2405333 (Refugee)

[2024] AATA 2313

2405333 (Refugee) [2024] AATA 2313 (20 June 2024)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  2405333

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Samoa

MEMBER:Peter Katsambanis

DATE:20 June 2024

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 20 June 2024 at 9:34am

CATCHWORDS

REFUGEE – Protection Visa – Samoa – fears harm from the family of his ex-girlfriend – declined hearing invitation – provided vague and undetailed evidence – not satisfied the applicant has a well-founded fear of serious harm – credibility concerns – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, ss 5, 36, 65, 499

Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2

CASES

MIEA v Guo (1997) 191 CLR 559
Prasad v MIEA (1985) 6 FCR 155

Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other dependant.

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 19 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 claims to be a citizen of Samoa, applied for the visa on 13 November 2023. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the delegate was not satisfied that the applicant was a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(a) or s 36(2)(aa) of the Act.  

   CRITERIA FOR A PROTECTION VISA

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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).

6. 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.

7. 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

8. 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

9. The issues in this case are whether there is a real chance that if the applicant returns to Samoa he will be persecuted for one or more of the five reasons set out in s 5J(1)(a) for the purposes of s 36(2)(a) of the Act and, if not, whether there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Samoa, there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm for the purposes of s 36(2)(aa) of the Act.

   Protection Visa Application

10. The applicant is a [age]-year-old male who was born on [date] in [Village 1], Apia, Samoa. In his protection visa application form the applicant stated that he had never been married and had no children. He claimed that he had lived at the same residential address in Samoa from birth until he came to Australia. He claimed he was of Samoan ethnicity and Assemblies of God religion. He last arrived in Australia on [date] January 2022 on his valid Samoan passport and as the holder of an Australian visitor visa. He provided a copy of his Samoan passport to the Department.

11. The applicant claimed in his protection visa application form that whilst living in Samoa, he had completed high school in 2015. He had also worked the lands and the fields and had done plantation work. He claimed that his family had supported him financially.

12. In his protection visa application form, the applicant claimed that he was seeking protection in Australia as he could not return to Samoa. He claimed that he left Samoa to come to work in Australia. When he left Samoa, he was in a relationship with his then-girlfriend, but he had met someone else in Australia and had started a relationship with that person. The ex-girlfriend and the family in Samoa found out about this new relationship and have been sending him threats, so he was now fearful for his life if he ever returned to Samoa. These threats he has received are very serious and he is now fearful for his life. It was claimed that he did not move to any other part of Samoa to avoid the harm he feared because all of this happened while he has been in Australia. These threats were also posted on his social media, so if he was in Samoa, he would not be able to move anywhere else because the family would look for him, hunt him down and harm him as they threatened.

13. The applicant knows these people will harm him and maybe do something serious to him. It was claimed that if he returned to Samoa he would be harmed, hurt and will probably get seriously hurt. He would be harmed and mistreated by the family of his ex-girlfriend because of the hurt and the embarrassment he has caused to her and her family. It was stated that the authorities in Samoa will not be able to protect the applicant as this matter is not a civil matter and it is usually dealt with inside the village by the village chiefs. He would not be able to relocate within Samoa as these people will hunt him down and harm him as they have promised and threatened him.

14. On 20 December 2023 the delegate wrote to the applicant under section 56 of the Act seeking further information from the applicant about his family composition, including family members who may live in Australia, Samoa or any other country. This letter also sought further information and documentary evidence about the applicant’s claims for protection including the name and other details about his ex-girlfriend in Samoa, further information about the relationship with this ex-girlfriend, further details about his current partner in Australia, further information and documentary evidence about the threats received from his ex-partner’s family, further information and documentary evidence indicating that the threats are ongoing so that he will face harm if he returned to Samoa, any reasons why he could not relocate elsewhere in Samoa to avoid the harm he fears, any reasons why he could not resolve this issue in Samoa and any reasons why he could not seek protection or assistance in Samoa.

