The ALC found that Petitioner was registered with UNRWA when he lived in Lebanon, thus satisfying the first inquiry. Second, the Court found that Petitioner was forced to leave the UNRWA area of operations. Because UNRWA was unable to protect Petitioner, and, as a result, Petitioner’s personal safety was at risk, the Court determined that Petitioner also satisfied the second El Kott inquiry. Finally, the Court found no other grounds to justify Petitioner’s exclusion from refugee protection, and Petitioner was “entitled ipso facto to the benefits provided by the Geneva Convention.” Accordingly, the Court granted Petitioner refugee status. K.K.F. v. Bevándorlási és Állampolgársági Hivatal (Office of Immigration and Nationality), 15.K30.590/2013/5, 21 March 2013723 The applicant was a Palestinian who had lived in the Beddawi refugee camp in Lebanon and received UNRWA assistance. He left his home because of the poor security situation in the camp as well as harassment and threats from various Palestinian groups. The OIN rejected his application, having determined that the applicant voluntarily left UNRWA’s area of operations and therefore was not automatically entitled to international protection. Furthermore, the OIN decided that the applicant had not been persecuted for reasons outlined in the Geneva Convention, and therefore denied refugee status. The Court followed the reasoning of El Kott and found that in the circumstances of this case, UNRWA assistance had ceased for reasons beyond the control of the applicant (due to threats against his personal safety and a series of physical and psychological attacks). UNRWA could not protect the applicant, and therefore he was entitled ipso facto to the benefits provided by the Geneva Convention, i.e. refugee status. Case 16.K.27.128/2014/8, Gyor-Moson-Sopron County Court724 The applicant was a Palestinian who had previously lived in Ein El Hilweh camp in Lebanon. He claimed that he was approached and threatened by several Islamic groups who wanted him to join them, as well as that his life was in danger because of many security incidents that put civilians at risk. His asylum application was rejected by the OIN. The decision stated that El Kott criteria were not applicable in his case. However, the decision in this case was not well-reasoned. The Court quashed the OIN’s decision and ordered a new procedure because the OIN decision contained no adequate reasoning on the key issues of the case. The applicant’s mother’s asylum application was also rejected, but in her case another judge confirmed the OIN’s decision (case 6.K.27.116/2014/12). This case is not representative of Hungarian jurisprudence, however. Most courts now follow the El Kott criteria. 723 148 Budapest Administrative and Labour Court, “K.K.F. v. Bevándorlási És Állampolgársági Hivatal (Office of Immigration and Nationality, OIN) [Hungarian],” March 21, 2013, 15.K30.590/2013/5, http://www.asylumlawdatabase.eu/sites/www.asylumlawdatabase.eu/files/aldfiles/Original%20 Judgment%20-%20Budapest%20Administrative%20and%20Labour%20Court%20-%20KKF%20 Palestinian%20v%20OIN.pdf. 724 Information provided by Grusa Matevsic. Handbook on Protection of Palestinian Refugees