In general, the Courts follow the El Kott decision. Very few administrative decisions by the OIN are made publicly available, but the following decisions are available: U.S. v. Office of Immigration and Nationality, 31.755/2011/12, Sept. 22, 2011721 The petitioner in this case was a Palestinian who had been living in the West Bank. He claimed that he was forced to leave the West Bank because he had been kidnapped on numerous occasions by the Islamic Jihad groups and Fatah. The OIN dismissed Petitioner’s claims for refugee status, finding that he lacked credible reasons for leaving the West Bank. In so deciding, the OIN relied in part on Canadian and British travel-safety information. From this information, the OIN reasoned that if the West Bank was not a fully-restricted travel destination, Petitioner’s claims of fear in the West Bank were unfounded. This case further demonstrates the jurisprudential shift in Hungary as a result of the El Kott decision. In this decision, which predates El Kott, the Administrative and Labour Court did not even address whether petitioner had left UNRWA’s operational area. Rather, the Court only considered whether the OIN violated the jus cogens norm of non-refoulement by denying Petitioner’s asylum application. Specifically, the court addressed the validity of Petitioner’s claim of a well-founded fear of persecution, regardless of the Canadian and British travel-safety reports. The Court did not deliver a final decision, but overturned the OIN’s initial denial of refugee status, and remanded the case to consider whether return to the West Bank would violate non-refoulement obligations. A.A.A. v. Office of Immigration and Nationality, 6.K.30.092/2013/12, 7 March 2013722 The petitioner in this case was a Palestinian registered with UNRWA and living in Lebanon. Petitioner claimed that he was subject to physical and psychological attacks in Lebanon, and was forced to leave as a result. The OIN denied Petitioner’s asylum application, reasoning that Palestinians living in Lebanon were subject to an insufficient degree of discrimination for refugee protection. However, the Administrative and Labour Court, applying the analytical framework of El Kott, granted the applicant refugee status. The ALC framed the El Kott inquiry around three questions: 1. Did the applicant receive UNRWA assistance? 2. Has UNRWA assistance ceased? 3. Do any other grounds exist to justify exclusion from coverage under the 1951 Convention? 721 Metropolitan Court of Hungary, “U.S. v. Office of Immigration and Nationality [Hungarian],” September 22, 2011, 15 K 31.755/2011/12, http://m.asylumlawdatabase.eu/sites/www. asylumlawdatabase.eu/files/aldfiles/U.S..pdf. 722 Budapest Administrative and Labour Court, “A.A.A. v. Office of Immigration and Nationality [Hungarian],” March 7, 2013, 6.K.30.092/2013/12, http://www.asylumlawdatabase.eu/sites/www. asylumlawdatabase.eu/files/aldfiles/%C3%ADt%C3%A9let_Al%20Tayyar%20Abdelhakim%20 Alaa_1.pdf. Survey of Protection at the National Level 147