the applicant’s story regarding his fear of persecution within the camp credible, the Court noted that the fact that conditions in Lebanon could lead to persecution is not in itself sufficient reason to grant asylum status. The Court notes that the refugee camp from which petitioner fled was secure from attack. Case E7 427609-1/2012/12E, of 27 September 2012416 Petitioner was a Palestinian registered with UNRWA who formerly resided at a refugee camp in Lebanon. Petitioner designed and installed kitchens and windows, and also worked in the Security Unit of Fatah in his refugee camp. Petitioner left his family (father and siblings) behind when he fled Lebanon. Petitioner claimed he left Lebanon for three reasons: (1) he suffered from heart disease, and was unable to obtain the necessary medication in Lebanon; (2) on two separate occasions, he received death threats for speaking out against murders of friends who were also in Fatah; and (3) petitioner was unable to find work due to the violent conflict in Syria. The Court ultimately rejected the applicant’s asylum claim. First, a courtsanctioned doctor evaluated the petitioner’s heart condition and found that he suffered from high blood pressure rather than a heart disease. The court determined that the applicant would be able to obtain blood pressure medication in an UNRWA camp. The court also found that inconsistencies in the petitioner’s story reduced his credibility, and were unable to verify that he actually had a well-founded fear of persecution upon return to Lebanon. Finally, the Court noted its policy that an applicant must face a well-founded fear of persecution throughout the entire country of prior residence, rather than only in a specific segment of the country, in order to be eligible for refugee status under the second paragraph of Article 1D of the Refugee Convention. Here, the Court found that the applicant did not face a well-founded fear of persecution everywhere in Lebanon. To support this conclusion, the Court noted that the applicant was safe for the year and a half during which he lived outside the refugee camp. Additionally, the Court noted that Lebanon’s policy regarding Palestinian refugees permits them to live outside refugee camps. Therefore, the applicant did not have a well-founded fear of persecution and did not warrant a favorable grant of asylum pursuant to Article 1D. Case E7 402746-2/2012/7E, 5 November 2012417 In this decision, the asylum seeker was a Palestinian registered with UNRWA whose primary place of residence was Lebanon. He fled to Austria due to fear of persecution by Islamic organizations, which allegedly threatened his life. The Court referred to the opinion of the advocate general in the then-pending case of Bolbol and stated that persons who no longer take advantage of UNRWA’s protection due to their own acts do not automatically qualify as refugees. Nevertheless, they were entitled to an examination of their individual case and could qualify for protection 86 416 417 Asylgerichtshof (AsylGH) [Asylum Court of Austria], “Case E7 427609-1/2012/12E.” Asylgerichtshof (AsylGH) [Asylum Court of Austria], “Case E7 402746-2/2012/7E.” Handbook on Protection of Palestinian Refugees