15. The delegate’s decision record indicates that no response to this correspondence was received from the applicant before the delegate made a decision in this matter.

16. The delegate refused to grant the applicant a protection visa on 19 February 2024.

    Application for Review

17. The applicant applied to the Tribunal for a review of the delegate’s decision on 18 March 2024. He also provided the Tribunal with a copy of the delegate’s decision record and accompanying notification letter.

18. The Tribunal wrote to the applicant on 24 April 2024 advising him that having considered the material before it, the Tribunal was unable to make a favourable decision on this information alone. Accordingly, the Tribunal invited the applicant to appear before it in person at a hearing in Melbourne on 20 June 2024 at 9:30 am to give evidence and present arguments relating to issues arising in his case. This letter outlined that if the applicant did not appear at the scheduled hearing, the Tribunal may make a decision on the review without taking any further action to allow or enable the applicant to appear before it. The letter also provided details on how the applicant could provide further documents or submissions to the Tribunal in support of his claims.

19. By email sent to the Tribunal on 18 June 2024, the applicant stated that he did not want to participate in the scheduled hearing and consented to the Tribunal making a decision on the papers without taking any further steps to enable him to appear before it. The applicant did not provide any further documents or submissions in support of his claims.

    FINDINGS AND REASONS

20. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.

21. There is no issue as to identity or nationality. The applicant arrived in Australia on a valid Samoan passport and provided a copy of this passport to the Department. The Tribunal therefore accepts that the applicant is the person he claims to be, that he is a national of Samoa and has assessed his claims accordingly.

22. There is no evidence before the Tribunal to indicate that the applicant has any right to enter and reside in any other country. Therefore, the Tribunal finds that the applicant is not excluded from Australia’s protection obligations pursuant to s 36(3) of the Act.

23. The mere fact that a person claims fear of persecution for a particular reason does not establish either the genuineness of the asserted fear or that it is ‘well-founded’ or that it is for the reasons claimed. Similarly, that an applicant claims to face a real risk of significant harm does not establish that such a risk exists, or that the harm feared amounts to ‘significant harm’. It remains for the applicant to satisfy the Tribunal that all of the statutory elements are made out. A decision-maker is not required to make the applicant's case for him or her. It is the responsibility of the applicant to specify all particulars of the claim to be a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations and to provide sufficient evidence to establish the claim. The Tribunal does not have any responsibility or obligation to specify, or assist in specifying any particulars of the claim, or to establish or assist in establishing the claim: s 5AAA. Nor is the Tribunal required to accept uncritically any and all the allegations made by an applicant (MIEA v Guo (1997) 191 CLR 559 at 596, Prasad v MIEA (1985) 6 FCR 155 at 169-70).

24. The applicant has claimed that he was in a relationship with an ex-girlfriend in Samoa but then commenced a new relationship with a new partner after his arrival in Australia. He has claimed that the ex-girlfriend and her family members are aggrieved that he has hurt and embarrassed the ex-girlfriend and they have made threats to harm him, including threats made on the applicant’s social media.

25. However, over time, the applicant has provided vague and undetailed evidence about these claims despite the opportunity to provide more details. He has not provided the name of the ex-girlfriend or any details about when they commenced their relationship or the nature of the relationship, including whether they lived together and whether they intended to continue an ongoing relationship. He has provided no details about when he commenced a new relationship in Australia or when his ex-girlfriend and her family found out about the new relationship or how they found out about it. He has provided no details about when he started to receive threats, who he received these threats from, the number of threats he received, whether these threats were made in person or by any other means (apart from the threats claimed to have been made on social media), the specific details of the actual threats made or the dates or approximate dates on which these threats were made. The applicant has also not provided any details about when the threats on social media were made, who made the threats, on which social media platform or platforms these threats were made or whether he had any copies of any such threats made on these platforms.

