PRACTICAL GUIDE ON NATIONALITY Ineffective protection If it is established that the applicant has a fear of persecution or faces a risk of serious harm in each of their countries of nationality, without finding effective protection in any of them, their fear would be considered well-founded. For example, the applicant may have a fear of persecution or serious harm in both their countries of nationality for different reasons and is unwilling to avail themself of the protection of any of them due to such fear or risk. This could be the case where, for example, a foreign occupation force or an armed conflict prevent the country of nationality from extending protection or make such protection ineffective in practice. Not the protection normally granted to nationals The applicant may have the nationality of a country regarding which they allege no fear of persecution or face no risk of serious harm but in which protection is not effective as it does not entail the protection that is normally granted to nationals. This would be the case where the applicant does not have the right to enter and reside in the country of nationality or could be refouled to the country where a fear of persecution or a risk of serious harm has been established. In such circumstances, the applicant would not be considered as benefitting from effective national protection in that country ( 91). Denial of protection The country of nationality may also have already denied protection to the applicant, for example, by refusing to admit them to the national territory. If the applicant has not expressed any fear or risk in relation to that country of nationality and if such explicit acts of denial of protection have not yet occurred, the applicant would be expected to request national protection in that country before it can be deemed ineffective. If the applicant did not request national protection, their application would be rejected as it cannot be concluded that the protection is ineffective. However, if after the rejection of their application, the applicant requests national protection and it turns out that national authorities refuse to grant protection, for example by refusing to admit the applicant, the latter may submit a subsequent application on this ground. If there is no explicit refusal of protection by the national authorities but they do not reply to the request within a reasonable time, their silence may be considered as a refusal ( 92). It is not necessary that they make the request if you know already, based on relevant and upto-date COI, that national protection would not be effective. (91) See in this regard UNHCR, Handbook on procedures and criteria for determining refugee status and guidelines on international protection under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, reissued April 2019, HCR/1P/4/ENG/REV. 4, paragraph 107. (92) Ibid. 59