Tribunal decisions

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: LP/00023/2020

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Bradford
Decision & Reasons promulgated
On 26 November 2021
On 24 January 2022

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE HANSON

Between

DW
(Anonymity direction made)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr Cole of Parker Rhodes Hickmotts Solicitors.
For the Respondent: Mr Diwnycz, a Senior Home Office Presenting Officer.

DECISION AND REASONS

1. In a decision promulgated on 15 July 2021 Upper Tribunal Judge Blum found an error of law in the determination of a judge the First-tier Tribunal which he set aside with preserved findings.
2. The scope of the hearing before me, following the making of a Transfer Order, is that set out at [28] of Judge Blum’s order in the following terms:

28. The matter will be retained in the Upper Tribunal. The Judges factual findings relating to the appellant’s claimed conversion to Christianity are preserved. No challenge has been made to the judges Article 8 assessment to the extent that the assessment is independent of the protection claim. Those findings are also preserved. The outstanding issues to be resolved at the hearing to remake the appeal decision will be whether the appellant is an UNWRA registered Palestinian refugee, and if so, whether he faces a well-founded fear of persecution by reason of that alone.

Background

3. The appellant is a citizen of Lebanon whose date of birth is recorded as 1 May 1980. He arrived in the United Kingdom on 20 October 2004 and claimed asylum.
4. The basis of the protection claim is that the appellant was born and raised a Muslim but became disillusioned with that religion and converted to Christianity and has adopted a Christian name. The appellant claimed that he had problems in relation to alleged sexual relations with a neighbour’s female relative resulting in the neighbour wishing to kill him. As a result the appellant claimed he fled Lebanon in 2001 arriving in the UK in 2004.
5. The appellant claimed he had been effectively disowned by his father because of the problems he caused in the family due to his conversion to Christianity meaning he would have no offer of support from his family if he were to be returned to Lebanon.
6. The appellant is said to have previously suffered from mental health problems in the United Kingdom.
7. The findings of the First-tier Tribunal are set out from [26] of that decision in which there is reference to an earlier tribunal decision. Judge Blum summarised the findings of the First-tier Tribunal at [8] – 14] of his own decision in the following terms:

8. At [4] to [9] the judge outlined the appellant’s case, that he had been disowned by his father because of the problems he caused to his family involving an incident with the relative of a girl with whom he was in a brief relationship, his conversion to Christianity, and his claim to be a Palestinian refugee. The Judge then listed the issues in the appeal, which included, at [23] and [24], whether it was reasonably likely that the appellant was a Palestinian refugee and whether it was reasonably likely that he had converted from Islam to Christianity.
9. At [26], under the heading ‘Findings’, the judge stated that he did not find it reasonably likely that the appellant was a Palestinian refugee, or that he had converted to Christianity. At [36] to [37] the judge gave reasons for his finding in respect of the appellant’s claimed conversion and again repeated his conclusion at [46]. No challenge has been made in respect of the judge’s conclusion that the appellant was not a genuine convert to Christianity and I need say no more about this aspect of the decision.
10. At [27] the judge indicated that he had considered the expert country report from Dr Joffe and at [28] that he took as his starting point the decision of Judge Hemingway (as per the guidance in Devaseelan [2002] UKAIT 00702. At [29] the judge stated that, as with the respondent, he was not making any findings that the UNWRA documents were forgeries and he reminded himself that it was not for the appellant to corroborate his protection claim. The judge noted however that the UNWRA documents were only produced relatively recently and that the delay was for reasons that even Mr Cole, the appellant’s current legal representative, said “beggars belief.” The judge noted that whilst the appellant’s solicitors had use their best endeavours to verify the documents judge was not assisted by any country expert report or any other documentary expert report dealing with the documents.
11. Having noted at [30] that the appellant admitted past deceit concerning his age and identity, the judge stated at [31]:

“I find when examining his claim that there is a lack of sufficient material evidence to assist me as to how he was able to secure these documents (if estranged from his family), why the documents survived long after he left, as to the timing and procurement of them, and the nature and mechanics the request [sic] for forwarding on the same by his brother to the Appellant somewhere in the UK. Despite the email correspondence seeking to verify them, I have to note the photographs that I was invited to find must be the Appellant was seemingly appended but by a staple. The emails with the Appellant’s solicitors could well refer to genuine serial numbers name etc, but all the evidence leads me towards the conclusion that the Appellant is not credible; and the documents are not genuine in support of the claim (Tanveer Ahmed).”
12. At [32] the judge made a self-direction that the fact that the appellant previously misled people did not mean that he would always do so. The judge was nevertheless satisfied that the appellant was not a witness of truth or that the judge could rely on anything the appellant asserted. At [34] and [35] the judge did not accept the evidence provided by the appellant to support his claim required any departure from Judge Hemingway’s findings that the appellant was someone who was disenchanted with his life in Lebanon and who simply wish to maintain his presence in the UK at all costs.
13. The judge proceeded to find that the refusal of the appellant’s protection and human rights claim would not constitute a disproportionate interference with his Article 8 rights, either as expressed in the Immigration Rules or upon an assessment outside the Immigration Rules.
14. The judge dismissed both the protection and the human rights appeals.

