2021 Statelessness & Citizenship Review 3(1) In a third case interpreting art 1D, Serin Alheto v Zamestnik-predsedatel na Darzhavna agentsia za bezhantsite,15 the CJEU found that art 1D must be considered prior to art 1A of the Refugee Convention. Registration with UNRWA did not necessarily mean that the applicant could access sufficient protection in an UNRWA area.16 However, Palestinians are not included under art 1D if they could be admitted to any area where they could access effective UNRWA protection/assistance and could live there in safe and dignified conditions for as long as necessary, without being subject to refoulement. XT (13 JANUARY 2021) The latest CJEU case relating to art 1D, XT, expands on this previous jurisprudence. A Summary of Facts and Case History XT is a stateless Palestinian born in Syria in 1991. He is registered with UNRWA and grew up in Yarmouk Refugee Camp in Damascus. He lived in Lebanon from 2013 to 2015 and worked in casual jobs. He returned to Syria as he could not get a residence permit in Lebanon and feared expulsion. He left Syria after a few days, due to the harsh situation there, including the then-ongoing civil war. At that time, Palestinians were banned from entering Jordan and Lebanon.17 XT travelled to Germany and applied for international protection in December 2015. The Federal Office for Migration and Refugees refused him refugee status but granted subsidiary protection in August 2016. On appeal, the Administrative Court found that XT was entitled to refugee status, based on a fear of persecution.18 The Higher Administrative Court upheld this outcome, finding that XT met the requirements of art 1D, as he had previously received UNRWA assistance but it had ceased, for reasons beyond his control.19 On further appeal, the German Federal Administrative Court referred the case to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling — the subject of this note. B Issues and Holdings The key issue for the CJEU was whether, in relation to art 1D, UNRWA’s area of operation should be understood as five separate ‘fields’ or as a whole.20 In considering whether UNRWA’s assistance has ceased, should the German authorities consider only the UNRWA field of operation where the applicant most recently lived, or should they consider whether the applicant could return to 15 16 17 18 19 20 Serin Alheto v Zamestnik-predsedatel na Darzhavna agentsia za bezhantsite [‘Serin Alheto v Deputy Chairman of the State Agency for Refugees’] (Court of Justice of the European Union, C-585/16, ECLI:EU:C:2018:584, 25 July 2018). ibid [90]. XT (n 1) [19]–[21]. ibid [23]–[24]. The judgment appears to accept that XT faced a risk of arrest and/or other persecution if he returned to Syria for reasons relating to his departure, application for asylum, and residence abroad, so the considerations relating to return were with respect to Lebanon. ibid [25]. ibid [29]–[30]. 108