2400589 (Refugee)

[2024] AATA 1352

2400589 (Refugee) [2024] AATA 1352 (4 April 2024)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  2400589

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Papua New Guinea

MEMBER:Bridget Cullen

DATE:4 April 2024

PLACE OF DECISION:  Brisbane

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

Statement made on 4 April 2024 at 2.59pm

CATCHWORDS

REFUGEE – protection visa – Papua New Guinea – land disputes and tribal fights – beaten, injured and threatened – relatives killed by sorcery – death certificates state natural causes – application made shortly before visitor visa due to expire – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5H(1)(a), 5J(1), 36(2)(a), (aa), (2A), 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 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 8 January 2024 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 Papua New Guinea (PNG), applied for the visa on 7 January 2020. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the delegate was not satisfied that the Applicant was a refugee as defined by s 5H of the Act and was therefore not satisfied that the Applicant was a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations as outlined in s 36(2)(a) of the Act. The delegate was also not satisfied that there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the Applicant being removed to PNG, there is a real risk they will suffer significant harm as defined in s 36(2)(aa) of the Act. Therefore the delegate was not satisfied that the Applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations as provided for in s 36(2)(aa) of the Act.

3. The Applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 16 February 2024 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence via Microsoft Teams video link and telephone from [Mr A], who is a relative of the Applicant and resides in PNG.

   CRITERIA FOR A PROTECTION VISA

4. The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s 36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations). An Applicant for the visa must meet one of the alternative criteria in s 36(2)(a), (aa), (b), or (c). That is, he or she is either a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion, or on other ‘complementary protection’ grounds, or is a member of the same family unit as such a person and that person holds a protection visa of the same class.

5. Section 36(2)(a) provides that a criterion for a protection visa is that the Applicant for the visa is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee.

6. A person is a refugee if, in the case of a person who has a nationality, they are outside the country of their nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country: s 5H(1)(a). In the case of a person without a nationality, they are a refugee if they are outside the country of their former habitual residence and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to return to that country: s 5H(1)(b).

7. Under s 5J(1), a person has a well-founded fear of persecution if they fear being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, there is a real chance they would be persecuted for one or more of those reasons, and the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of the relevant country. Additional requirements relating to a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ and circumstances in which a  person will be taken not to have such a fear are set out in ss 5J(2)-(6) and ss 5K-LA, which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.

8. If a person is found not to meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), he or she may nevertheless meet the criteria for the grant of the visa if he or she is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that he or she will suffer significant harm: s 36(2)(aa) (‘the complementary protection criterion’). The meaning of significant harm, and the circumstances in which a person will be taken not to face a real risk of significant harm, are set out in ss 36(2A) and (2B), which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.

   Mandatory considerations

9. In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.84, made under s 499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken account of the ‘Refugee Law Guidelines’ and ‘Complementary Protection Guidelines’ prepared by the Department of Home Affairs, and country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

10. The issue in this case is whether the Applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution for one of the five reasons set out in s 5J(1) of the Act, and whether there is a real chance that if the Applicant was returned to PNG he would be persecuted for one of those reasons and, if not, whether there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to PNG, there is a real risk that the Applicant will suffer significant harm as defined in s 36(2A) of the Act. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.

    The Applicant’s Protection visa application

11. The totality of the Applicant’s claims, as made to the Department in his Application for a Protection visa Form 866 were as follows (errors not corrected by the Tribunal):

    “I am seeking protection in Australia so that I do not have to return to Papua New Guinea”.

    “I left my country because of the land dispute and tribal fights within my tribal clan and other tribes. Because of that I thought I should runaway to Australia because I know that Australia will protect me.”

    “If I return to my country I fear that they will threaten and harm me.”

    “Because the people fight with me and my people using harmful weapons many times I sustain serious beatings and injuries. That also leaves me traumatised.”

12. The Applicant said he did not seek help, “Because I was depending on my leaders but still they did not do anything and the progress was not so good so I thought of running away.” He won’t be protected, “Because I did not put a report before I fled the country.”

13. The Applicant claimed he could not move to another part of Papua New Guinea because, “I never thought of going anywhere because I don’t trust anyone to protect me.” He says he will be harmed or mistreated if he returns, “Because if they cant harm my people or tribe they would try to harm me. This makes me scared and mentally traumatised. Such as starting fights and threatening me from moving around.” He can’t relocate because he doesn’t “have relatives from other provinces in my country.”

