Legal briefing on the rights of stateless Palestinians in the UK September 2025 reasons indicated in the definition, he is usually unable to return’.115 Crucially, UNCHR recognises that: ‘A stateless person may have more than one country of former habitual residence, and he may have a fear of persecution in relation to more than one of them. The definition [of Article 1(A)(2) of the Refugee Convention] does not require that he satisfies the criteria in relation to all of them’.116 Thus, the applicant need only demonstrate a fear of persecution in relation to one country of former habitual residence. A narrower interpretation, such as restricting the assessment in relation to the last country of habitual residence only, would represent a limitation that is not present in the wording of the Convention.117 For stateless individuals born outside the oPt who have never resided there, the assessment of a well-founded fear of persecution should still consider the oPt as a country of former habitual residence if it was the habitual residence of their parents. This child-sensitive and purposive interpretation ensures that stateless children are not excluded from refugee protection solely due to their place of birth, and it aligns with the notion that the country of former habitual residence functions as the reference point for assessing persecution in the absence of nationality.118 (b) Comparative case law Domestic courts have approached this issue in various ways.119 In a 2020 judgment in Belgium, the CALL held that, in the case of multiple habitual residences, the absence of a fear of persecution in one and the possibility to return there is not sufficient to consider that the applicant benefits from adequate protection.120 This case concerned a stateless Palestinian who had resided in both Gaza and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) prior to applying for asylum in Belgium on the grounds of threats from Hamas in Gaza. The applicant had not benefitted from UNRWA assistance and was therefore not subject to Article 1D, with his application therefore being considered under Article 1(A)(2). The Council referenced UNHCR guidance and held that an application for international protection was to be considered with reference to the applicant’s two countries of former habitual residence. The fact that the applicant no longer held a residence permit in the UAE did not prevent it from being considered a country of former habitual residence. The Council established that a stateless applicant must only demonstrate a fear of persecution in relation to one of his or her countries of former habitual residence. The absence of persecution or possibility to return to another country of habitual residence was not sufficient to demonstrate the applicant’s access to 115 UNHCR, Handbook and Guidelines on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees (2011), para 101. 116 ibid, para 104. 117 Hélène Lambert and Michelle Foster, International refugee law and the protection of stateless persons (Oxford University Press, 2019), p 139. 118 Sharelle Anne Aitchison, ‘A Teleological and Child-Sensitive Interpretation of a Country of Former Habitual Residence for Stateless Children Born Outside Their Parents’ Country of Nationality or Former Habitual Residence’ in The Statelessness & Citizenship Review 4(1) (2022), 8–31. 119 For example, in the Netherlands, the Council of State has held that a fear of persecution need only be assessed in relation to one country of former habitual residence. in Case 201802214/1/V1, the Council of State upheld the Secretary of State’s decision not to consider protection arguments based on the applicant’s other country of former habitual residence, Syria, and to deny refugee status on the basis of the applicant’s usual residence in the UAE. See Netherlands, Council of State, 201802214/1/V1 (9 February 2019). See also Netherlands, District Court of The Hague, NL19.29411 (12 March 2020); Netherlands, District Court of the Hague, NL21.15401 (11 February 2022). 120 Belgium, Council for Alien Law Litigation, X v General Commissioner for Refugees and Stateless Persons, no. 245933 (10 December 2020). 25