Legal briefing on the rights of stateless Palestinians in the UK September 2025 explicitly recognises the chronic underfunding experienced by UNRWA and its inability to provide humanitarian assistance in Gaza.87 While UK jurisprudence had previously limited the application of Article 1D to those receiving protection at the time of signature of the Refugee Convention (i.e. ‘at present’), this has since been overruled by Bolbol.88 Thus, Article 1D includes within its scope any Palestinian refugee receiving UNRWA protection or assistance at the time when the application of Article 1D falls to be considered in the individual case. UK courts have also applied the holding from Bolbol that only those who have actually availed themselves of UNRWA assistance fall within the scope of Article 1D.89 In relation to the personal scope of Article 1D, the Home Office guidance outlines that Article 1D ‘applies to the consideration of asylum claims by stateless Palestinians whose habitual place of residence is the oPt or one of the neighbouring States of Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria’.90 However, UK case law demonstrates that this is not always the case in practice. In the case of Nader v SSHD, the UK Upper Tribunal held that Article 1D was applicable, despite the applicant not being habitually resident in Lebanon (or any area of operation of UNRWA).91 Furthermore, the Upper Tribunal ruled that the possibility for the applicant to return to one of UNRWA’s areas of operation was not limited to areas of operation where the individual had formerly habitually resided. Regarding the functional scope of Article 1D, the 2016 Home Office Guidance clarifies that the approach in El Kott is binding on UK courts.92 While it is unclear whether the approach of the UK courts will diverge from CJEU jurisprudence following the completion of the Brexit transition period and to what extent this jurisprudence will have binding or persuasive effect, CJEU case law retains relevance in the context of understanding international developments on the interpretation of Article 1D.93 In 2012 the Upper Tribunal held that, since Article 12(1)(a) of the EU Qualification Directive retains an explicit reference to Article 1D of the Refugee Convention, the ’ruling of the CJEU on this article of the Directive is a ruling not only on the meaning of the Directive but also on the meaning of Article 1D of the Convention’.94 The inability of UNRWA to fulfil its mandate has been recognised to some extent by the UK courts. In the case AB and NB v SSHD of March 2023, the First-tier Tribunal recognised that ‘while UNRWA is still providing basic services to Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, the agency is struggling to meet 87 UK Home Office, Country Policy and Information Note: Humanitarian Situation in Gaza, Occupied Palestinian Territories (November 2024) p 51. 88 For the UK courts’ more restrictive approach, see UK Court of Appeal, Amer Mohammed El-Ali v. SSHD and Daraz v. SSHD [2002] EWCA Civ 1103 (26 July 2002), in particular para 58. Guidance from the Home Office as well as case law confirm a change in approach. See UK Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), Said (Article 1D: Interpretation) v. SSHD (7 November 2012); UK Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), AKO v SSHD, appeal no. PA/09415/2018 (24 January 2022); UK Home Office, Asylum Policy Instruction - Article 1D (fn 57), p 7, 9. 89 AKO v SSHD (fn 88) para 39. See also SSHD v HMS (fn 70) para 61. The applicant in this case was granted refugee status on the basis of Article 1D. 90 UK Home Office, Asylum Policy Instruction - Article 1D (fn 57), p 4. 91 UK Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), Nader v SSHD, Appeal No. PA/11313/2018 (14 March 2019), paras 28-29. 92 UK Home Office, Asylum Policy Instruction - Article 1D (fn 57), p 8. This interpretation was also applied by the First-Tier Tribunal in AB and NB to an asylum claim lodged prior to the end of the transition period (See AB and NB (fn 55) para 36). See also SSHD v HMS (fn 70), para 60. 93 For a discussion on the binding nature of CJEU case law in this context, and a consideration of CJEU cases decided after the completion of the transition period, see UK Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), AKO v SSHD (fn 88) paras 12-39. On this issue, the Norwegian Government has acknowledged that while Norway is not bound by EU law (it not being a member of the European Union), the rulings of the CJEU concerning Article 1D are relevant sources of law when interpreting its international obligations on this issue. See Instruction GI-03/2021. 94 UK Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), Said (Article 1D: Interpretation) v. the SSHD (7 November 2012), paras 1819. 21