1719593 (Refugee) [2021] AATA 4740 (14 October 2021)

DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:	Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER:	1719593
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:	China
MEMBER:	Rachel Da Costa
DATE:	14 October 2021
PLACE OF DECISION:	Sydney
DECISION:	The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

Statement made on 14 October 2021 at 3:20pm

CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – China – religion – Christian – outlawed house churches – detention – sheltering church members – delay in applying for protection – decision under review affirmed

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

CASES
MIAC v SZQRB [2013] FCAFC 33

Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other dependants.
STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW
1.  	This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection on 2 August 2017 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
2.  	The applicant who claims to be a citizen of China, applied for the visa on 20 December 2016. The applicant was invited to attend an interview with the Department to discuss his protection visa application on 2 August 2017. The applicant did not attend this appointment and the interview was not rescheduled. On 2 August 2017, the delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the applicant is not a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations. 
3.  	On 28 August 2017, the applicant lodged an application for review of the delegate’s decision with the Tribunal. He provided a copy of the delegate’s decision with his application. 
4.  	On 29 September 2021, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant advising that it had considered all the material before it relating to the application but it was unable to make a favourable decision on that information alone. The Tribunal invited the applicant to give oral evidence and present arguments at a hearing on 15 October 2021. The Tribunal exercised its discretion to hold the hearing by telephone. The hearing was scheduled during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Tribunal determined it was reasonable to hold a hearing by telephone, having regard to the nature of this matter and the individual circumstances of the applicant. The Tribunal also had regard to the Tribunal’s objective of providing a mechanism of review that is fair, just, economical and quick, and the delay to the matter if the hearing was not to be conducted by telephone.
5.  	On 5 October 2021, the Tribunal received an email from the applicant stating that he would not attend the hearing and requesting that the Tribunal make a decision in his case without him attending the hearing. On 6 October 2021, the Tribunal spoke to the applicant on the telephone, with the assistance of an interpreter in the Mandarin language, to confirm his request. Later the same day the applicant sent a further email confirming that he did not wish to attend the hearing and authorising the Tribunal to make a decision based on the documents he has provided. Accordingly, this matter has been determined on the evidence available to the Tribunal. 
CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
Background
6.  	In his protection visa application form the applicant provided the following information. He was born on [date] in Ruian city, Zhejiang province, China. He speaks, reads and writes Mandarin. He is a Christian. In China he has a mother, father, [and specified family members] who he contacts sometimes by phone. He is married and has [specified children] born in [specified years]. His wife and children live in China. [Between specified years] he lived in Wenzhou city. From 1994 to 1997 he lived in Jiangsu province. From 1998 to 2004 he lived in Xian city. From 2005 to 2016 he lived in Wenzhou city. He completed primary school and middle school in China, finishing in [year]. [Between specified years] he worked in a [factory]. [Between specified years] he was in the army. From 1998 to 2004 he worked in a [product] shop. From 2005 to 2016 he was a supervisor in a [business]. He has been unemployed since 2016. He arrived in Australia [in] October 2016 on his passport issued by the People’s Republic of China [in] 2016, as the holder of a visitor visa that was valid until 9 January 2017.
7.  	In a lengthy and discursive statement attached to his protection visa application the applicant makes the following claims as summarised by the Tribunal.
•	He is from the countryside in Zhejiang province. Growing up, he was not religious. 
•	Growing up, his family contracted some farmland and then invested in a village enterprise. In the late 1990s more and more people in the village were becoming religious. The local government did nothing to ban them, except for some occasional orders which nobody took seriously.
•	When a relative preached their faith to the applicant’s parents they accepted it and began to attend a house church. His parents took active part in church activities and helped others in need. At this stage, the applicant was not religious but he wondered what the power was behind the church to have turned so many selfish and indifferent people into more caring ones and so many people into enthusiastic preachers of the gospel.
•	The applicant met a [Country 1] merchant called [Leader A] who was a pious Christian. He told the applicant a lot of bible stories and the doctrines behind them. Some time later, the applicant realised that [Leader A] was taking advantage of his profession to preach the gospel and his parents’ house church was also promoted by him. 
•	The applicant had previously been to the Patriotic Church with his friends but since [Leader A] began to preach the gospel to him he had a new feeling about [Leader A’s] religion. The applicant used to think all churches were the same but after he read a book that [Leader A] gave him he began to change his views. He heard a previous member of the Patriotic Church say the Patriotic Church was doing everything to avoid mentioning sins and trials in the bible because the mention of that would touch the government’s most sensitive nerve and anyone who tried to do so would be suspected of overthrowing authority in collaboration with hostile forces abroad.
•	Later, the applicant was elected a village cadre. Since 2000, notices kept coming from higher-level government that any house church that refused to accept the supervision of the Patriotic Church would be outlawed. Many house churches were pulled down. The applicant could not understand why the government took such cruel measures against the churches that used to be obedient to them. They began to question the government’s unreasonable policy. 
•	Because their church was sticking to its principle of being independent, it had to go underground for a long time. All his family members except him had converted to the house church and were baptized there secretly. As a village cadre, he could not publicly convert but he was very interested in taking part in the church activities. Whenever the local government sent people to suppress house churches he did what he could to help shelter them secretly out of sympathy.
•	On [a specified day in] 2016, two adherents of their church were arrested for preaching the gospel to people in other areas. The applicant felt guilty that he was not able to protect them. Soon more people in the church were summoned by the security police and the applicant suspected there might be a traitor hidden in their organisation. Later, someone in the police told him that all the people in their church were to be investigated. His parents and wife were summoned for inquiries and detained for two days. He was also hunted by the security police. He hid himself at his friend’s home. To ensure he could leave the country safely, he had to spend money entrusting his friend with all his emigration formalities.
•	The purposes of him coming to Australia were to escape from the approaching danger and to have a look at churches in Australia. He wanted to know whether the official Patriotic Church in China was in accordance with the bible’s instructions and how to preach the gospel. 
