applicant grew up in a refugee camp in Lebanon. The Netherlands Secretary of State rejected his first application for asylum, in part because he found aspects of the applicant’s claim not credible and considered that the applicant had failed to establish that he could not, for a reason beyond his control, access the protection or assistance of UNRWA; thus, he was excluded under Article 1D. The applicant subsequently made a new application, which the Secretary of State rejected on the basis that it did not present new information. On appeal, the Court of the Hague observed that the later application provided information showing a deterioration of the conditions in Ein El-Hilweh camp and for Palestinians in Lebanon more generally, in part due to COVID-19 and a major explosion in Lebanon in August 2020. The Court observed that Palestinians in Lebanon were increasingly reliant on UNRWA as their sole source of support and that UNRWA’s precarious funding situation was relevant to the applicant’s case. The Court also observed that pursuant to the decision in Germany v XT, both UNRWA’s ability to provide protection or assistance commensurate with its mission and the applicant’s ability to actually enter an UNRWA field of operation were relevant considerations. There was evidence indicating that return might be impossible: “Since the Lebanese elections in May 2018, [Palestinian refugees from Lebanon] living abroad without a [Lebanese] residence permit cannot obtain travel documents from the Lebanese authorities. Their return to Lebanon is stalled.”143 The Court found that the Secretary of State’s decision was flawed and that it must reconsider the application considering relevant factors, including whether UNRWA’s support met minimum requirements. The Secretary of State appealed the decision relating to the necessity to assess the applicant’s ability to gain access to Lebanon. As of 2 December 2021, this appeal was still pending at the Council of State.144 New Zealand A 2019 judgment of the New Zealand Immigration and Protection Tribunal, AE (Lebanon),145 found that the appellant was a refugee under Article 1D. The Tribunal considered the appellant’s medical conditions and UNWRA’s inability to fund required medical treatment or provide adequate financial support to prevent “abject poverty”.146 The Tribunal found that UNRWA’s assistance had ceased, and the inclusion clause of Article 1D was triggered, so that the appellant was eligible for refugee status. The Tribunal’s key findings include: 1) The appellant had been dependent on his brother for several years to provide him with financial support, as he was unable to find adequate employment in Lebanon (and had been exploited by previous employers with impunity because he was Palestinian). However, the brother’s financial situation was precarious, and it could not be assumed he would be able to continue supporting the appellant. 2) The appellant required treatment for high blood pressure, a heart condition, and depression. Insufficient medical care would potentially be life-threatening. 3) UNRWA was, at the time of decision, experiencing a “dire funding shortfall such that it could not fund secondary or tertiary medical treatment” or cover basic needs. 143 Ibid, para 9.3, citing Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs Thematic Official Report Palestinians in Lebanon (January 2021), available in Dutch at: https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten/ambtsberichten/2021/01/31/thematisch-ambtsberichtpalestijnen-in-libanon-januari-2021#:~:text=Dit%20Thematisch%20Ambtsbericht%20beschrijft%20de,ToR)%20een%20 overzicht%20met%20aandachtspunten. [accessed 30 June 2022]. 144 Correspondence from Marlotte van Dael to Cynthia Orchard, 2 Dec 2021. 145 [2019] NZIPT 801588, https://www.refworld.org/cases,NZ_IPT,5d7a3bb04.html. 146 AE (Lebanon), Para 81. 26