It should be noted that, in the cases annulled by the Constitutional Court, the Asylum Court also considered whether the applicant was actually unable to return to his or her previous country due to lack of permission of that State. Even though cases U674/2012 and U706/2012 only refer to an impossibility of return due to a fear of persecution (which, in practice, constitutes just a rephrasing of the wellfounded fear criteria of Article 1A(2)), cases U1053/2012 and U2346/2012 assert that the judicial decisions under review (i.e., the decisions which were appealed and taken to the Constitutional Court) do refer to an impossibility of return due to lack of permission from the concerned State,404 resembling the second set of “objective reasons” laid out in the 2013 UNHCR Note.405 It remains unclear, however, whether such considerations are still part of Austria’s refugee status determination process. Finally, it is questionable whether the conclusions and reasoning of cases decided prior to the 2013 Constitutional Court decisions interpreting El Kott are still valid. Prior to these decisions, Austria’s Article 1D jurisprudence was less clear. The Asylum Court (“Asylgerichtshof”) stated in a February 2012 decision that applicants are “ipso facto” entitled to the protections established by the Refugee Convention when they leave the area covered by UNRWA’s mandate, even if this is done voluntarily, so long as they are unable to return for reasons that are beyond their control. These reasons include persecution within the area covered by the UNRWA mandate.406 In September 2012, the Asylum Court suggested that persons who have left the area of the UNRWA mandate are eligible for protection under the Refugee Convention if unable to return to their area of prior residence due to a well-founded fear of persecution.407 In an October 2012 decision, the Court stated that fear is only well-founded if conditions within a country would objectively lead to the conclusion that a petitioner faces a well-founded fear. The Court also determined that a petitioner must face a significant risk of persecution in the country of origin, rather than the remote possibility of persecution. The mere possibility of indiscriminate violence in the country of previous residence, according to the Court, is not enough to justify a grant of asylum status.408 Additionally, the Asylum Court has emphasized that presence outside the area of the UNRWA mandate is not, in itself, enough – a Palestinian must actually be unable to return to the state of prior residence due to the reasons set forth in the refugee definition in Article 1A(2) of the 1951 Convention.409 404 84 Verfassungsgerichtshof (VfGH) [Constitutional Court of Austria], “Case U1053/2012;” Verfassungsgerichtshof (VfGH) [Constitutional Court of Austria], “Case U2346/2012.” 405 See Chapter 2, Section 2.1.3. 406 Asylgerichtshof (AsylGH) [Asylum Court of Austria], “Case E3 421668-1/2011-9E,” February 29, 2012, http://www.ris.bka.gv.at/JudikaturEntscheidung.wxe?Abfrage=AsylGH&Dokumentnummer= ASYLGHT_20120229_E3_421_668_1_2011_00. 407 Asylgerichtshof (AsylGH) [Asylum Court of Austria], “Case E7 427609-1/2012/12E,” September 27, 2012, http://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokument.wxe?Abfrage=AsylGH&Dokumentnummer=ASYLG HT_20120927_E7_427_609_1_2012_00. 408 Asylgerichtshof (AsylGH) [Asylum Court of Austria], “Case E8 318708-1/2008/17E,” October 18, 2012, http://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokument.wxe?Abfrage=AsylGH&Dokumentnummer=ASY LGHT_20121018_E8_318_708_1_2008_00. 409 Asylgerichtshof (AsylGH) [Asylum Court of Austria], “Case E7 427609-1/2012/12E.” Handbook on Protection of Palestinian Refugees