2403258 (Refugee)

[2024] AATA 4190

2403258 (Refugee) [2024] AATA 4190 (22 August 2024)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  2403258

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   East Timor

MEMBER:Hollie Kerwin

DATE:22 August 2024

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 22 August 2024 at 4:07pm

CATCHWORDS

REFUGEE – protection visa – Timor-Leste – no Convention nexus – economic conditions – employment – financial hardship – family illness – availability of medications – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION

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

CASES

GLD18 v Minister for Home Affairs, [2020] FCAFC 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 22 February 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 is a citizen of East Timor, applied for the visa on 25 September 2023. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the applicant did not satisfy the refugee criteria, the delegate finding that he did not fear being persecuted for reasons of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion as required by s 5(1)(a) of the Act. Further, the delegate found that the applicant did not meet the complementary protection criteria because the economic hardship he claimed to fear did not fall into any of the defined forms of significant harm under s 36(2A)(d)-(e), by reason of their being no actor of perpetrator of any harm to the applicant and no subjective state of mind behind the economic harm claims. In relation to s 36(2A)(a)-(c) the delegate noted that there was no information before them to indicate that the applicant would suffer these forms of harm.

3. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 21 August 2024 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Tetum and English languages.

   BACKGROUND

4. The applicant was born in [specified year]. He grew up in Dili, East Timor, residing in his family home with his siblings and parents, until he travelled to Australia. [Specified siblings] have left the family home. His parents own their home. At the Tribunal hearing, the applicant explained that his father is unwell, and has been unwell for some time.

5. In East Timor, the applicant has completed [amount] of a [specified] degree. He also played [sport 1] competitively, for which he was paid and his evidence was that in this period of his life he played [sport 1], studied and contributed his salary to his family to sustain them including because his father was sick. He also explained that he contributed to his father’s care.

6. In or about 2022, however, the applicant explained at the Tribunal hearing that he was offered an opportunity to travel to Australia to play [sport 1] for [Club 1]. Under the terms of this travel, his evidence was that he was permitted to work part-time and worked as [an occupation 1]. However, he explained that his father became unwell and he returned to East Timor after six months, remaining in East Timor from March to April 2023. Ultimately, he returned to Australia. Since then, he has lived in Victoria and initially worked part-time for a family member in [industry 1]. His evidence is that he is not currently working, and lives on his savings, resides at a cousin’s home, and assists his Uncle. He is still playing [sport 1] in Australia, though he explained to the Tribunal that he is not paid to play.     

   CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

   Before the delegate

7. The delegate’s decision considered claims made in the applicant’s protection visa application. This application raised the following claims, as summarised by the delegate:

   ·The economic situation in Timor-Leste is poor and the applicant had difficulty in providing for their basic needs.

   ·There are few jobs, a lot of competition for employment, the income from employment is not sufficient, and it is difficult to find permanent employment.

   ·The applicant has had to borrow funds for expenses like medical tests and to buy a house.

   ·The applicant cannot guarantee they will be able to fulfil their plans for the future if they return to Timor-Leste. The applicant hopes to stay in Australia for a long time so that they can repay their debt and guarantee their future.

   Before the Tribunal

8. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 21 August 2024. At the hearing, he told the Tribunal that he was seeking a protection visa in Australia because he is the [position] in his family, and his family household needs economic support including because his father is unwell. He explained that the hospital in East Timor does not have adequate medicines to treat his father’s illness. He gave evidence that he would like to return to his country but he is seeking to stay in Australia and to be able to work so that he can support his family, even though his family misses him and he also misses them.

9. The Tribunal asked the applicant whether there was anything else he wanted to share, or any past events in East Timor that he wanted to give evidence about to the Tribunal. The applicant confirmed that nothing relevant had happened to him in East Timor. He said that his claims were those already raised by him at the hearing, relating to wanting to support his family and his father being sick.