14. He listed his only previous address as being “[Address], Port Moresby, National Capital District”. The Applicant listed his educational qualifications, which include attendance at 5 different educational institutions between the years of [Year] – [year]:

Dates	Name	Location
15.      January [Year] – November [Year]	[Primary School]	Port Moresby, Central Province
February [Year] – October [Year]	[High School]	Port Moresby, Central Province
February [Year] – October [Year]	[Secondary School]	Port Moresby, Central Province
January [Year] – June [Year]	[named Institute]	[Location]
January [year] – May [year]	[named College]	16.      National Capital District

1. Although the Applicant claimed he had no relatives “from other provinces,” he listed one of his brothers as residing in “Morobe Province” on his form.  Morobe Province is located on PNG’s northern coast. The Applicant listed his own previous address as being in Port Moresby, National Capital District, between the years of June [Year] and October 2019, in the south of PNG.

2. The only documents provided by the Applicant in conjunction with his application for protection were his birth certificate and educational documents. As such, the Department sent the Applicant a s 56 invitation to provide further information, as the delegate formed the view that the Applicant’s claims lacked substantiating details, such as dates and locations, and supporting information.

3. The Applicant did not provide any further details in response to the s 56 invitation. The Tribunal asked the Applicant why he didn’t respond, and the Applicant told the Tribunal that he could not respond as he was in prison with limited access to email.

4. The Tribunal accepts that the Applicant is a citizen of PNG, born in [Year], on the basis of the identity documents that he provided to the Department, including his PNG issued passport.

   The Applicant’s claims before the Tribunal

5. The Applicant has provided the following additional information to the Tribunal:

   ·Applicant’s written statement dated 9 February 2024.

   ·Statutory Declaration from [Mr A] of 4 paragraphs, sworn to on 14 February 2024 in PNG.

   ·Statutory Declaration from [Mr B] of 3 paragraphs, sworn to on 14 February 2024 in PNG.

   ·Death Certificate from [Hospital] dated [date]-7-21, for [Mr C], [Age], who died on [date]-7-21 of pneumonia and a cerebrovascular accident.

   ·Death Certificate from [Hospital] dated [date]-7-22, for [Mr D], [Age], who died on [date]-7-22 of pneumonia and sepsis, together with a Coroner’s Certificate indicating that there is “no suspicious circumstances surrounding the death as the deceased died from Natural Cause”.

6. The Applicant’s claims before the Department, perfunctory as they were, included claims relating to tribal conflict and land disputes. In his written statement, and in his oral evidence, the Applicant’s claims have expanded from those made to the Department.  Now, before the Tribunal, the Applicant also claims to require protection from sorcery, as deaths in his family have been the result of this cultural practice.

7. [Mr A] told the Tribunal that the difficulties the Applicant’s family faces due to tribal conflict in PNG relate to (1) livestock; (2) women; and (3) land. He did not provide any detail in relation to any of these matters.

8. [Mr A] told the Tribunal that the Applicant faced death threats from unnamed Members of a rival clan. The threats were made to [Mr A]’s uncle, who told his mother, who then told [Mr A]. [Mr A] told the Tribunal that he did not have any direct knowledge of the death threats. In response to the Tribunal’s question about the reasons the Applicant could not return to PNG, [Mr A] said that “one of the main ones” was that the Applicant could not return to live with their grandparents. The Applicant and [Mr A] are half-brothers, with a common mother, and “it’s a cultural thing and kind of unacceptable” for the Applicant to live with [Mr A] if he had to return to PNG.

9. Although there were some connectivity difficulties with [Mr A]’s evidence, the Tribunal asked the Applicant if there were any issues that he wanted the Tribunal to traverse that were not already addressed in his statement. The Applicant told the Tribunal there were not.

10. [Mr B], in his Statutory Declaration, claims that there were land disputes in 2013 and 2017 between the [Clans 1 and 2]. [Mr B] did not give evidence at the hearing. The Tribunal asked the Applicant to comment on [Mr B]’s evidence that there were land disputes in 2013 and 2017. The only detail the Tribunal obtained from the Applicant in response to this question was that “they crossed borders”. The Applicant did not explain who “they” was, with any specificity, or even refer to the names of the tribes. He further mentioned that [Mr D], who [Mr B] claims was a victim of sorcery in his brief 3-paragraph Statutory Declaration, was the Applicant’s “Nanna’s son”. The Applicant said that the other alleged victims of sorcery mentioned by [Mr B], who have died, are the Applicant’s grandparents.

11. The Tribunal asked the Applicant about the Death Certificates he provided for [Mr C] (his grandfather) and [Mr D] (his Nanna’s son/brother). The Tribunal observed that the Death Certificate information revealed that both men died of natural causes. The Applicant told the Tribunal that, “Whatever they put on the paperwork, they have to find something to put on the death certificates,” and further that, “These things that happen in a cultural customary way, they can’t put on the certificate”.  The Applicant asserted “they were very healthy and they just fell ill and died like that”.

