  The applicant stated that he felt he needed full interpretation.

20. He stated he has been in Australia for almost a year.  He has been on a work visa.  That visa has expired, and he applied for a protection visa.

21. The Tribunal asked why he cannot return to Timor Leste.  He stated that he has a debt.   He claims that he is scared that if he returns to Timor Leste, he will be killed. 

22. The Tribunal asked if there was any other reason why he cannot return.  He said that he is scared that if he returns to Timor Leste there will be people who will take his life as a lot of people in Timor-Leste are killing each other.  The Tribunal asked the applicant to expand on why he would be targeted.  He responded as he is in debt to a particular person who is one of his neighbours.  He stated words to the effect that this person has already beaten up another neighbour.

23. He claimed this person was beaten up due to the applicant’s problems.  The Tribunal asked the applicant to clarify why someone else was beaten up due to his problems with debt.

24. He responded that it was the neighbour that gave him the money.  The Tribunal asked for more clarification and detail.  The applicant responded that the person who gave him the money was the shop keepers wife.  He stated it was money from the shopkeeper.

25. The applicant stated that he is currently working in Australia.  He said he had been picking fruit and was working in a [business 1] in [Town 1].

26. The applicant stated that he has family in Timor-Leste.  He has parents and [number] siblings.

27. The Tribunal asked if the man he feared lived near his family.  He responded they live away from him.  The Tribunal queried that he had said he lived near this person who he owed the debt to, that he was your neighbour.

28. He responded that he lived at that time with his parents.  The Tribunal then asked the applicant to clarify that he was a neighbour.

29. He responded that he was.  The Tribunal asked if his parents live nearby.  He responded with words to the effect that they often stay in their farm and also near their house in town.  They move between the two.

30. The Tribunal asked how much he owed this neighbour he responded $[amount]US.  He said it was debt money from the shop.

31. The Tribunal discussed with the applicant if there was any other reason, he was fearful of returning to Timor-Leste.

32. The applicant responded generally that the economy is bad, and it is difficult to get work.  He stated he sends money back to his family as his siblings need money.  The Tribunal asked if he had repaid the debt.  He responded that he had not however he was trying to save up money to repay the debts.

33. The Tribunal queried why he had not repaid the debt. He responded with words to the effect that he had not as living expenses in Sydney were high. And he was saving and needed to work.

34. The Tribunal then discussed independent country information (as set out in delegate’s decision) and discussed state protection.  He responded that development is slow, and it is hard for young people to get work and the government is to blame.

35. The Tribunal then queried how his claims fitted the criteria for a protection visa.

36. He responded with words to the effect that he cannot find work and he is scared he might lose his life due to debts.  He said his claim is related to race as everyone only speaks to their own race and give work to people from own village.

    FINDINGS AND REASONS

37. The Tribunal will consider whether the applicant's claims fall within a Convention ground, including membership of a particular social group, given his particular circumstances.

38. The applicant has claimed he would be in severe danger if he were to return to Timor -Leste due to owing money to a Neighbours and acquaintances.

39. The applicant’s evidence in relation to who he owes the debts to was significantly different at hearing to his written statement.  In his application for protection, he wrote that he owes money to his neighbours and acquaintances.  He claims that he was beaten and beaten as a result of being in debt and his wife ran away. 

40. At hearing and on his application, he indicated he was single and that the debt was owed to a shopkeeper who was a neighbour.  His oral evidence is that his neighbour’s wife gave him the money and she has been beaten due to this.  He claims he will be killed if he returns to Timor-Leste.

41. The Tribunal queried whether he had made any effort to repay the debt.  He stated that it was US$[amount] and he had not repaid it.  He stated that it was expensive to live in Australia and he had not repaid it however was trying to save money.  This contrasts with his evidence that he sends money back to his family in Timor-Leste.

42. The applicant has been working in Australia since April 2023.  He entered Australia on a Government work programme.   The applicant’s work visa ceased in February 2024.

43. The applicant has been working in Australia for over a year.  The Tribunal does not accept that he was unable to repay his debt of US$[amount] in that time.  The Tribunal finds that if the applicant was truly in fear of his life, he would have repaid the debt he claims to have incurred.

