Case 70268, 21 November 2011460 A November 2011 decision reveals some of the court’s reasoning in construing Article 1D. Case No. 70 268 involved an asylum seeker classified as “stateless” and of “Palestinian Origin” from the West Bank. The applicant had an UNRWA identification card, and a diploma and certificate from the PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organization) proving that he was from the Balata Camp. On appeal, the applicant argued that his case fell under Article 1D, not Article 1A, and that because he was no longer receiving protection or assistance from UNRWA, he was automatically entitled to refugee status under the second paragraph of Article 1D. Additionally, the applicant argued for protection under the second paragraph of Article 1D because he did not have the necessary documentation to return to the West Bank, and he could not return to the West Bank because of violence there. The CCE decision discussed the hardship faced by the applicant owing to the lack of opportunity to return to the West Bank. However, the judge dismissed the arguments relating to inability to return to the West Bank, saying that the motivation of the applicant leaving was related to the situation in general and the socio-economic circumstances in particular. The judge stated that these are not elements that establish a well-founded fear of persecution, nor was it established that the applicant could not place himself under the assistance or protection of UNRWA. The CCE found the asylum seeker’s argument for inclusion under the second paragraph of Article 1D unpersuasive because: Article 1D is not intended to freely grant to Palestinian refugees the right to either protection or assistance from UNRWA or refugee status. The preparatory work shows that it was not the intent of the designers of the Refugee Convention that for Article 1D, § 2 the assistance of UNRWA “ceased to exist” only because an individual has made the decision to leave the UNRWA zone. The inclusion clause, according to the preparatory work launched by the Egyptian representative, is to prevent the exclusion clause from being definitive in nature so the Palestinians would not be left to fend for themselves once the UNRWA operations ceased since UNRWA only had a temporary mandate. In order for the applicant to fall under the second paragraph, the court concluded: With respect to Palestinians, once the area of UNRWA mandate has been abandoned and they therefore are de facto no longer under the protection of this agency, in the first place it shall be examined to what extent, if they were to return again would they receive protection and get assistance from UNRWA. Refugee status can only be granted ipso facto where it is established that there are obstacles that prevent the applicant from placing himself under the assistance or protection of UNRWA. This reasoning implies that, if there are no practical obstacles to return, Palestinian asylum seekers must, in order to qualify under the second paragraph of Article 1D, 94 460 Conseil du Contentieux des Étrangers, “Case 70268 [Dutch],” November 21, 2011, 70268, http:// www.rvv-cce.be/sites/default/files/arr/A70268.AN.pdf. Handbook on Protection of Palestinian Refugees