8. The concerns in the mind of Judge Blum with this decision, leading to the finding of error of law and today’s hearing, are set out between [23] – [27] in the following terms:

23. In his statement the appellant did explain (at paragraphs 21 and 22) that he contacted his family in Lebanon and asked them to provide him with evidence of his true identity and status in Lebanon. The appellant first contacted his older brother “… as he was more understanding of the situation and was less conservative” than the appellant’s father. The appellant claimed his brother sent him the Palestinian Refugee ID card and the UNWRA Registration Card. The respondent’s electronic bundle of documents contained a DHL envelope indicating that it was shipped from Beirut on 13 February 2018 and the sender’s name was MES. There was therefore evidence before the judge as to how the appellant secured the documents and when they were sent. Whilst the appellant’s statement is vague as to when and how he contacted MES there is nothing in the determination before me to indicate that the appellant was asked at the hearing to provide further details. The appellant explained in his statement that his alleged brother was far more understanding and it was for this reason that he was contacted first. Having considered to the appellant’s statement and the DHL envelope I am persuaded, albeit by the narrowest of margins, that the judge’s conclusion that there was “a lack of sufficient material evidence” concerning the circumstances and process by which the appellant obtained the documents failed to take account of the evidence that was before the judge going to those particular issues. There was no engagement by the judge with the DHL envelope with the appellant’s explanation as to why he contacted MES and why MES sent him the documents. Given that the just [sic] relied on the absence of such evidence in concluding that the appellant was not an UNWRA registered Palestinian refugee, I am satisfied this failure constitutes an error on a point of law.
24. I additionally have some concerns regarding the judge’s assessment of the Palestinian Refugee ID card. The judge properly noted that the photograph purporting to be an image of the appellant was only attached to the Palestinian Refugee ID card by a staple. There was however a stamp embossed on both the photograph and the laminate card that, according to the translation, referred to the Lebanese Ministry of Interior and Municipalities for Political Affairs and Refugees. The judge made no reference to this stamp. The stamp, given that it covered both the photograph and the card, was a material elements that should have been considered by the judge in his assessment of the card. I am not suggesting that the judge would have found the Palestinian Refugee ID card genuine or reliable merely because it had a stamp across its face, but the stamp was a factor capable of supporting the appellant’s claim in respect of its reliability and the judge could not simply ignore it.
25. Mr Cole informed me that a colour scan of the Palestinian Refugee ID card was sent to UNWRA as an attachment during the email correspondence between him and UNWRA. Mr Cole submitted that if UNWRA had concerns with the Palestinian Refugee ID card then it would have said so. The fact that UNWRA did not raise any issue concerning the reliability of the Palestinian Refugee ID card, and confirmed that a person with the name ‘AM’ DOB 1980, whose mother ‘S’ was “… Registered as a Palestinian Refugee with his father” ‘HIS’ under an old registration number 33014249, should have been taken into account by the judge and that the judge’s assessment of the emails” … could well refer to genuine serial numbers name etc “was inadequate.
26. I accept that there was no clear and distinct consideration given by the judge to the fact that UNWRA were provided with the Palestinian Refugee ID card. I further accept that the judge’s assessment of the email correspondence was brief, to say the least. But UNWRA did not provide any comments in respect of the Palestinian Refugee ID card and they were not asked to comment upon whether it was a genuine document (I note, by way of observation that the Palestinian Refugee ID card is not a document issued by UNWRA). Nor is it clear from the UNWRA correspondence whether the Palestinian Refugee ID card was used by them in ascertaining the existence of a person called AM. UNWRA were able to confirm that someone with the Arabic name now given by the appellant, who was born in 1980, and whose parents whose names match those now given by the appellant, matches someone in their records. This is not evidence that the appellant is that person.
27. I am nevertheless persuaded, although by a very narrow margin indeed, that the errors of law identified in paragraphs 21 to 24 above are material. Despite the appellant’s history of deceit I cannot say that, but for the errors of law, the judge would inevitably have reached the same conclusion in respect of the appellant’s claimed Palestinian identity.

