Norway The Norwegian Government issued a Ministerial Instruction in 2021 which confirms an improved approach to Article 1D. In the past, the Norwegian government took the position that if it was determined that a Palestinian was not excluded from protection under Article 1D, that person would then be on an equal footing with other refugees and would need to prove well-founded fear of persecution under Article 1A. In the new Ministerial Instruction, there is recognition that if not excluded under Article 1D (or any other exclusion clause), then the Palestinian applicant should automatically be granted refugee status, in line with the inclusion clause of Article 1D.147 The United Kingdom The UK has guidance relating to Article 1D, which generally follows the El Kott approach.148 Anecdotal evidence indicates that there are still problematic approaches to Article 1D in some Palestinian refugee cases in the UK. Article 1D is not always considered when or how it should be by Home Office decisionmakers, judges, and sometimes an applicant’s legal representative.149 In HA v UK (2020),150 the European Court of Human Rights considered the case of a stateless Palestinian, formerly a resident in Lebanon. HA was born and raised in the Ein El-Hilweh refugee camp in Lebanon. In 2015 he was injured during armed conflict in the camp and was approached by rival armed factions seeking to recruit him. He left the camp in 2017 and travelled to the UK, where he claimed asylum based on a fear of forced recruitment or other persecution by paramilitary groups or indiscriminate harm due to frequent violence in the camp, from which there was no effective protection. In 2018, the UK Home Office refused HA’s application for asylum. The UK Government did not accept that HA had faced forced recruitment, based on alleged inconsistencies in his account, and concluded that he did not have a well-founded fear of persecution under the 1951 Refugee Convention. The Government also considered that HA could access UNRWA services upon return to Lebanon and that the exclusion clause of Article 1D therefore applied. In addition, the Government concluded that HA had not faced breaches of Article 2 or 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). On appeal, HA relied on an email from UNRWA dated 18 May 2018 which confirmed insecurity and violence in the Ein El-Hilweh camp and resulting intermittent cessation of UNRWA services in the camp. The judge in the First-Tier Tribunal found HA’s account of events to be generally credible but held that he was excluded under Article 1D because he could return to Lebanon and access UNRWA services. The Tribunal further held that any risk to HA from either particular targeting or indiscriminate violence did not meet the threshold required for refugee status or subsidiary 147 The instruction mentions CJEU judgements Bolbol (C-31/09), El Kott (C-364/11) and XT (C507/19) and states: 1. Asylum seekers who received UNRWA’s protection or assistance shortly before the application for asylum was submitted shall be excluded from refugee status pursuant to Immigration Act section 31 first paragraph first alternative, cf. Refugee Convention Art. 1D(1), unless UNRWA’s protection or assistance has ceased, cf. Refugee Convention Art. 1D(1)(2). 2. In order for UNRWA’s protection or assistance to be considered ceased, there must be circumstances beyond the asylum seeker’s control with the effect that the applicant can no longer use UNRWA’s protection or assistance. 3. If UNRWA’s protection or assistance has ceased, the asylum seeker shall automatically be granted refugee status pursuant to section 28 first paragraph letter a, unless the applicant is covered by one of the other grounds for exclusion in the Immigration Act section 31. GI-03/2021 – ‘Instruks om praktisering av utlendingsloven § 31 første ledd, jf. flyktningkonvensjonen art. 1 D’ (‘Instructions on the practice of the Immigration Act § 31, first paragraph, cf. the Refugee Convention’(26 May 2021) https://www.regjeringen.no/no/dokumenter/gi-032021-instruks-om-praktisering-avutlendingsloven-31-forste-ledd-jf.-flyktningkonvensjonen-art.-1-d/id2851094/?fbclid=IwAR03a4V880hTA00U-uvD03d7x URg2xd2iz1mpq3S11MVfnuPa9B_hBZcsCI, final para [summary and translation provided by Marek Linha, Senior Legal Adviser, Norwegian Organisation for Asylum Seekers, 29 Nov 2021]. 148 Home Office, Asylum Policy Instruction: ‘Article 1D of the Refugee Convention: Palestinian refugees assisted by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA)’ (v 2.0, 9 May 2016) https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/ system/uploads/attachment_data/file/524502/A-on-Article-1D-and-Palestinians-v2_0.pdf. 149 A query by Cynthia Orchard to an online forum for legal practitioners in the UK in January 2021 resulted in responses from legal practitioners relating to several then ongoing or recent Palestinian asylum cases where a problematic approach had been taken by the Home Office, judges, or a previous legal representative. 150 HA v UK, European Court of Human Rights, Application no. 30919/20 (16 Nov 2020] http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-206293 (Statement of Facts and Questions to the Parties). 27