This case examined whether the Commissioner General for Refugees and Stateless persons (CGRA) analysed the applicant’s request for international protection with due diligence. The applicant is of Palestinian origin who submitted an application for international protection on 31 October 2018. On 26 March 2020, the CGRA issued a decision stating that the applicant had been refused refugee status and subsidiary protection. The Council for Alien Law Litigation upheld the decision of the CGRA on 15 January 2021. On 13 April 2021, the applicant submitted a subsequent request for international protection which was declared admissible, and the applicant was invited for a personal interview on 5 October 2021. On 13 December 2021, CGRA issued a decision stating that the applicant’s request for refugee status and subsidiary protection had been rejected.  The decision stated that the applicant’s claim was not considered credible based on the fact that there had been a number of contradictory statements. The decision further stated that the situation in Gaza did not reach the threshold whereby a person would be at real risk of serious harm based on mere presence in the Gaza Strip.  

The applicant contested the decision stating that the return journey to Gaza via the Sinai region in Egypt was dangerous and that, if returned to Gaza, he would be at risk of being attacked by a neighbouring family whose daughter he had courted but ultimately could not marry, despite agreeing to do so, due to financial reasons. He cited medical documents showing that his brother had been attacked by the family. The applicant further mentioned the ongoing conflict between Hamas and Israeli forces and the ensuing material shortages in Gaza.  

The Council for Alien Law Litigation examined the country-of-origin information that the CGRA based their decision on and concluded that there was no reason to consider that the applicant was in immediate danger if returned to the Gaza Strip. In relation to the argument put forward by the applicant that the CGRA ought to have examined his case in relation to Article 1 (d) of the 1951 Geneva Convention, the CALL concluded that the mere lodging of an application for an UNWRA family registration card is not sufficient evidence to establish that an applicant falls within the scope of Article 1(d) of the 1951 Geneva Convention. The CALL noted that the applicant’s mother was recognised as a refugee by UNWRA and that the applicant’s father had been issued an NRA family card, however, the applicant’s name did not appear on the family card meaning that there was no evidence that the applicant was supported with or registered by UNWRA. CALL thus confirmed that CGRA was right to examine the applicant’s case under Article 1(2) of the 1951 Geneva Convention. 

In light of the above, the CALL upheld the decision of the CGRA to reject the applicant’s request for international protection.