26. As noted above, s 5AAA of the Act clarifies that it is the responsibility of an applicant to specify all particulars of their claims to be a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations and to provide sufficient evidence to establish the claim. Applying this section of the Act, the Tribunal does not have the responsibility or obligation to specify or assist in specifying particulars of the claim or to establish or assist in establishing a claim. This is consistent with the well-settled proposition that it is for an applicant to make their own case.[1]

    [1] Re Ruddock; Ex parte ApplicantS154/2002 [2003] HCA 60 (Gleeson CJ, Gummow , Kirby, Callinan and Heydon JJ, 8 October 2003) at [57] and [1]; WAKK v MIMIA [2005] FCAFC 225 (Marshall, Mansfield and Siopis JJ, 1 November 2005) at [73].

27. In the applicant’s circumstances, the Tribunal’s letter of 24 April 2024 clearly informed the applicant that if he elected not to attend a hearing and in the absence of any further information the Tribunal would make a decision on the evidence before it. The applicant subsequently declined the invitation in that letter to appear before the Tribunal at a scheduled hearing to give evidence and make submissions. The applicant also did not provide any further information or details relating to his claims for protection in his response, despite being given the opportunity to do so. Therefore, in such circumstances, the Tribunal considers that the applicant has been afforded a reasonable opportunity to provide further information and evidence to the Tribunal about his claims but has chosen not to do so. Accordingly, as the applicant has had a reasonable opportunity to provide further information and evidence, the Tribunal has proceeded to make a decision on the evidence before it without seeking any further information from the applicant.

28. Based on the vague and undetailed evidence before it, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant was ever in a relationship with an ex-girlfriend in Samoa before coming to Australia or that the ex-girlfriend and her family ever found out about the applicant’s new relationship in Australia or that the ex-girlfriend and her family were ever aggrieved or upset at the applicant or that they ever threatened the applicant in any way or that they have any ongoing interest in the applicant whatsoever. Accordingly, on the evidence before it, the Tribunal finds that the applicant was never in a relationship with an ex-girlfriend in Samoa before coming to Australia, that the alleged ex-girlfriend and her family never found out about the applicant’s new relationship in Australia, that the ex-girlfriend and her family were never aggrieved or upset at the applicant, that they never threatened the applicant in any way and that they have no ongoing interest in the applicant whatsoever.

29. The applicant has claimed that if he returns to Samoa now or in the reasonably foreseeable future that he fears serious harm from the family of his ex-girlfriend who allegedly remain aggrieved and angry at him.  

30. However, the Tribunal has already found that the applicant was never in a relationship with an ex-girlfriend in Samoa before coming to Australia, that the alleged ex-girlfriend and her family never found out about the applicant’s new relationship in Australia, that the alleged ex-girlfriend and her family were never aggrieved or upset at the applicant, that they never threatened the applicant in any way and that they have no ongoing interest in the applicant whatsoever. Based on these findings, the Tribunal is not satisfied that if the applicant returned to Samoa now or in the reasonably foreseeable future that there is a real chance that he would suffer any serious harm from the family of his ex-girlfriend who alleged remain aggrieved and angry at him or for any other reason.

31. The applicant has made no other claims that he fears harm if he returned to Samoa now or in the reasonably foreseeable future for any other reason and no other claims arise on the facts before the Tribunal.

32. Therefore, having considered the applicant’s claims individually and cumulatively, the Tribunal is not satisfied, on the evidence before it, that the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion.

33. 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).

34. 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).

35. The Tribunal has already found that if the applicant returned to Samoa there is no real chance that he would suffer any serious harm from the family of his ex-girlfriend who alleged remain aggrieved and angry at him or for any other reason. As the test for real risk in s 36(2)(aa) is the same as the test for real chance (see MIAC v SZQRB (2013) FCR 505), the Tribunal therefore finds that if the applicant returned to Samoa there is no real risk that he would suffer any significant harm for the same reasons.

36. Apart from these claims, the applicant has made no other claims that he fears significant harm on return to Samoa for any other reasons and no other claims arise on the facts before the Tribunal.

37. Accordingly, on the evidence before it, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(aa).

38. 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

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

    Peter Katsambanis
    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.

    …