2416302 (Refugee)
[2025] ARTA 1698
•11 July 2025
2416302 (Refugee) [2025] ARTA 1698 (11 July 2025)
DECISION AND
REASONS FOR DECISION
Respondent:Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
Tribunal Number: 2416302
Tribunal:General Member L Luo
Date:11 July 2025
Place:Melbourne
Decision:The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
Statement made on 11 July 2025 at 3:33pm
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Fiji – ethnicity – iTaukei – political opinion – anti-government land restrictions – supports indigenous rights – fears verbal threats, discrimination and land being taken away – fears witchcraft by jealous clan members – reduced income if returned home – can continue to subsist on farming – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 (Cth)
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5, 5H, 5J–5LA, 36, 65, 367A, 369, 499
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2CASES
MIAC v SZQRB (2013) 210 FCR 505
Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 369 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information.
STATEMENT OF REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW
This is an application for review[1] of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 19 May 2024 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
[1] On 14 October 2024, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) became the Administrative Review Tribunal (the Tribunal). Under the transitional provisions in the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 (the Transitional Act), applications for review to the AAT that were not finalised before 14 October 2024 are taken to be an application for review to the Tribunal. The Transitional Act gives the Tribunal the authority to continue and finalise any aspect of the review not already completed by the AAT. This decision and statement of reasons is made by the Tribunal.
The applicant who claims to be a national of Fiji, applied for the visa on 20 July 2020. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that there is no real chance the applicant will be harmed because of his ethnicity and no real risk he will suffer significant harm due to economic hardship.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 30 May 2025 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Fijian and English languages.
BACKGROUND
The applicant is [an age] year old iTaukei man. He is a Methodist who was born in [Town 1], [Province 1], Fiji. He is married with [children – ages deleted]. His children live with his wife, who does not work. He came to Australia in January 2019 through the seasonal worker program. Prior to that, he farmed on his own land from when he finished high school. His parents have both passed away and he does not have any siblings. He has aunts, uncles and cousins in Fiji with whom he has a good relationship. He contacts his wife and children daily and maintains regular contact with his other relatives. In Australia, he has worked for various fruit farms and a solar company. He sends most of his money home to his children for their schooling and other expenses.
Evidence before the Department
In his protection visa application, the applicant claimed that he came to Australia through a government work scheme. He was unaware of the importance of the contract he signed and, because of the debt he incurred, he did not have enough money to send home to his wife and children.
The applicant also claimed he has been verbally threatened by supporters of the current Fijian government many times for speaking up about indigenous rights and discrimination. He claimed that the 2006 coup had a destructive effect on rights of Fiji’s indigenous people, and the government has policies and draconian laws that suppress the views of indigenous people.
The applicant was not invited to an interview. The delegate refused the visa because they found that the applicant will not be harmed because of his ethnicity and claimed economic hardship.
Evidence before the Tribunal
The applicant did not provide any pre-hearing submissions.
At the hearing, the applicant’s claims for protection were largely consistent with his visa application. The applicant claimed that he came to Australia as part of the seasonal worker program to support his family. He wants to be able to support his children with their schooling, which he could not do so with the salary he could make from farming on his land. His wife and son do not work. He told his son to stay home and help his mother look after his siblings. His son cultivates food crops on their land for the family’s personal use. He does not want to return to Fiji because it will be difficult to find work to support his family as he is the breadwinner in the family.
The applicant also claimed that there is jealousy and competition within his clan, and he fears that if he returns, people will perform witchcraft or do curses to harm him and his family. He claimed that this is because people who work overseas can better support their families, and their families will look well-off, which will lead to jealousy from other members of his clan. He claimed that this had happened to others within his own clan who returned from overseas, where some of them ended up with long term illnesses or died. He said that no harm or threats had been made against him, but it will happen once he returns.
The applicant also fears discrimination from the government as an iTaukei. He claimed that land rights have been taken away from the iTaukei by the government as the government has the right to do what they want to do with the land. He claimed that he heard about these issues on social media and on the radio. He says the government has not tried to take away his land, but he thinks it will happen as it has happened to others.
