2432244 (Refugee) - [2024] ARTA 637

2432244 (REFUGEE) [2024] ARTA 637 (14 NOVEMBER 2024)
DECISION AND
REASONS FOR DECISION
Respondent: Minister for Home Affairs

Tribunal Number: 2432244
Tribunal:General Member C Wilson
Date:14 November 2024

Place:Adelaide
Decision:The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and remits the application for a protection visa for reconsideration, in accordance with the order that the applicant meets the following criteria:
·s 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act.

Statement made on 14 November 2024 at 10:00am
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Malaysia – particular social group – homosexual man now transitioning to transgender woman – fear of discrimination, violence and lack of access to hormone treatment – mental health and treatment – medical assessment and report and supporting statements – country information – national, state and syariah laws – modification of conduct impermissible – decision under review remitted
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5H(1)(a), 5J(1), (3)(a), (b), (c)(vi), 36(2)(a), 65
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2
CASE
Sandor v MICMA [2023] FCA 434
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 of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 11 April 2023 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The applicant, who claims to be a national of Malaysia, applied for the visa on 10 September 2021. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that they were not satisfied the applicant was a trans woman and found they would not face a real chance or real risk of harm as a Christian gay man in Malaysia.
The applicant was represented in relation to the review.
The applicant lodged the application for review on 9 September 2024, 17 months after the delegate refused the visa application. Ordinarily this would mean the application was lodged out of time and I would have no jurisdiction to consider it. However, I consider the notification letter from the Department in this case is invalid for the reason identified in Sandor v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCA 434. That is, the letter did not make it clear that the prescribed period to apply for review started to run from when the authorised recipient is taken to have received the visa refusal notification letter. Therefore the prescribed period in which to apply for the review had not commenced and his application was not out of time. I find the Tribunal has jurisdiction to review this application.
BACKGROUND
Evidence before the Department
The applicant provided the following information and claims in the visa application lodged in September 2021, and in response to an invitation from the delegate under s 56 of the Act to provide more information:
·They were born male and grew up in Sabah, Malaysia, in a Christian household.
·When they were 15 they were sexually assaulted by a pastor staying at their house.
·Although they could not be openly gay the local community suspected the were and it was not accepted. People still ask their parents if they are living ‘that lifestyle’. They were beaten by their father and their mother threatened to send them to a Christian conversion therapy camp.
·They arrived in Australia in 2014 on a student visa. They completed qualifications in [subjects], and commenced working as [an occupation].
·They remained in Australia when they realised it was possible to be an openly gay man here, which they could not do in Malaysia.
·They are currently exploring transitioning, which would not be possible in Malaysia.
·Their family and community will not accept them, and they fear they will not be safe and would face discrimination living as an openly gay man or possibly trans woman in Malaysia.
The applicant also provided a number of photographs, social media screenshots, and letters of support in support of their claims to be gay and/or transgender.
Based on the information provided, the delegate was satisfied the applicant identified as a gay man. The delegate did not however accept that the applicant was a trans woman or presented as one or was intending to transition.
Evidence before the Tribunal
The applicant provided the following information and evidence to the Tribunal:
·Written submission from their representative.
·Statutory declaration of the applicant dated 30 August 2024.
·Letters of support from people who know them as a trans woman.
·A forensic psychological report from [Dr A].
·A psychiatric assessment from consultant psychiatrist [Dr B].
·Other medical and pathology documents.
The applicant was not invited to a hearing as I was satisfied I could adequately determine the matter in their favour without a hearing.
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
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the matter should be set aside and remitted for reconsideration.
Country of reference
The applicant claims to be a Malaysian national. In support of this they provided copies of their Malaysian Passport and identity card (MyKad). Based on the identity documents, I accept they are a Malaysian national and find Malaysia is their receiving country.
Does the applicant satisfy the refugee criterion for protection?
The applicant originally claimed to fear harm in Malaysia for reason of their membership of the particular social groups of gay men in Malaysia or LGBT persons in Malaysia. In more recent submissions they clarify they fear harm as a member of the particular social group of males who transition to females.
In support of their claim to be a trans woman the applicant provided medical evidence and a number of supporting statements. The statements are ‘character references’ from people who know them in Australia, including their current partner. All of the statements indicate they recognise the applicant as a trans woman.