9. In his witness statement dated the 15 November 2019 the appellant stated he was born in May 1980 in Lebanon. He states that his mother was of Syrian origin living in Lebanon and that his father and he and his siblings were registered with the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA).
10. I observe at this stage that the appellants reference to UNRWA and Judge Blum’s reference to UNWRA appear to relate to the same organisation. I shall in the remainder of this decision, unless quoting directly from a source when Judge Blum’s abbreviation has been used, refer to UNRWA.
11. The appellant states his family group composes his father, mother, two brothers and one sister who are married with their own families and hence have their own UNRWA Registration. The appellant stated they did not live in a refugee camp in Lebanon but an apartment in Beirut and that his father ran a factory making ice cream and also had shops selling ice cream and that despite being Palestinian refugees his father managed to become quite successful and relatively wealthy.
12. The appellant went to school in Beirut which he left at approximately aged 17. A lot of the statement refers to the matters the appellant relied upon in support of his protection claim which have been found to lack credibility.
13. Concerning issues relevant to the case at this stage; the appellant admits providing false details to the Home Office previously but stated he contacted his family in Lebanon requesting that they provide him with evidence of his true identity and his status in Lebanon, as a result of which his older brother sent him the Palestinian Refugee in Lebanon identity card and the UNRWA Registration Card he now seeks to rely upon. The appellant sought to explain the fact the card is dated November 2004, after the date he left Lebanon, being as a result of his father applying to renew the Identity Cards for the whole family with him being included in that application.
14. The appellant claims to have had the odd text exchange with his brother since receiving the documents and to have spoken to his father just once in recent years, which he claims was a short and slightly awkward conversation about four years ago, and claims there is no chance of his family accepting him if he was returned to Lebanon as he has been absent from their lives for almost 20 years, has turned against their religion, adopted two different names, and claims to have caused some significant problems when he was living in Lebanon. I find that insofar as these claims relate to the grounds on which the appellant claimed an entitlement to international protection, which have been found to lack credibility, they do not assist the appellant at this stage. The adverse credibility findings have not been shown to be unsafe.
15. The appellant seeks to rely upon a number of documents including a report written by Dr Alan George dated 21 September 2021 and a second report dated 12 November 2021, a report of Professor Joffe dated 27 October 2019 and an updated report of 7 October 2021, a number of country reports and case law, together with a copy of the faxed altered identity card submitted to the Home Office in 2014, and the emails passing between Mr Cole and UNRWA in Lebanon in relation to the document sent to the appellant by his family.
16. In his original report Dr George, having set out his background and experience in relation to the Middle East and his suitability as a country expert (which was not disputed before me) addresses the appellant’s case from [29].
17. The basis of the instruction to Dr George is set out at [29] which is limited to him assessing the ID documents submitted by the appellant in support of his application. Dr George records his being able to peruse the original document and that although he had not been provided with a translation his level and understanding of Arabic enabled him to translate the content of the ID card for himself.
18. Dr George makes reference to a news agency photograph of an ID card appearing in May 2014 in a report concerning Palestinians in Lebanon on the website of the Gaza-based Alray news agency.
19. Dr George notes that the Lebanese government’s Directorate of Political and Refugee Affairs (formerly the Department of Palestinian Refugee Affairs), which forms part of the Interior Ministry, issues ID cards to all Palestinian refugees in Lebanon who are registered with UNRWA. In Dr George’s opinion in every respect the characteristics of the ID card provided by the appellant accord with those of genuine ID card. In his conclusion section Dr George writes:

Conclusion

38. Out of caution, I must record that the only way to be absolutely certain that any ID card is genuine is to check with the issuing agency.
39. I would also note that counterfeit documentation, often of good quality, is widely available in the Middle East, including Lebanon. I frequently encounter such documentation in the course of my work as an Expert Witness.
40. That said, there is nothing about [DW] Palestinian refugee ID card that would cause me to doubt its authenticity. In my opinion it is highly likely to be genuine.

