Legal briefing on the rights of stateless Palestinians in the UK September 2025 ‘protection’ in the sense of the Refugee Convention. The applicant was therefore granted refugee status on the basis of his fear of persecution in Gaza. In Ireland, the High Court quashed a decision of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal refusing refugee status to a stateless applicant born in Bhutan and previously resident in India. In relation to the assessment of refugee claims by applicants with more than one country of former habitual residence, the Court referenced with approval the Canadian case, Thabet v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) [1996] 1 F.C. 68, at paragraph 27: ‘[W]here a claimant has been resident in more than one country it is not necessary to prove that there was persecution at the hands of all those countries. But it is necessary to demonstrate that one country was guilty of persecution, and that the claimant is unable or unwilling to return to any of the states where he or she formerly habitually resided’.121 While the facts of this case did not involve applicants of Palestinian origin, it is possible to foresee a case in which a Palestinian (who had not received assistance nor protection from UNRWA) and who faces a fear of persecution in, for example, Gaza, also established habitual residence in another country prior to arrival in the UK and applying for refugee status. Due to inability to reenter the country of habitual residence, the applicant may be unable to avail themselves of protection there and should therefore be granted refugee status due to their fear of persecution in Gaza. This interpretation of the Irish and Belgian courts recognises that permission to reside in another country, or lack of persecution therein, does not amount to protection in the context of the Refugee Convention. It further reflects the reality of many Palestinians, who, although they may have permission to reside in some countries, these statuses are often of a temporary nature and contain severe restrictions on the exercise of rights including the right to work and own property, which lead to precarious living situations falling far short of the rights envisaged in the Convention. Additionally, these precarious statuses may not protect Palestinians from the possible risk of refoulement. 121 Ireland, High Court, B.D.R. v Refugee Appeals Tribunal [2016] IEHC 274 (25 May 2016). 26