It is surprising how often people still think that complementary protection requires the identification of a motivation or reason for the feared harm. The proposition is plainly wrong.
In AON15 v Minister For Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCAFC 48 at [3], Besanko J said:
Furthermore, the appellant submitted that no Convention “nexus” is required to attract the operation of the complementary protection criterion. I accept both of these propositions.
Of course, this is different to reasoning along the lines of that since the asserted motivation for the harm is not believed (as opposed to not connected to some kind of Convention nexus), there is no real risk. This kind of reasoning is plainly permissible.