or her membership of a certain group. The Court further referred to the discrimination faced by stateless Maktoum Kurds from Syria and noted that the question was if the alleged discrimination reached the level of persecution in accordance with refugee law. The Migration Court concluded that the discrimination faced by Maktoum Kurds as a group was not sufficient to qualify the applicant as a refugee, or as in need of subsidiary protection. The Migration Court further concluded that she had not shown individual reasons for fearing persecution or other forms of harm qualifying her for subsidiary protection. The appeal was therefore rejected. The applicant appealed this decision to the Migration Court of Appeal. She argued that as a Maktoum Kurd from Syria she has no right to a nationality, to travel documents and to freedom of movement and that she lacked many other basic rights in Syria. In its response, the SMA accepted the appeal. The SMA first noted that cumulative discrimination can amount to persecution; whether discrimination against a certain group shall be considered to amount to persecution will depend on its intensity and extent, and whether the mere belonging to that group means that all members can be considered as facing an individual risk of persecution. The SMA concluded in its submission that the applicant should be considered a refugee as she, in her home country, is at risk of persecution for reasons of her belonging to the race, or alternatively, the nationality or social group Maktoum Kurds. In its reasoning, the SMA made references to Maktoum Kurds’ statelessness. For example, the SMA noted that Maktoum Kurds from Syria do not have the possibility to naturalize as they lack recognition as persons before the law. It was further noted by the SMA that the Maktoum Kurds from Syria do not have the possibility to influence their situation since the statelessness is passed on to their children. The SMA also noted that, compared to many other groups of stateless persons, the exclusion faced by Maktoum Kurds from Syria is more serious. The Migration Court of Appeal agreed with the Migration Court’s view that the fact that the applicant was a Maktoum Kurd from Syria did not, as such, mean that she should be considered a refugee, as she did not, solely on this ground, risk sufficiently serious restrictions in her rights and persecution upon a return to Syria. The Migration Court of Appeal therefore proceeded to look into the applicant’s individual circumstances. The Court concluded that the applicant’s political activity, coupled with her particular vulnerability due to her membership of the group Maktoum Kurds, meant that she would be at risk of persecution and should be recognized as a refugee. While the applicant’s membership of the group Maktoum Kurds was considered relevant and important by the Migration Court of Appeal in its judgment, the Court did not seem to attach much weight to the restrictions in their access to and enjoyment of human rights that Maktoum Kurds face in Syria on account of their statelessness, even though this element had been highlighted by the SMA. In the cases concerning Palestinians from Gaza and Jordan, where the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) provides assistance to Palestinians, no reference was made to UNRWA and whether the person had been registered with UNRWA or not. The general conditions in Gaza were not found to be a basis for international protection or for another type of residence permit. However, if the person was considered to be particularly vulnerable, the person’s vulnerability, together with the generally challenging situation in Gaza, was considered as a sufficient ground for a residence permit based on particularly distressing circumstances, pursuant to Chapter 5, Section 6 of the Aliens Act. Refugee status was granted in one of the reviewed cases concerning a Palestinian from Gaza. 28 M A P P I N G S TAT E L E S S N E S S I N S W E D E N