•	He found a proper church at [Church 1] in Sydney and began to attend its congregations and seminars. He has determined to stay with it and make a new start for his faith. He will not have to hide his faith and his intention to attend an underground church anymore. He can be proud of being a Christian and preaching the gospel.
•	He has just learned the Australian Government is protecting freedom and faith and he is among those eligible for filing an application for protection. His family members are being persecuted for their religious faith now and he hopes their tragedies will never repeat on him. 
8.  	On 2 August 2017, the delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the applicant is not a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations. In the delegate’s view, the written material did not provide a sufficient basis to be satisfied that the applicant is, in fact, a Christian or that he faces harm of any kind for such a reason, or for any other reason, on return to China. 
Nationality
9.  	The applicant claims to be a citizen of China and provided to the Department a copy of his Chinese passport issued [in] 2016. The delegate was satisfied that the applicant was using his own identity and documents. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant is a citizen of China. The Tribunal finds China is his receiving country for the purpose of assessing his claims for protection. There is no evidence before the Tribunal to suggest that the applicant has the right to enter and reside in any other country for the purposes of the Act.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
The relevant law
10.  	The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s.36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (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.
11.  	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.
12.  	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).
13.  	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.
14.  	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
15.  	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.
Analysis, reasons and findings
16.  	The issue in this case is whether the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
17.  	As discussed above, the Tribunal formed the preliminary view that there was not sufficient evidence before it to be satisfied that the applicant’s claims are reliable and that he faces harm for his claimed Christian religious practices, or for any other reason, if he returned to China now or in the foreseeable future. The Tribunal informed the applicant in the hearing invitation that, on the evidence before it, it was unable to make a favourable decision. For this reason, the Tribunal invited the applicant to a hearing to give him the opportunity to give evidence and present arguments relating to the issues arising in his case. Despite this, the applicant declined his hearing invitation.
18.  	Like the delegate, the Tribunal only has the applicant’s written claims before it to consider. As the applicant declined his hearing invitation, the Tribunal has not had an opportunity to test those claims. The Tribunal’s view remains that the applicant’s claims are lacking in sufficient detail and substance in a number of respects. For example, it is not clear when the applicant claims he became a Christian. Although the applicant claims he wondered what the power was behind the house church before he became religious, it is not clear what attracted him to Christianity before he joined the house church. The nature of the applicant’s Christian beliefs as a member of a house church, the extent of the applicant’s knowledge of Christian doctrine and what being a Christian means to him, are not clear. It is not clear where, how, how often, when and with whom he practiced his Christianity in China.  Based on the evidence before it, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a Christian. It follows that the Tribunal cannot be satisfied in relation to the applicant’s claims that flow from this.
19.  	Accordingly, on the evidence before it, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant’s parents became Christians. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant went to the Patriotic Church with his friends sometimes. It does not accept that the applicant began to change his views after [Leader A] preached to him and gave him some books to read. It does not accept that the applicant’s church had to go underground. It does not accept that the applicant was elected a village cadre. It does not accept that the applicant could not publicly convert to the house church because he was a village cadre or for any other reason. It does not accept that he was interested in taking part in all the church activities. It does not accept that when the local government sent people to supress the house churches he always did what he could to help and shelter them. It does not accept that he felt guilty that he was unable to protect fellow members of his church who were arrested on [a specified day] in 2016, or that adherents of his church were arrested on that day or at all. It does not accept that he was informed by a police insider that all the people in his church were to be investigated. It does not accept that his parents and wife were summoned for inquiries and detained for two days, or at all. It does not accept that he was hunted by the security police. It does not accept that he hid himself at a friend’s home or that he spent money entrusting his friend with his emigration formalities. It does not accept that he fled China to escape from the approaching dangers and to have a look at churches in Australia, or that he fears returning to China for the reasons claimed. It does not accept that he attends [Church 1] and is preaching the gospel. It does not accept that his family members are being persecuted for their religious faith. 
Does the applicant meet the refugee criterion?
20.  	The applicant claims that if he returns to China he will be persecuted for his Christian religious faith. In light of the Tribunal’s findings in paragraphs 18 and 19 above, the Tribunal does not accept these claims. Therefore, the Tribunal finds the applicant does not face a real chance of serious harm arising from these circumstances. 
21.  	Taking into account the findings set out above and having considered the claims singularly and on a cumulative basis, the Tribunal is not satisfied that if the applicant returns to China now or in the foreseeable future that he faces a real chance of serious harm because of his claimed Christian religious faith or for any other reason set out in s 5J(1)(a) of the Act.
22.  	Accordingly, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution for any of the reasons set out in the Act, or for any other reason. As the Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution, it is not satisfied that the applicant meets the definition of refugee in s 5H(1). As the applicant does not meet the definition in s 5H(1), the Tribunal is not satisfied he is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(a).
Does the applicant meet the complementary protection criterion?
23.  	As the Tribunal has found that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a) of the Act, it has considered whether the applicant meets the criterion for the grant of a protection visa under the complementary protection criterion in s 36(2)(aa).
24.  	As the ‘real risk’ test under the complementary protection criterion imposes the same standard as the ‘real chance’ test under the refugee criterion, for the same reasons as those set out above, the Tribunal finds that the applicant does not face a real risk of significant harm because of his claimed Christian religious faith or for any other reason. 
25.  	Therefore, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to China, there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm. Therefore, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(aa).
Conclusion
26.  	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).
27.  	Having concluded that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a), the Tribunal has considered the alternative criterion in s.36(2)(aa). The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(aa).
28.  	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
29.  	The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

Rachel Da Costa
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.
…