However, there has been a change in the reasoning of the asylum authorities on the application of the second paragraph of Article 1D after the El Kott judgment. According to the CGRA, two cumulative conditions must be fulfilled in order for the second paragraph of Article 1D to apply. First, the applicant must have fled because his “personal safety was at serious risk.” The CGRA considers “Persecution” in the sense of Article 1A(2) Refugee Convention and “serious harm” in the sense of Article 15 of the Qualification Directive as a situation where “personal safety was at serious risk.” Socio-economic difficulties are not considered to constitute this kind of situation unless they reach the threshold of persecution or serious harm. Secondly, it must be established that it was impossible for UNRWA to fulfill its mission towards the applicant – that is, UNRWA could not provide any assistance.466 The CGRA had stated that in applying El Kott, it was not necessary to examine whether return to the UNRWA area of operations is possible.467 However, this statement was overruled by the Aliens Litigation Council – Case No. 108.154468 (8 August 2013); Case No. 100.713469 (10 April 2013); and Case No. 96.372470 (31 January 2013). “The Council points out that the question, if the possibility of return in order to avail himself again of UNRWA assistance is an essential part of article 1 D, was not answered in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice, more in particular in the judgment El Kott. The question was treated in the opinion of the advocate general, but was not relevant to answer the questions referred for a preliminary ruling because in the cases that were the object of it, it was not disputed that the departure of the concerned persons is justified because of reasons beyond their control and independent of their volition, which have forced the persons concerned to leave the UNRWA area of operations and in that way prevent them to enjoy the UNRWA delivered assistance.”471 The Advocate General of the CJEU states in his conclusion in El Kott that when it is not possible to return to the area where UNRWA assistance was received, it has to be accepted that the reason why assistance has ceased is beyond the person’s control and independent of their volition: “82. Second, it is quite conceivable, as has been pointed out to the Court, that a person in receipt of UNRWA assistance may voluntarily leave the UNRWA area on a temporary basis – for example, in order to visit a relative elsewhere Luc Leboeuf, La Réception de La Directive Qualification En Droit Belge - Rapport Intermédiaire 2013 (Equipe droits européens et migrations (EDEM), 2013), 52, javascript:download_alfresco_ doc(’3ad9c396-5446-47ec-b63f-8a29348abe43’,’L.LEBOEUF, La r%C3%A9ception de la directive qualification en droit belge, rapport interm%C3%A9diaire 2013.pdf’). 467 Ibid., 53. 468 Conseil du Contentieux des Étrangers, “Case 108154 [Dutch],” August 8, 2013, http://www.rvv-cce. be/sites/default/files/arr/A108154.AN.pdf. 469 Conseil du Contentieux des Étrangers, “Case 100713 [Dutch],” April 10, 2013, http://www.rvv-cce. be/sites/default/files/arr/A100713.AN.pdf. 470 Conseil du Contentieux des Étrangers, “Case 96372 [Dutch],” January 31, 2013, http://www.rvvcce.be/sites/default/files/arr/A96372.AN.pdf. 471 Conseil du Contentieux des Étrangers, “Case 108154 [Dutch],” 9. 466 Survey of Protection at the National Level 97