CASE NOTE GERMANY v XT (CJEU, 2021): PALESTINIAN REFUGEES, UNRWA AND ARTICLE 1D OF THE REFUGEE CONVENTION CYNTHIA ORCHARD* TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ........................................................................................................... 105 A Alternative Sources of International Protection ........................................ 107 B Preceding CJEU Jurisprudence ................................................................. 107 XT (13 January 2021) ............................................................................................ 108 A Summary of Facts and Case History ......................................................... 108 B Issues and Holdings................................................................................... 108 C Analysis ..................................................................................................... 109 Article 1D’s Recent Application in Domestic Jurisdictions — Brief Examples ... 110 Considerations Relating to Current Events ........................................................... 112 Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 112 INTRODUCTION This case note focuses on the preliminary ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union (‘CJEU’) issued on 13 January 2021 in the Bundesrepublik Deutschland v XT (‘XT’).1 The case concerns a stateless person of Palestinian origin and whether he is a refugee pursuant to art 1D of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (‘1951 Refugee Convention’).2 The applicant mainly lived in Syria but lived in Lebanon for two years. The case’s key issue is whether the fields of operation of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (‘UNRWA’) should be considered as a whole, and what this means for exclusion or inclusion under art 1D. The German Federal Administrative Court also requested clarification of the term ‘habitual residence’, but the Court declined to address this.3 * 1 2 3 Cynthia Orchard (BA, JD, MSt) is an independent consultant, human rights lawyer, trainer, and policy advocate. She has worked with UNHCR, several NGOs and the University of Oxford Refugee Studies Centre, and is a member of the European Network on Statelessness. The introduction to this case note is based in part on an article by the author, which was previously published by the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association. See ‘Palestinian Refugees: How Article 1D of the Refugee Convention Applies’ (25 February 2016, available to ILPA members at https://ilpa.org.uk/?s=cynthia+orchard). Thanks to Judith Carter for comments on a draft of this case note. Bundesrepublik Deutschland v XT [‘Federal Republic of Germany v XT’] (Court of Justice of the European Union, C-507/19, ECLI:EU:C:2021:3, 13 January 2021) (‘XT’). ibid; Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, opened for signature 28 July 1951, 189 UNTS 150 (entered into force 22 April 1954) (‘1951 Refugee Convention’). XT (n 1) [35], [81]. This case note will not further discuss this issue, though it certainly merits attention elsewhere.