He said he did not receive any direct threats about his opinions on indigenous rights, contrary to what he claimed in his protection visa application. Everything he heard about was on social media or the radio. He said he has not experienced discrimination based on his ethnicity, only when there are differences in opinion between clan members, land owners or community differences.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
Criteria for protection visa
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.
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.
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).
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.
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
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.
REASONS AND FINDINGS
The issue in this case is whether there is a real chance or real risk that the applicant will suffer serious or significant harm if he returns to Fiji now or in the reasonably foreseeable future. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
I have viewed a copy of the biodata page of the applicant’s passport and am satisfied that he has Fiji citizenship, with no citizenship of, or right to enter, any other country. Accordingly, I find that Fiji is the receiving country.
Financial hardship
I accept the applicant’s claims that his main source of income in Fiji is through farming on his own land. I accept he has been, and continues to be, the main breadwinner in the family. I accept that he sends most of his income from Australia back home to support his family and his children’s school and university fees. [Specific education details deleted]. I accept that if he returns to Fiji, he will not have the same earning capacity as he does in Australia and will have to return to farming. I accept that the income from farming will not be enough to support his remaining children with their school fees. Therefore, I find that there is a real chance he will be harmed because of a reduced income.
I have considered whether such harm would constitute serious harm for the purposes of
s 5J(4). Without limiting the meaning of serious harm, s 5J(5) provides that the following are instances of serious harm: (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.I do not accept any economic hardship the applicant may suffer if he returns to Fiji rises to the level of serious harm because he will be able to work and subsist on his farm. His adult son can also support himself, help with the farm work and find other work to help with the family’s additional finances. Prior to the applicant coming to Australia for work, his family was able to subsist on farming alone. I find that the applicant’s farm was, and continues to be, able to adequately support and sustain his family. I also accept the applicant’s evidence that he owns the land his family farms and find that the government has not tried to acquire that land from him, nor is there any suggestion they will do so in the future. Additionally, two of the applicant’s other children are now adults and can support themselves if required. Accordingly, I find that there is no real chance the applicant will suffer serious harm in the form of an inability to subsist if he returns to Fiji now or in the reasonably foreseeable future because of his reduced earning capacity.
Harm from clan members
I accept the applicant’s claims that jealousy and competition exists in his clan, especially towards those with family overseas and are perceived to be wealthy, and that he fears they will perform witchcraft or voodoo on him if he returns. However, the applicant’s evidence about the potential harm he may experience, and who would perpetrate this harm, was vague and speculative in nature. The applicant has based his views entirely on what he says he has seen happen to others when they return. However, he did not give any detail about what happened to others and when, or to whom these things happened, only that they suffered long term illness or died from witchcraft and voodoo. Further, despite the applicant saying that those with family overseas would be perceived as wealthy, and therefore harmed, the applicant has also said that his family have not been harmed, threatened or targeted by any clan members while he has been in Australia, and that he has not been threatened in any way. I find that the applicant’s fears of harm from clan members are merely speculative and not based on direct experience because his family have not been harmed or threatened. I find that what he claims to have seen happen to others are not indicative of what would happen to him, especially as he gave little detail about their circumstances compared to his own. Based on the applicant’s evidence, I find that there is only a remote chance he will be harmed by other clan members due to jealousy. Therefore, I find there is no real chance the applicant will be harmed by any clan members if he returns to Fiji now or in the reasonably foreseeable future because they are jealous of his perceived wealth.
Discrimination against iTaukei – land rights and indigenous rights
In his visa application, the applicant claims his people have been silenced and discriminated against for speaking up about indigenous rights, and he was verbally threatened by supporters of the government for voicing his opinions about indigenous rights. However, at hearing he said he has never been harmed or discriminated against for this reason. I accept his evidence that there are differences in opinion between communities and members within communities about land rights, indigenous rights and related political issues. I accept his evidence that he has been involved in discussions of this nature where differences in opinion were voiced. However, as the applicant stated himself, none of these differences in opinion ever became violent or harmful and the applicant was never harmed. Accordingly, I find that he was not harmed as claimed in his visa application. The applicant also said that a migration agent helped him with his visa application and I find that this is the reason aspects of his written statement, such as the description of his opinion about the outcome of the 2006 coup and claimed draconian laws, were more detailed than his oral evidence and, in relation to the reference to draconian laws, he could not remember what they were or give further details in his oral evidence. I accept the applicant’s oral evidence at hearing that his fears of race discrimination were based entirely on what he has read about on social media or heard on the radio, and not because of direct experience or anything he has observed to have happened to those around him. Accordingly, I find that, contrary to what is presented in his visa application, he does not hold any strong political opinion about the Fijian government’s laws and policies about the iTaukei and he has not been harmed because of his political opinion. I find that there is no real chance he will be harmed because of his political opinion if he returns to Fiji now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.