10. Relevantly, during the Tribunal hearing, after the Tribunal sought clarification, the applicant stated that the claims made in his protection visa application were prepared by a third party. He explained that he did not know what was in his protection visa application. In this context, the Tribunal took him through each of the claims made in the protection visa application and the applicant confirmed that:

    a.The economic harm aspects of the claims made regarding employment and income in East Timor reflected his lived experience and he maintained those claims.

    b.He did borrow money from a good friend to pay for medication when he was once unwell. However, when the Tribunal asked him whether he was required to pay this money back the applicant stated that he did not owe it as a debt but would, out of respect, repay the money if he had the available funds. When the Tribunal asked him directly whether he feared harm from this person if he was not able to pay it back the applicant confirmed that the loan was from a good friend and he did not fear that his friend would hurt him or anything like that if he could not repay it.

    c.He did not have any ongoing health issues.

    d.He has no debts to repay. He did not take out a loan in East Timor. These elements of the protection visa application are untrue.

    CRITERIA FOR A PROTECTION VISA

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. 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).

14. 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.

15. 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.

    CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

16. The issue in this case is whether the applicant meets the refugee criteria or the complementary protection criteria. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision should be affirmed because the applicant does not meet the criteria for a protection visa.

    Mandatory considerations

17. 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.

    Economic harm and financial hardship claims

18. I accept that it is the applicant’s genuine wish to enable his and his family’s greater financial security, to support his family by working in Australia, and to care for his father, who is unwell, from afar by providing financial support. I also accept that, as the applicant raised in his protection visa application (and maintained at the Tribunal hearing) he also fears economic harm and financial hardship for himself in East Timor. After considering the material before me, however, I am not satisfied that the applicant meets the refugee or complementary protection criteria on account of the economic, job-related, wage-related or financial circumstances he claimed to fear in East Timor either as a direct risk to him personally or to his family. I explain why below.

    Refugee criteria assessment

19. In relation to the refugee criteria, I do not consider that the financial hardship claims that the applicant raises are for the reasons of his race, nationality, religion, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. As the applicant explained to the Tribunal the financial issues confronting him and his family arise because of the general economic conditions in East Timor. Further, when I raised this as an issue in the review with the applicant at the hearing he did not clarify or assert that the harm he feared for himself or his family was for any of the reasons required under s 5J(1) of the Act.

20. Accordingly, I find that he does not face a well-founded fear of persecution now or in the reasonably foreseeable future on account of his or his family’s financial hardship or economic circumstances in East Timor.

    Complementary protection criteria assessment

21. In relation to the complementary protection criteria, as I explained to the applicant at the hearing, the issue which arises is that in order to engage the complementary protection criteria, the harm that the applicant claims needs to be attributable to an actor.[1] The actor can be unspecified but nonetheless identifiable for the actions they are predicted to take.[2] As Allsop CJ and Mortimer J (as her Honour then was) held:[3]

    First, his Honour was correct about the scope and operation of the concept of “significant harm” as part of the protection visa criterion in s 36(2)(aa). At both a textual and a purposive level, the concept is concerned with acts or omissions occurring in the relevant “receiving country” and which result in the visa applicant being treated in a particular way. The language in subss 36(2A)(a) and (b) and in the definitions of the concepts in subss 36(2A)(c)-(e) all concern, and only concern, how a visa applicant might be treated by another person. That is confirmed in the use of the verb “subjected” in subss 36(2A)(c)-(e); and it is inherent in the text of subss 36(2A)(a) (“arbitrarily deprived of his or her life”) and (b) (“death penalty will be carried out on the non-citizen”).

    [1] GLD18 v Minister for Home Affairs, [2020] FCAFC 2 (GLD19), [31], [39]-[40], [46] (Allsop CJ and Moritmer J).

    [2] GLD19, [40] (Allsop CJ and Moritmer J).

    [3] GLD18, [37] (Allsop CJ and Mortimer J).

22. During the hearing when I raised this issue with the applicant he did not assert that there was an actor or perpetrator. Towards the end of the hearing he reiterated his evidence, which I accept to be genuine, telling the Tribunal that there was no person committing an act, and no person making threats. Rather, on the applicant’s evidence, the driving factor affecting his and his family’s current and future chance or risk of economic harm or financial hardship is the general economic conditions in East Timor (as they, of course, apply to him and his family).

