The case is a reopening at national level following the CJEU judgment in NB, AB v Secretary of State for the Home Department (UK) (C‑349/20, 3 March 2022), in view of the referral NB, AB v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Intervenor: United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, 29 July 2020.

In fact, AB has cerebral palsy which severely affects his mobility, scoliosis, optic atrophy and
nystagmus in both eyes, hydrocephalus, occasional seizures, and double incontinence. Him and NB claimed that they were entitled to refugee protection ipso facto under Article 1D of the Refugee Convention. Following negative decision they appealed before the First Tier Tribunal which referred questions before the CJEU seeking clarifications on UNRWA’s cessation of assistance or protection.

In view of the judgment of the CJEU, the court found that AB is a person with special medical needs for his personal care and education. These needs were being met by his parents, through the provision of a social worker, caring support in the home for four hours a week during term time and eeight hours a week during school holidays; the provision of adapted accommodation,
and the provision of specialist education at a special needs school including transport
to and from school. In addition, AB is cared for by a team of medical professionals. AB
has a number of aids at home including a special chair, a special bed, a bathroom chair,
and a mobile hoist.

The tribunal noted that UNRWA was unable to guarantee severely disabled
Palestinian children dignified living conditions commensurate with its mandate either
generally or in AB’s particular circumstances. The tribunal considered that UNRWA was still providing basic services to Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, but the agency was struggling to meet their needs generally and in some cases is unable to do so at all. The tribunal found that AB falls into this category but because of the fact that AB could not access assistance or protection on his own, even if it were available, the tribunal found that it applies also to NB, as she is the one responsible for caring for him. The tribunal concluded that UNRWA is not able to guarantee living conditions for the appellants that are commensurate to its
mandate. Also, the tribunal stated that it found credible the reasons for leaving Lebanon were beyond the control of the applicants because they arise directly as a result of AB’s disabilities.

The tribunal concluded that UNRWA assistance or protection has ceased for both AB and NB and that they are therefore entitled ipso facto to the protection of the Refugee Convention.