I accept the applicant’s evidence that he has never been harmed or discriminated against by the government or anyone else because of his ethnicity. I accept that he owns the land his family farms and the government has not tried to acquire that land from him. Although he claims to fear discrimination and that his land will be taken away, as above this fear is based entirely on what he has read about on social media or heard on the radio. As discussed with the applicant at hearing, the DFAT country information about Fiji says that iTaukei are the majority ethnic group in Fiji and enjoy significant social, economic and political capital, and that DFAT assesses there is no official discrimination against iTaukei.[2] The applicant claims that he has heard about the Fijian government taking away land from iTaukei, and once that land is taken away they iTaukei will no longer have any right to it. He claims that the iTaukei do not have any right to the land because the Fijian government maintains ownership and right to all the land in Fiji. However, I have not found any country information to support the applicant’s claim that the Fijian government compulsorily acquires land from iTaukei. Country information says that traditional owners own 90% of the land and the government owns 6%, although there are restrictions on the use of land, such as agricultural land.[3] The applicant has not claimed that he has been harmed by any restrictions on the use of his own land, and has maintained that he is able to use his land for farming and subsistence purposes. The applicant also gave an example that if he employs someone to work on his land, the government may call that person away at any time and he will no longer be able to employ that person. Again, this appears to be a hypothetical scenario unsupported by country information or past experience. Accordingly, I find that there is no suggestion that the applicant’s land will be taken away from him or that he will be harmed in any way because of his ethnicity as an iTaukei. I find that there is no real chance the applicant will be harmed because of his ethnicity as an iTaukei if he returns to Fiji now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.
[2] DFAT Country Information Report Fiji, 20 May 2022, p 12.
[3] DFAT Country Information Report Fiji, 20 May 2022, p 9.
Does the applicant satisfy the refugee criterion for protection?
As I have found that there is no real chance the applicant will suffer serious harm in the form of an inability to subsist, and no real chance the applicant will be harmed because of his perceived wealth, his race or political opinion if he is returned to his home area of Fiji now or in the reasonably foreseeable future, it follows that I find he does not have a well-founded fear of persecution under s 5J(1). He is therefore not a refugee under s 5H and does not satisfy s 36(2)(a).
Does the applicant satisfy the complementary protection criterion for protection?
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).
Section 36(2)(aa) refers to a ‘real risk’ of an applicant suffering significant harm. In MIAC v SZQRB (2013) 210 FCR 505, the ‘real risk’ test was held to impose the same standard as the ‘real chance’ test applicable to the assessment of ‘well-founded fear’ in the Refugee Convention definition and that reasoning appears equally applicable to the refugee criterion in s 5J(1)(b) of the Act.
For the above reasons, I find that there is no real risk the applicant will be harmed by clan members for his perceived wealth. I also find there is no real risk the applicant will be harmed because of his ethnicity or political opinion.
I find that there is a real risk he will be harmed due to a reduced income. However, such harm does not fall within the exhaustive definition of “significant harm” under s 36(2A) as it does not involve a threat to the applicant’s life or liberty, or subject the applicant to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment, because he and his family will continue to be able to subsist on farming. Such harm will also not lead to the death penalty being carried out upon him, or subject the applicant to torture, or degrading treatment or punishment.
Accordingly, I find that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the non-citizen being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is no real risk that the non-citizen will suffer significant harm and the applicant does not satisfy s 36(2)(aa).
CONCLUSION
For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(a) or s 36(2)(aa).
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
The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.
Date of hearing: 30 May 2025
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.
…
0
1
0