Refugees rejected the applicant’s argument for subsidiary protection on the basis that the “periodic clashes” between Israel and Hamas were not enough to constitute persecution under Section 60 (2) to (5) of the Residence Act, and that there was not the risk of certain death or serious injury as required by Section 60 (7). After the denial of his application, the applicant amended his application and claimed that he had completed a degree in the Ukraine and that he could not return to Gaza because of unacceptable living conditions and the threat of attacks by militia members and the Israeli army. On review, the Administrative Court agreed with the plaintiff and granted subsidiary protection under Section 60 (7) of the Residence Act because of the military conflict in the Gaza Strip. However, the High Administrative Court of Luneburg confirmed the decision of the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees and determined that there was neither an internal armed conflict in the relevant autonomous Palestinian area Gaza Strip, the home region of the plaintiff, nor a considerable individual risk for him at the present time. Case 18 A 901/1 The Higher Administrative Court of North Rhine-Westphalia issued a decision in February 2012 involving nine plaintiffs, eight from the West Bank and one born in Germany. In its decision, the Court upheld the Administrative Court’s ruling that protection or assistance from UNRWA did not cease for the purposes of the second paragraph of Article 1D of the Geneva Convention on Refugees because the plaintiffs left from the West Bank voluntarily. The Court found that the Administrative Court properly construed Article 1D of the Geneva Convention on Refugees. The regulations of the Geneva Convention on Refugees can be applied only when the protection or assistance of UNRWA ceases. The Court claimed that it can be left open whether the exclusion clause of Article 1D of the Geneva Convention on Refugees operates only when the alien is located in the UNRWA zone and protection or assistance ceases to exist, or whether it can also apply when the alien is outside of the UNRWA zone. In construing the second paragraph of Article 1D of the Geneva Convention on Refugees, the Court relied on a June 1991 Federal Administrative Court decision.675 Under that decision, the protection of UNRWA was found not to cease simply where an alien voluntarily left an UNRWA area. The decision found that protection ceased only when reasons outside of the alien’s control made it impossible for him to return to an UNRWA area. The question for the court was how it should weigh the alien’s voluntary decision and the external factors prohibiting return. Thus, the court created a “three tier system” for evaluating cases under Article 1D of the Geneva Convention on Refugees. First, Palestinians will be excluded from protection under the first 675 Bundesverwaltungsgericht, “Urteil Vom 04.06.1991 (Decision of 04/06/1991) - 1 C 42.88,” June 4, 1991, http://www.asyl.net/fileadmin/user_upload/dokumente/20497.pdf. Survey of Protection at the National Level 137