Legal briefing on the rights of stateless Palestinians in the UK September 2025 persecution.106 The Court held that the applicant was to be granted international protection as he would be at risk of persecution for a Convention reason (race) and treatment contrary to Article 3 ECHR.107 Article 3 may also be relevant where Palestinians are likely to face discrimination on the basis of race following return to their country of former habitual residence. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has previously established that ‘discrimination based on race could, in certain circumstances, of itself amount to degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3’, recalling that different treatment on the basis of race may ‘constitute a special form of affront to human dignity’.108 The UK Upper Tribunal has also held that ‘discrimination on the ground of race is a factor that should be taken into account in deciding whether a breach of Article 3 has been established. It may in some circumstances tip the balance’.109 In this context, in March 2024, the Home Office also conceded the asylum and human rights appeal of a Palestinian citizen of Israel on the basis that he would be subject to discrimination in Israel on account of his race.110 The 2023 case, BJ (Palestinian Territories) v SSHD (IAC) (Unreported) concerned an individual who was born in the West Bank and applied for international protection in the UK.111 The Upper Tribunal set aside a judgment of the First Tier Tribunal, ruling that the judge had failed to give adequate consideration to the statelessness of the individual when assessing whether he would be at risk upon return. The Court noted: ‘It is true that not every denial of citizenship amounts to persecution. However, it can be a factor that, along with other factors, gives rise to a real risk of persecution or ill-treatment in a particular case. Likewise, the Appellant’s statelessness and practicality as to his return are directly relevant to his Article 8 claim’.112 2.2.2. Assessing multiple countries of former habitual residence (a) Identifying habitual residence Where a stateless Palestinian fears persecution, but Article 1D does not apply, the assessment of a well-founded fear of persecution must be assessed with reference to their country of former habitual residence.113 Given the history of repeated forced displacement experienced by many Palestinians, Palestinian applicants may have multiple countries of former habitual residence. Determining against which of these countries (or in relation to how many) their claim should be considered will be a critical factor in their claim for asylum. UNHCR defines ‘habitual residence’ as stable, factual residence, covering persons who have been granted permanent residence, and also individuals without a residence permit who are settled in a country and have an expectation of maintaining residence there.114 UNHCR guidance recognises that ‘once a stateless person has abandoned the country of his former habitual residence for the 106 ibid, paras 11 – 14. ibid, para 53. 108 ECtHR, East African Asians v United Kingdom, applications no. 4403/70, 4419/70 and others (14 December 1973). See also Legal Action Group, ‘Asylum for Palestinian Citizens of Israel’ (accessed 2 September 2025). 109 UK Immigration Appeal Tribunal, SSHD v. S and K [2002] UKIAT 5613 (3 December 2002). 110 Legal Action Group, ‘Asylum for Palestinian Citizens of Israel’ (accessed 2 September 2025). 111 UK Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), BJ (Palestinian Territories) v. SSHD, appeal no. PA/05123/2019 (8 September 2023). 112 ibid, para 10. 113 Article 1A(2) of the Refugee Convention. 114 UNHCR, Handbook on Protection of Stateless Persons (2014), para 139. 107 24