The Broadening Protection Gap This type of decision by the CGRS seems to be generally upheld by the CALL, but the case law is ambiguous. 80 In certain cases, the CALL applies the concept of ‘country of habitual residence’, 81 while in in others it applies ‘first country of asylum’. 82 In one case, for a Palestinian refugee born and raised in the UAE registered with the UNRWA in Gaza, the CALL held that Gaza should be considered as a second country of habitual residence against which the need for international protection should be assessed. 83 The reasoning of the CGRS, which limits art 1D of the 1951 Refugee Convention’s scope of application to individuals that have effectively relied on the assistance of the UNRWA shortly before the application for international protection, seems to run counter to the ratio legis and purpose of art 1D of the 1951 Refugee Convention and to the position of UNHCR elaborated upon in cooperation with the UNRWA. 84 PROTECTION GAPS RESULTING FROM THE DIVERGING APPROACHES The diverging approaches described above are not only problematic in and of themselves — in that the reasoning is often faulty, decisions between like concepts are unfairly and unjustifiably treated differently and subject to territorial competency — but also because they create major risks for protection gaps. The most blatant protection gap is created for those Palestinians for whom it is decided that a fear of persecution is not established in their country of previous habitual residence (often a Gulf State) within the meaning of art 1A of the 1951 Refugee Convention. Such a decision implicitly recognises that the need for international protection is not assessed with regards to a country of nationality and yet, at the same time, no recognition of their statelessness can be made by the courts. Thus, such applicants cannot claim protection as stateless persons. 85 Another, albeit less obvious, protection gap exists in the faulty mechanism for the determination of statelessness, which does not offer specific, effective and predictable protection standards to stateless persons who are found not to be in need of refugee or subsidiary protection status. 86 [I would like to point out to you the possibility of obtaining a residence permit in Belgium by following the appropriate procedure, namely the submission of an application for recognition of stateless status with the family court, followed by the introduction a “request for a residence permit due to the impossibility of returning” to the Immigration Office]. 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 NANSEN Note (n 2) 26. App No 200.597, 1 March 2018 (Council for Alien Law Litigation) <https://www.rvvcce.be/sites/default/files/arr/a200597.an_.pdf>. App No 196.776, 18 December 2017 (Council for Alien Law Litigation) <https://www.rvvcce.be/sites/default/files/arr/A196776.AN.pdf>. App No 188.541, 16 June 2017 (Council for Alien Law Litigation) <https://www.rvvcce.be/sites/default/files/arr/A188541.AN.pdf>. Guidelines on International Protection No 13: Applicability of Article 1D of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees to Palestinian Refugees (Guidelines, United Nations Commissioner for Refugees December 2017) <https://www.refworld.org/docid/5a1836804.html>. For a detailed analysis see NANSEN Note (n 2) 27–28. See below Part IV(A). See below Part IV(B). 313