12. The Tribunal asked the Applicant why he waited to apply for protection until 7 January 2020, when he first arrived in Australia on a Visitor visa [in] October 2019, which was valid until 13 January 2020, if he was genuinely in fear. The Applicant responded to this by telling the Tribunal that:

    ·His “Nanna” died in 2021 and told him never to come back.

    ·Months later, he was at work in a [Workplace] in [City] and was told his “Pop” passed away, and he also had told him to never come back. He was “so broken”.

    ·Months later, his brother passed away and he was in a bad place, and he was in a toxic relationship and began drinking. He became angry with himself and at the “people who done this to my family”.

    ·The liquor caused him to do things he wasn’t expecting to do, and that’s how he ended up in prison.

13. In addition to not directly answering the Tribunal’s question, the Tribunal observes that the Applicant arrived in Australia in 2019, applied for protection in 2020, and therefore his Grandmother’s death in 2021 could not have been related to the reasons that he delayed applying for protection until his Visitor visa was on the cusp of expiry.

14. The Tribunal asked the Applicant if he could live with his half-brother, [Mr A], if he had to return to PNG. The Applicant said that although they share same mother, his mother is now married on to [Mr A]’s Dad, the Applicant is not part of their lives, and he can’t live with them. He says, “there’s never gonna be a place for me to go to.” He was living in Central Province, where he grew up and went to school. He doesn’t have a life anywhere else.

15. In response to the Tribunal’s request to provide more detail about the alleged tribal conflict, and his fear on returning, the Applicant merely referred to, the “clan on the other side”. The Applicant said “they’ve been always around us. You see some of them in groups.”

16. The Tribunal provided the Applicant with multiple opportunities to particularise his claims. Significant portions of the Applicant’s evidence were nonsensical. The Applicant was unable to provide any meaningful detail, and could not particularise his claims or supposed fears despite being offered multiple opportunities to do so. The Applicant spoke in a circular fashion, simply repeating the same vague assertion thought that he couldn’t return because of “these people”.

17. Having considered the evidence available to it, the Tribunal accepts that the Applicant is who he says he is, that [Mr A] is the Applicant’s stepbrother sharing a common mother, that the Applicant grew up with his grandparents, and that the Applicant lived in Central Province where he attended school before travelling to Australia.

18. The Tribunal does not accept any of the Applicant’s claims that his grandmother, grandfather, or “Nanna’s son” (also described as the Applicant’s brother) died from anything other than natural causes. The Applicant could not provide any detail about the circumstances that supposedly meant these deaths were culturally perceived to be due to sorcery.

19. The Tribunal does not accept that the Applicant’s family, or his tribe, have been involved in any land disputes with another tribe. The Tribunal does not accept that the Applicant has faced any threats as a consequence of land disputes, sorcery, or for any other reason. The Applicant has not provided any detail about his tribe, the rival tribe, the nature of the dispute, the role he has in relation to the dispute, the cultural practice of sorcery and why he is concerned, or of any harm he suffered while in PNG. The Tribunal does not find any of the Applicant’s claims to be even remotely credible. The Tribunal finds that the Applicant’s claims are not genuine.

    Refugee criterion

20. Based on the information before it, the Tribunal rejects the Applicant’s claims in their entirety. Having considered all of the Applicant’s claims both individually and cumulatively, and considering the cumulative effect of the Applicant’s claims, the Tribunal finds that the Applicant does not face a real chance of persecution involving serious harm in the reasonably foreseeable future for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion.

21. The Tribunal finds that the Applicant’s fears of persecution are not well-founded as required by s 5J of the Act and therefore, the Applicant is not a refugee within the definition of s 5H of the Act.

22. 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) of the Act.

    Complementary protection

23. Having concluded that the Applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a) of the Act, the Tribunal has also considered whether the Applicant is eligible for complementary protection as outlined in s 36(2)(aa) of the Act.

24. As stated above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that any of the Applicant’s claims meet the refugee criterion. The Tribunal is also not satisfied that the Applicant meets the complementary protection criterion as the Tribunal has rejected the evidence and claims of the Applicant in their entirety for a lack of credibility given the absence of any particularity to the claims.

25. Given the evidence before it, the Tribunal does not accept that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the Applicant being removed from Australia to PNG, that there is a real risk that the Applicant will suffer significant harm as defined in s 36(2A) of the Act.

26. The Tribunal finds that the Applicant is not a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(aa) of the Act.

27. There is no suggestion that the Applicant satisfies 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.

    DECISION

28. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the Applicant a protection visa.

    Bridget Cullen
    Senior 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.

    …