Germany v XT Also in 2019, France’s highest court (the Conseil d’Etat) issued its judgment in case no. 427017,33 involving a Palestinian woman who had lived in a refugee camp in Lebanon before going to France. The Court set out the criteria that French authorities must consider in cases relating to the 1954 Convention involving persons who had previously lived in an UNRWA area, including: the reasons why the applicant had lost the ‘effective benefit’ of UNRWA’S assistance, whether the applicant is unable to return to their place of former habitual residence, and factors relating to their private or family life under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.34 Although this case was decided in relation to the 1954 Convention, it seems likely that similar factors would be considered relevant in relation to art 1D of the 1951 Refugee Convention. In the United Kingdom, a 2019 case, Nader,35 concerned a Palestinian born and raised in Saudi Arabia. He moved to Lebanon to study for a year, then returned to Saudi Arabia where he was abused and deported back to Lebanon. The applicant was registered with UNRWA and stayed with his grandmother in a refugee camp during part of his time in Lebanon. The Upper Tribunal generally followed the El Kott approach in terms of the factors it considered material, observing that it appeared the applicant had twice departed from Lebanon voluntarily, and there was no evidence that the applicant would be refused entry into Lebanon or face human rights violations there. The applicant had not demonstrated that UNRWA assistance had ceased for reasons beyond his control.36 From the decision, it appears that no evidence had been submitted showing that the applicant could not live in dignity in Lebanon. As noted, however, art 1D is sometimes misunderstood. In another 2019 UK case, OJ,37 concerning a Palestinian from Gaza, the Upper Tribunal took a flawed approach. The Upper Tribunal Judge held that there was a risk of serious harm in Gaza, which was documented in an expert report, but only allowed the appeal on humanitarian protection grounds. The Judge incorrectly stated that art 1D applied to exclude the applicant as he was ‘presently receiving protection from UNRWA’38 [factually incorrect as the applicant was in the UK] without considering the inclusion clause, the El Kott approach, or either UNHCR’s or the Home Office’s guidance on art 1D.39 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 Conseil d’État [French Administrative Court], 24 December 2019, reported in Rec Lebon (‘Case no. 427017’). For a helpful summary in English, see Giulia Bittoni, ‘Can a Palestinian Refugee Enjoy the Status of a Stateless Person? A French Perspective’ European Network on Statelessness (Blog Post, 13 Mar 2020) <https://www.statelessness.eu/updates/blog/canpalestinian-refugee-enjoy-status-stateless-person-french-perspective>. Case no. 427017 (n 33) [4]. Mr Abdul Aziz Nader v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] UKAITUR PA113132018, [5]. ibid [30]–[35]. OJ v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] UKAITUR PA093312018. ibid [19]. The UK Government has published guidance regarding the application of Article 1D, which generally follows the El Kott approach: Asylum Policy Instruction: Statelessness and Applications for Leave to Remain (Guidance, Version 2.0, UK Home Office 2016). A query by the author to an online forum for legal practitioners in the UK (the Refugee Legal Group) in January 2021 brought several responses from practitioners, noting that they have recently worked on or are currently working on Palestinian asylum cases in which Article 1D was ignored or misapplied, by Home Office decision-makers, judges, and/or the applicant’s previous legal representative. 111