A May 2012 ruling discussing the Bolbol decision interpreted it to mean that a displaced Palestinian is automatically entitled to refugee status under the Refugee Convention if he or she can no longer avail him or herself of UNRWA protection. However, the Court had not defined the conditions required to demonstrate that an individual could not avail him or herself of UNRWA protection. The Court only stipulated that an asylum seeker may not attain this protection if the reason for leaving the area of UNRWA operations was due to his or her own actions. In such a case, the asylum seeker is only entitled to have his or her case considered individually for refugee status.410 However, Courts were clear in prior decisions that being a Palestinian does not, in itself, justify an automatic grant of refugee status.411 In all cases, a credibility assessment is essential in determining an individual’s claim to refugee status. In making this credibility assessment, the Court will consider whether or not the asylum seeker’s testimony remains consistent throughout the asylum application proceedings. The Court also evaluates whether the asylum seeker’s testimony is likely to be true when compared to the known facts regarding the situation in the country of origin.412 It seems that the Federal Asylum Agency will not conduct an individualized factual inquiry if the political situation in the applicant’s home country is such that the applicant’s assertions of persecution seem false.413 Austrian Courts have a strong policy preference for the “National Alternative Option.” When an individual persecuted by a specific group within a country is able to avoid persecution by relocating to an area outside a particular persecutor’s “sphere of influence,” the asylum seeker will not be granted refugee status in Austria, as an alternative option is available. An asylum seeker must exhaust all other options within his or her home state before he or she is eligible for refugee status in Austria.414 Case E8 318708-1/2008/17E, of 18 October 2012415 Petitioner in this case was a Palestinian registered with UNRWA, who fled from a refugee camp in Lebanon. Petitioner made a living playing soccer outside the refugee camp and worked as a painter inside the refugee camp. Petitioner participated in the 2006 Lebanon war, and saw his two best friends killed in an air strike. Suffering from anxiety and facing concerns regarding his public renown as a soccer player involved in the Lebanon-Hezbollah conflict, petitioner fled to Austria in 2007. While an Austrian doctor confirmed a diagnosis of moderate depression, and the Court found 410 Asylgerichtshof (AsylGH) [Asylum Court of Austria], “Case E7 402746-2/2012/7E,” November 5, 2012, http://www.ris.bka.gv.at/JudikaturEntscheidung.wxe?Abfrage=AsylGH&Dokumentnummer= ASYLGHT_20121105_E7_402_746_2_2012_00. 411 Asylgerichtshof (AsylGH) [Asylum Court of Austria], “Case E7 423461-1/2011/5E,” May 2, 2012, http://www.ris.bka.gv.at/JudikaturEntscheidung.wxe?Abfrage=AsylGH&Dokumentnummer=ASYL GHT_20120502_E7_423_461_1_2011_00. 412 Asylgerichtshof (AsylGH) [Asylum Court of Austria], “Case E7 402746-2/2012/7E.” 413 Asylgerichtshof (AsylGH) [Asylum Court of Austria], “Case E7 423461-1/2011/5E.” 414 Asylgerichtshof (AsylGH) [Asylum Court of Austria], “Case E7 402746-2/2012/7E.” 415 Asylgerichtshof (AsylGH) [Asylum Court of Austria], “Case E8 318708-1/2008/17E.” Survey of Protection at the National Level 85