While the intention of creating a separate legal framework was to ensure an effective protection regime that would beneficially and uniquely address the situation of Palestinian refugees, it instead established a legal distinction which has come to be exploited for the purposes of excluding Palestinian refugees. Israel, policemen detain a Palestinian girl in the Palestinian Bedouin village of Khan alwith the assistance of the Israeli Ahmar near Jerusalem, 2018 (Source: al-ayyam.ps) US, has capitalized on this distinction in order to minimize and deny their protection obligations to Palestinian refugees, with the ultimate aim being the liquidation of the Palestinian refugee question as a whole. 385 386 CJEU Case C-507/19 Federal Republic of Germany v XT [2021]. CJEU C-349/20 NB and AB v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2022]. 83 Chapter The most recent interpretation of 1D by the CJEU can be found in NB and AB v UK. In this case, the Court concluded that, when determining whether UNRWA’s operations have ceased beyond the control of the applicant, the deciding authority of the country of asylum must consider both the situation at the date that the applicant departed from UNRWA’s area of operation as well as the situation at the date of the decision, with the burden of proof falling on the applicant in the case of the former, and the burden of proof falling on the national authority in the case of the latter. Although the emphasis on the government’s responsibility to share the burden of proof is helpful, the process by which evidence is submitted remains difficult or inaccessible to many applicants. The outcome of a decision will also hinge on UNRWA’s ability to fulfill its protection and assistance mandate effectively, disregarding the fact that UNRWA was not designed to provide Palestinian refugees worldwide with comprehensive protection. 3 whether a person is no longer receiving protection or assistance from UNRWA or not, national authorities should consider “all the fields of UNRWA’s area of operations which a stateless person of Palestinian origin who has left that area has a concrete possibility of accessing and safely remaining therein”.385 The CJEU’s approach in both of these cases is flawed in its interpretation of Article 1D, and is based on the inaccurate assumption that Palestinian refugees are able to easily enter and gain permission to reside in any given UNRWA service area. The weight of the evidentiary burden should not have to be borne by Palestinian refugees, and they should not have to prove their inability to enter UNRWA service areas in order to be considered a Convention refugee.386