The applicant says they started exploring whether they may be transgender after they moved to Adelaide from Melbourne in 2021. In Adelaide they socialised with a group of transgender persons and this was eye opening for them. They started dressing in women’s clothes in September 2022, and when they did this they realised how much better it made them feel about themselves. Shortly afterwards they started presenting as female when out in public, but not yet at work. In early 2023 they started taking hormone medication they secured from a friend, and when they noticed mental, emotional, and physical benefits they sought a medical appointment to access this therapy. By this time they identified as a trans woman. However, their protection visa was refused in April 2023 and in June 2023 they were arrested for drug offences. Whilst in prison and on remand they openly identified as a transwoman, and commenced hormone therapy in May 2024. They fear that if they are returned to Malaysia they will face serious harm including physical and verbal harm, discrimination, and lack of access to hormone treatment
Forensic psychologist [Dr A] provided a report dated 13 December 2023. [Dr A] met with the applicant on two occasions in November and December 2023. [Dr A] provides a detailed history of the applicant’s life in Malaysia, background to the drug offences, and the process of realising they may be transgender and commencing to transition. [Dr A] forms the opinion that the applicant has Gender Dysphoria, as well as an Adjustment Disorder with Anxiety. [Dr A] recommends that the applicant access medical support to commence hormone therapy and/or the process of undergoing gender affirming surgery.
Psychiatrist [Dr B] provided a report dated 6 February 2024 after meeting the applicant for the purpose of a psychiatric assessment. [Dr B] provides a detailed history and diagnoses the applicant as having Gender Dysphoria. [Dr B] says the applicant started socially transitioning from 2021 and took hormone therapy sourced from friends. The applicant could not continue transitioning whilst in prison, but accessed gender wellbeing services from [Organisation] during that period. [Dr B] recommends hormone therapy and other medical support from the [Hospital] Transgender Clinic.
The applicant provided medical documents that demonstrate they have commenced officially prescribed hormone therapy in May 2024.
I make no adverse findings on any perceived inconsistency in the claims for protection. That is, the original application was made on the basis that the applicant feared harm as a gay man but this has been reframed as a fear of harm as a trans woman. I accept the applicant has been exploring their gender and sexual identity in Australia and since they lodged the visa application in 2021. I note both [Dr A] and [Dr B] reported the applicant only became aware that they might be transgender after they moved to Adelaide, interacted with a trans community, and realised this was a possibility. Prior to this, the applicant says they merely felt they were an ‘effeminate gay man’. Neither specialist had any concerns with the applicant’s history or how they came to identify as transgender. Having regard to the medical evidence from [Dr A], [Dr B], the evidence of hormone therapy, the statutory declaration, and the support letters, I accept the applicant now identifies and is recognised by others as a trans woman. I accept the applicant intends to live as a trans woman and would want to do so if returned to Malaysia.
The applicant claims they fear returning to Malaysia because they will be unable to continue to access hormone therapy or other medical assistance related to their transition. They fear the harsh and strict laws against homosexuality and gender nonconformity in Malaysia, influenced by Sharia law. They fear being subjected to violence and discrimination as a trans woman, including being discriminated against when seeking employment. There is no family who would support them financially as they are estranged from family due to their gender orientation.
DFAT reports the following in relation to the treatment of transgender people in Malaysia:
While cross-dressing is not technically illegal under civil law, state-level police have arrested transgender women under the Minor Offenses Act (1955) for public indecency and immorality, and under syariah-based laws against impersonating women. A transgender individual was permitted to change their name, sex marker, and related last digit on their MyKad in 2005, but this has not been repeated. The National Registration Department does not generally allow transgender people to access such changes. In 1983, the National Fatwa Council banned Muslims from undergoing sexual reassignment surgery (SRS). However, SRS remains available in some private medical centres in Malaysia…
When placed in custody, transgender women are held in male custodial facilities. Numerous human rights organisations have reported state religious officials, corrections officers and fellow detainees have subjected transgender women to physical and/or sexual violence and degrading treatment while in custody. In-country sources reported transgender women were also denied access to public education upon transitioning, and often avoided seeking medical treatment in public hospitals due to the requirement that they are placed in male wards.
A ‘male person posing as a woman’ is a syariah offence in many states. Aspects of gender transition medical interventions may also constitute a criminal offence. A law in Kelantan state criminalises transgender people who undergo body modification, which may include breast implants. The offence targets the transgender person and potentially the medical provider. Transgender women struggle to access housing…
