5.2. Analysis of CJEU Jurisprudence The first holding in Bolbol (that “at present” means the present day rather than the date the 1951 Convention was signed) is a helpful clarification that now seems obvious, but was not at the time Bolbol was decided. The holding in Bolbol that only persons who have actually registered with UNRWA or accessed UNRWA’s services come within the scope of Article 1D creates a gap for some Palestinians who were at least in theory eligible to register with UNRWA, who also should be eligible for inclusion under Article 1D. The CJEU’s holding fails to acknowledge that UNRWA registration is voluntary, and that originally, eligibility for registration with UNRWA was based on need for assistance, and that now, eligibility for assistance is still based on severe need.121 Registration with UNRWA, or having accessed UNRWA services, should not be the key factor in determining whether 1D applies to include a Palestinian within the scope of the 1951 Convention. Rather, to fulfil the object and purpose of the 1951 Convention to provide continuing protection to Palestinians, the application of Article 1D should be based on Palestinian origin and displacement. UNHCR rejects this Bolbol holding as being “incompatible with the object and purpose of Article 1D” and urges decision-makers to take a more favourable approach in line with the protective purpose of Article 1D.122 Palestinian born in Gulf country Consider, for example, a person whose Palestine refugee parents lived for many years in Lebanon and registered with UNRWA there, but who left because the father got a job in a Gulf country shortly before the child’s birth. The parents and child have permission to reside in the Gulf country based only on the father’s employment. The child, born in the Gulf country, has never lived in an UNRWA area, is not registered with UNRWA, nor ever received UNRWA services. But, as a descendant of a Palestine refugee father, she is also already a refugee, in accordance with international legal principles. She is also stateless. She has no permission to reside in Lebanon nor any country other than the country in which she was born, and her residence there is linked to her father’s employment. When she reaches adulthood, if her father loses his job or if the daughter no longer qualifies as a dependent of her father, she faces a serious gap in the protection available to her. Assume the father loses his job. The daughter, now in her 20s, travels to a country that is a signatory to the 1951 Convention and seeks asylum. She has difficulty succeeding with a claim for asylum based on fear of persecution, and in fact, she cannot return to her country of former habitual residence because she has no right to reside there. Whether she is actually registered with UNRWA or received UNRWA assistance should not determine her status. Rather, she should be considered to come within the scope of Article 1D as a person of Palestine origin who would have been eligible for registration with UNRWA had her parents not left UNRWA’s area of operation before her birth. No UNRWA assistance is available to her, for reasons beyond her control. She should be included under Article 1D and be considered a refugee under the 1951 Convention, ipso facto.123 If she is in a country with a functional statelessness determination procedure, she could seek protection as a stateless person – but this option does not negate the fact that she is also a refugee who should be entitled to protection under Article 1D. As argued by BADIL, El Kott is flawed in holding that the phrase “for any reason” means a reason “beyond the control” and “independent of the volition” of the applicant. The key consideration should be whether a Palestinian refugee is able to access effective protection.124 The language of the Convention does not 121 For more information about UNRWA registration, see UNRWA, ‘What We Do’: https://www.unrwa.org/what-we-do/ eligibility-registration#:~:text=Since%202006%2C%20husbands%20and%20descendants,registered%20to%20receive%20 UNRWA%20services (accessed 15 Apr 2022). 122 UNHCR, Guidelines on International Protection, No. 13, n 6, Para 14. 123 See also van Doren and ors, 310-313, n 87 for an illustration of Belgian jurisprudence on this point. 124 BADIL, Closing Protection Gaps, Ch 5, S 1.3, n 11.. 21