44. The Tribunal is further troubled by the inconsistencies between his written statement and oral evidence, at hearing the applicant was given ample opportunity to provide further details and outline his claims.  His written claims refer to the applicant being beaten and beaten in Timor-Leste due to owing a debt in Timor-Leste.  He did not refer to this at hearing or provide any details.  At hearing he referred to his neighbour’s wife being beaten.  In his written claim he referred to his wife running away because of his debt.  At hearing he did not refer to his wife and indicated his only family were his parents and siblings.  In his application for protection, he lists himself as never married.

45. At the end of the hearing the Tribunal discussed country information which indicated that the state offers protection from criminal activity.  He responded that the system was not developed.  The Tribunal accepts that the systems in Timor Leste are still developing however there is a police force and if he was beaten or assaulted it would result in action from the police. 

46. The applicant spoke of the poor economic situation in Timor-Leste and the lack of economic opportunity.  The applicant pointed to villagers only providing work to other people in their village and speaking to their own kind.  The Tribunal can accept that people will provide work to persons in their own family or village however the applicant’s evidence is that his family own land in the country and the city and are able to provide a living and schooling to themselves and their children.  The Tribunal can sympathise with the applicant wanting to continue to work in Australia and wanting to take advantage of the economic opportunities however is not satisfied that he meets the criteria for a protection visa. 

47. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant could facing difficulties because of money he has borrowed from persons in Timor-Leste.  However, the applicant has not provided detailed and persuasive particulars of the money lender who he claims to fear.   His claims were of a general nature and referred to a shop keeper and then a neighbour.  He did not provide any independent evidence of the loan such as loan documents or bank transfers.  A loan which he claims he has defaulted on is not sufficient by itself to attract the protections available under the Act or Convention; a creditor seeking to recover or enforce a debt would not be expected without more to be motivated to persecute an applicant for a Convention reason.  The Tribunal may accept that someone who owes a debt could potentially fall within the terms of the Convention, including as a member of a particular social group, but finds that this particular applicant does not have a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention-related reason. The Tribunal finds that the Convention grounds are not the essential and significant reason or reasons for the persecution he claims to fear (s.91R(1)(a)).

48. The applicant claims that he will be the subject of violent attacks due to his debt.  Any violence that has been perpetrated against the applicant or his family by his neighbour, loan sharks or acquaintances is of a nature that according to Independent Country Information is illegal in Timor-Leste.  However, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant or his family have suffered such violence because of the debt.  The applicant’s evidence in relation to the harm he suffered was vague and lacked detail.  The Tribunal does not accept that any creditor has used violence or illegal means to enforce its debt against the applicant or members of his family.

49. The Tribunal finds that if the creditor seeks to use any force to recover the debt it is illegal in Timor-Leste and the authorities who have issued the applicant with a passport from Timor-Leste would protect their citizen.  

50. The Tribunal finds that the applicant does not fear persecution for a Convention reason.

51. After considering the applicant's claims individually and on a cumulative basis, the Tribunal finds that if the applicant returns to Timor-Leste now or in the reasonably foreseeable future, there is no real chance that he will be persecuted for the reason of his political opinion, membership of a particular social group or for any other Convention reason.

    The Tribunal must also consider whether the applicant meets the criteria for complementary protection.

52. A person meets the complementary protection criteria if there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that he or she will suffer significant harm.

53. ‘Significant harm’ for these purposes is exhaustively defined in the Act. A person will suffer significant harm if he or she will be arbitrarily deprived of their life; or the death penalty will be carried out on the person; or the person will be subjected to torture; or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or to degrading treatment or punishment. ‘Cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment’, ‘degrading treatment or punishment’, and ‘torture’, are further defined in s.5(1) of the Act.

54. Section 36(2)(aa) of the Act refers to a ‘real risk’ of an applicant suffering significant harm. 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: MIAC v SZQRB [2013] FCAFC 33.

55. For reasons given above in relation to ‘real chance’, the Tribunal is not satisfied there is a real risk of any of the kinds of significant harm set out in s.5(1) that the applicant could suffer if he returned to Timor-Leste.  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 Timor-Leste, there is a real risk he will suffer significant harm.   Therefore, the applicant does not satisfy s.36(2)(aa) of the Act.

    CONCLUSION

56. 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).

57. 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

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

    Catherine Carney-Orsborn
    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.

    …