23. In these circumstances, where the applicant articulates no actor or even protagonists of a general posture who will act or omit to act, and where the material before me does not otherwise suggest that there is, I find that the applicant’s economic and financial hardship claims do not satisfy the complementary protection criteria.

    Access to adequate medical treatment for his father

24. During the hearing the applicant also raised that there is insufficient medical treatment for his father in East Timor, and that he cannot send his father to the hospital for medication because it is not available. The applicant did not articulate any other reason, except the general state of the health system including the availability of medications in East Timor, for this situation. There is nothing before me which I consider indicates that there is any other reason for this situation either.

    Refugee criteria assessment

25. In relation to the refugee criteria, I do not consider his father’s inadequate access to medical treatment are for the reasons of the applicant’s race, nationality, religion, membership of a particular social group or political opinion as required by s 5J(1) of the Act. Rather, the situation arises on account of the general conditions of the health system in East Timor When I raised this issue with the applicant at the hearing, he did not assert otherwise. Accordingly, I find that he does not face a well-founded fear of persecution in East Timor now or in the reasonably foreseeable future on account of the availability of medical treatment to his father.

    Complementary protection criteria assessment

26. For the reasons already set out above at paragraph 21, in order to engage the complementary protection criteria, the harm that the applicant claims needs to be attributable to the intended acts or omissions of an actor.

27. I do not consider, on the material before me, that the general state of the East Timorese health system or his father’s inadequate or diminished access to medical treatment in East Timor arise or would arise as a result of the intended acts or omissions of an actor. The applicant did not assert, when I raised this issue with him, that there was.

28. While I do not discount that there are situations where the availability of medical treatment reflects intended and harmful decisions by a State to, for example, restrict access to some forms of treatment on a discriminatory and/or intentional basis, I do not consider this is the case here. There is no material before me and the applicant did not assert in any way, that his father’s experiences arise as a result of any intentional or discriminatory conduct by the State, or that he fears that this would happen in the future. Rather, as I raised as an issue in the review with the applicant, I consider they arise as a result of the general state of the health system in East Timor. In these circumstances, I find that the applicant’s claims regarding access to medical treatment and medication in East Timor do not meet the complementary protection criteria.

    Loans and borrowing money

29. As already detailed above (at paragraph 10), the Tribunal inquired and the applicant clarified that the material in his protection visa application regarding an outstanding loan was untrue.

30. The applicant confirmed that he did not have any debts. He confirmed that he had once borrowed money from a good friend for medication when he was sick with a (non ongoing) illness but that the other references to an outstanding loan, including to buy a house, were untrue. The applicant confirmed directly that he did not fear that his good friend would seek to hurt him if he was unable to repay the money for the medication, though (as detailed above) out of respect he would want to repay this money he had borrowed if he could. I accept this evidence.

31. In these circumstances, I do not consider that the applicant faces a real chance or a real risk of harm in East Timor now or in the reasonably foreseeable future on account of any loan. It is clear that there is no outstanding loan that requires repayment, and that (as the applicant confirmed) his good friend who lent him money to buy medication on one occasion has never threatened him regarding the money he was lent and the applicant does not fear that he will or that he will hurt him. There is no material before me to suggest otherwise.

32. Accordingly, these claims made in the applicant’s protection visa application do not satisfy the refugee or the complementary protection criteria.

    Note regarding past references to the applicant’s health in material before the Tribunal

33. For completeness, I note that as a result of references in previous hearing postponement requests made by the applicant on the basis that he was sick (but without providing any detail regarding the nature of the illness), the Tribunal inquired at the hearing regarding the applicant’s health both on the day of the hearing and generally. The applicant confirmed that on the previous hearing dates he had had an ordinary, non-ongoing illness, and he asked someone to send a message to Tribunal seeking a postponement. He confirmed that he is well now and in good health generally.

    CONCLUSION

34. 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).

35. Having concluded that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), the Tribunal has considered the alternative criterion in s 36(2)(aa). The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(aa).

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

   DECISION

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

   Hollie Kerwin
   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.

   …