paragraph of Article 1D of the Geneva Convention on Refugees if they are under the protection or assistance of UNRWA. Second, for Palestinians who are not excluded in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 1D of the Geneva Convention on Refugees, because they no longer receive the protection or assistance of UNRWA, the Geneva Convention on Refugees is applicable. But refugee status can only be granted when the requirements of Article 1A(2) or the second paragraph of Article 1D of the Geneva Convention on Refugees are fulfilled. Therefore, the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees and the courts have to determine whether the reason for the cessation of protection or assistance of UNRWA is due to the alien’s choice (voluntary departure from an UNRWA area) or an external cause (country prohibits return). Where the alien’s choice is the primary factor, the Court will evaluate the case under Article 1A of the Geneva Convention on Refugees, and where an external cause is the primary reason for the alien’s inability to receive UNRWA protection, the Court will apply the second paragraph of Article 1D of the Geneva Convention on Refugees. Finally, the third tier cases are those in which a factor outside the alien’s control results in the failure of UNRWA assistance or protection; in such cases, the Court will automatically grant refugee status without reference to Article 1A of the Geneva Convention on Refugees. Case 34 L 51.13 A In this 22 March 2013 decision, the Administrative Court of Berlin ruled upon a case involving a Palestinian from the West Bank who received a visa in 2004 to study in Germany. After living in Germany for several years, in May 2012, he applied for asylum on the grounds that he had finished his studies without obtaining a university degree and could not return to Palestine because it would be a huge shame to go back without a university degree. The plaintiff also claimed that the Israeli authorities would not give permission to return due to his long absence from the West Bank (as per the decision of the Administrative Court of Dresden in November 2010; see case A 5 K 1072 08). The plaintiff could not tell exactly when he visited his family the last time and refused to provide his passport (expiring in 2012) from the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees, instead sending it back to Palestine. The Court ruled that it was unascertainable whether the plaintiff would be among the group of people who would not get permission from the Israeli authorities to enter the West Bank. The Court further stated that expatriation and comparable reasons for refusal of return can constitute grounds for asylum only if the person is seriously affected in his personal and individual situation under these measures. However, it also needed to be taken into account whether the person concerned was responsible for these measures. For example, relevant facts would include whether the person stayed abroad longer than the duration of his exit document or if he tried to annul the expatriation or made any efforts to return. 138 In this case, the Court took the view that the plaintiff could not argue that he was the victim of a ban on return by Israel because he was responsible for not having a Handbook on Protection of Palestinian Refugees