1) In order to determine whether a person is no longer receiving protection or assistance from UNRWA, national authorities should consider “all the fields of UNRWA’s area of operations which a stateless person of Palestinian origin who has left that area has a concrete possibility of accessing and safely remaining therein”;108 2) UNRWA’s assistance cannot be considered to have ceased where the applicant departed from a field of UNRWA operation in which their safety was at risk and UNRWA was unable to provide assistance (field A), but they had previously travelled to that field from another field of UNRWA operation where their safety was not at risk and they could have received assistance from UNRWA (field B), in circumstances where they could not have reasonably expected to receive UNRWA assistance in the first field (field A), nor to have been able to return at short notice to the second field (field B).109 Germany v XT (2021) This case concerns a stateless Palestinian born in Syria. He is registered with UNRWA and grew up in Yarmouk Refugee Camp in Damascus. He lived in Lebanon from 2013 to 2015 and worked in casual jobs. He returned to Syria as he could not get a residence permit in Lebanon and feared expulsion. He left Syria after a few days, due to the harsh situation there, including the then-ongoing civil war. At that time, Palestinians were banned from entering Jordan and Lebanon.110 XT applied for international protection in Germany in December 2015. After initially being granted subsidiary protection rather than refugee status, XT appealed. Two appeal courts found that XT was entitled to refugee status, and the German Federal Administrative Court referred the case to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling, which was issued in January 2021. The CJEU holds that the possibility of return to an UNRWA area should be considered with respect to any part of UNRWA’s area of operation. It clarifies that when assessing possible entry to an UNRWA field of operations, asylum authorities should consider relevant factors such as: whether the applicant has a residence permit; family ties; former residence; why they left a particular area; and pertinent declarations or practices of authorities in the areas concerned. However, none of these are necessarily definitive on their own.111 The Court observed that it is for the authorities of the country of asylum to determine whether an applicant meets the requisite criteria, but noted that XT could not obtain a residence permit in Lebanon and left Lebanon in the context of increased deportations of Palestinians from Lebanon to Syria. The Court concludes that “his departure from UNRWA’s area of operations taken as a whole was not voluntary.”112 In April 2021, the German Federal Administrative Court remitted this case for reconsideration of the relevant facts and to make necessary findings in the light of the CJEU decision of 13 January 2021.113 NB and AB: The most recent CJEU decision relating to Article 1D is NB and AB v UK.114 The case concerns a mother and child, NB and AB, stateless Palestinians formerly residing in Lebanon. They are registered 108 Ibid, Para 82(1), 67. 109 Ibid, Para 82(2). 110 Ibid, Paras 19–21. 111 Ibid, Paras 58–62. 112 Ibid, Para 79, 78-89, 74. 113 See Federal Administrative Court [Bundesverwaltungsgericht], Applicant (Palestine) v BAMF, ECLI:EN:BVerw G:2021:270421U1C2.21.0, 27 April 2021 (available in German at: https://www.bverwg.de/de/270421U1C2.21.0 (English translation provided by Helena Marambio to Cynthia Orchard, 5 Dec 2021). The final outcome was not known to us at the time of writing this report. 114 NB and AB (C-349/20) v SSHD (UK), ECLI:EU:C:2022:151 (CJEU, 3 March 2022). https://caselaw.statelessness.eu/caselaw/ cjeu-nb-ab-case-c-34920 19