In December 2018, a group of five people aged between 16 and 21 years violently attacked and killed a transgender woman in Klang (outside Kuala Lumpur). In January 2019, police arrested a 55-year-old man in the same location in relation to the death of a transgender woman who reportedly fell from a moving vehicle. The NGO Justice for Sisters reported at least two murders of transgender women between November 2019 and October 2020. A transgender woman was found dead in Johor in October 2023, with injuries to her head and face, and some social media users posted homophobic slurs and mocking comments in response to the news…
DFAT assesses that members of the LGBTQIA+ people face a high risk of official discrimination and a moderate risk of societal discrimination, which may include being subjected to prosecution, ‘re-education’, exclusion from public spaces, housing, and employment opportunities. DFAT also assess that LGBTQIA+ people face a moderate risk of familial and/or societal violence. LGBTQIA+ people who are also Malay/Muslim, poor, transgender, and/or live in rural areas face a high risk of official and societal harassment, discrimination and familial and/or societal violence.[1]
[1] DFAT, Country Information Report Malaysia, 24 June 2024.
The United Kingdom Home Office (UKHO) reports:
In general, trans persons who are open about their gender identity face a risk of societal discrimination and violence which may by its nature and repetition or by an accumulation of various measures be sufficiently severe to amount to persecution. However, this is likely to depend on a person’s socio-economic status, religion, and geographic location…
Trans persons face violence, blackmail, verbal and physical abuse, discrimination from, and rejection by, their families and members of society, particularly those from a Muslim background where there is strong social taboo in relation to LGBTI issues. Violence against trans persons is underreported, although there have been a few cases covered by the media. Sources often report on the ill treatment of trans women rather than that of trans men, and it is unclear whether this is due to under-reporting or whether such treatment against trans men occurs less frequently. Two thirds of trans women are said to have faced some form of physical or emotional abuse.
Trans persons face limited opportunities in official employment and are subject to workplace discrimination…
It can be difficult for trans persons to get access to medical care due to transphobia among healthcare personnel, and a shortage of medical professionals skilled in the health requirements of trans people.[2]
[2] UKHO, Country Policy and Information Note Malaysia: Sexual orientation and gender identity or expression, July 2024.
Human Rights Watch (HRW) reports that Malaysia is one of a handful of countries that explicitly makes gender nonconformity a criminal offense, and criminalises consensual same sex conduct at both the federal and state levels. Successive Malaysian governments have taken a position that LGBT people should change their sexual orientation or gender identity, or should be prepared to face the consequences of social ostracization, discrimination, humiliation, and violence. HRW reports it is an offence in Sabah for a woman or man to dress in attire of the opposite sex, punishable by a fine up to one thousand ringgits or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months.[3]
[3] HRW, ‘I don’t want to change myself’: Anti-LGBT Conversion Practices, Discrimination, and Violence in Malaysia, 10 August 2022.
Having regard to the country information regarding the treatment of members of the LGBTQIA+ community in Malaysia, I accept the applicant’s fears that they may face violence, discrimination, and a lack of transition medical treatment as a trans woman in Malaysia are not unfounded. I note that dressing in women’s clothes in their home area in Sabah is an offence. I find the chance of the applicant facing harm for openly expressing their gender identity as a trans woman in Malaysia is not remote and in fact amounts to a real chance.
I accept the applicant faces a real chance of persecution if they return to Malaysia for reason of being transgender. I accept the essential and significant reason for the persecution is their membership of the particular social group ‘transgender persons in Malaysia’. I accept the persecution may involve significant physical or psychological harassment, societal violence, criminal charges, or significant discrimination amounting to serious harm. I accept the persecution involves systematic and discriminatory conduct.
I have considered whether the applicant could take reasonable steps to modify their conduct to avoid a real chance of persecution. However such steps would involve altering their gender identity. It is impermissible to require such steps under s.5J(3)(a), (b), or (c)(vi).

As the state is one of the agents of persecution I find that effective protection measures are not available and that the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of Malaysia.
There is nothing before me to indicate the applicant has a right to enter and reside in any other country such that Australia would be taken not to have protection obligations: s.36(3).
For these reasons I find the applicant’s fear of persecution if they are returned to Malaysia, now or in the reasonably foreseeable future, is well-founded.
For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(a).
DECISION
The Tribunal sets aside and remits the application for a protection visa for reconsideration, in accordance with the order that the applicant satisfies s 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act.
Representative:  Mr Edel Arvin Chang
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.
…