20. The second report of Dr George dated 12 November 2021 arose following a request by the appellant’s representatives for him to respond to comments made by the Home Office in their positional statement dated 9 November 2021.
21. That positional statement was filed in response to directions given by the Upper Tribunal and is in the following terms:

2. As set out in the error of law decision of Upper Tribunal Judge Blum dated 09/06/21 [28], the FTT factual findings as to the appellant’s claimed conversion to Christianity are preserved. Likewise, are the findings made in relation to Article 8. The outstanding issues to be resolved whether the appellant is an UNRWA registered Palestinian refugee, and if so, whether he faces a well-founded fear of persecution by reason of that alone.
3. It is submitted that the evidence and credibility of the appellant remains damaged and unreliable. The Tribunal (Judge Hemingway) rejected the claim of the appellant in 2006 on the basis that his account was not believable. The appellant himself has admitted to lying to the Tribunal in relation to his father being deceased. In a similar manner, the appellant having submitted copies of a claimed Palestinian Refugee ID card to the SSHD in 2014 in the identity [DW] (copy of document at page 78 of AB – different serial number, date of birth, family details, and place of residence), plus translation (sent in SSHD correspondence of 22/06/21 in response to directions) of said document now seeks to admit that this document was false, and the translation provided was unreliable. It is noted that the account given by the appellant as to his historic access to ID documents and copies of them has varied across his applications -para 8, and 16-21 of the SSHD dated 28/08/19.
4. The current evidence of the appellant is that the ID card was obtained by his father, who despite the appellant having left Lebanon in 2001, opted to renew the identity cards for the entire family. In that regard it is noted that none of the other family members identity documents have been produced. In issuing the ID card, it is unclear how the Lebanese authorities were able to confirm as per the document that the appellant was ‘resident’ in Lebanon given he had left the state several years earlier. It is further unclear as to why the ID card details the place of residence as Kfar hatas (North Lebanon), when the UNRWA registration card details the residential area as Saida (South Lebanon), and the Registration Verification Form (AB 13) details the place of residence is Beirut.
5. The appellant seeks to rely on the expert report of Dr George. Whilst it is accepted that Dr George has appropriate experience and knowledge of the Middle East it is evident that he is not a document examination expert. Examination appears to have been conducted absent access to any other documentation in the appeal.
6. In concluding that the document appears to bear the expected characteristics of genuine ID cards and is highly likely to be genuine, Dr George at para 37 refers and relies on a comparison image obtained from Alamy.com. The website was accessed in drafting this statement and the images replicated below:
7. [photo]
8. It is evident that the picture is not a close-up image of the document and which itself is partially obscured. Despite Dr George latterly referring to the prevalence of fraudulent documentation of good quality being widely available, it is unclear how it can be assumed on the lack of clarity or verification of the image on Alamy.com that this is itself a genuine document. Dr George also observes that the signature of the issuing official on both the ID card relied on by the appellant and within the Alamy.com image are identical. It is not evident that Dr George is an expert in handwriting analysis, nor is it clear how Dr George is able to conclude that it is identical signature when the signature on the document in the image is partly obscured.
9. As noted within the error of law decision [26], UNRWA are not the issuing authority of the ID document. As set out in the translation of the document and affirmed by Dr George, these documents are issued by the Lebanese government’s Directorate of Political and Refugee Affairs (DPRA).
10. Dr George at paras 38 – 39 of his report refers to the prevalence of fraudulent documentation and that the only way to be certain is to check with the issuing agency - in this case the Lebanese authorities. Dr George’s opinion that there is nothing about the ID card that raises doubts over its authenticity, relies on the image comparison detailed at para 37, which for the aforementioned reasons is considered not to be supportive. It is submitted that the evidence/check detailed in the emails from UNRWA do not amount to an appropriate verification check that confirms the identity of the appellant and issuance of the ID card to him as consequence of his status. Again as noted in the error of law decision [26], at best email from UNRWA confirms that someone with the name claimed by the appellant, matches someone in their records and not that the appellant is that person.
11. The emails from UNRWA (AB 15) provide no confirmation that a check was conducted with reference to the image of the ID document, or that only records considered hold a picture of the appellant. Nor does it confirm that the check was simply conducted on the basis of the info provided in the pro forma form referred to in the email - it is assumed that this form is what is contained at (AB 13 – 14). It is submitted the email evidence from UNRWA is of little assistance given the circumstances.
12. Dr George makes no comment (understandably) as to how the appellant obtained the ID card issued 04 November 2004, given the appellant states that he had left Lebanon in 2001 and was in the UK having arrived on 21/10/04.
13. It is unclear how the appellant was able to obtain the document whilst not applying for it himself. Attention is drawn to (emphasis added):

Finnish Immigration Service, Syrian and Palestinian (in Lebanon and exiting Syria) refugees in Lebanon, 29 September 2016 (AB 118):

2.1… All Palestinians that are registered with DPRA are given ID cards. A person must apply for the card personally. It will only be renewed if there is a change in the person situation, he or she gets married, divorced or dies, for example. A lost ID can be renewed after the loss has been reported to a court.

Danish Immigration Service/Landinfo, Stateless Palestinian Refugees in Lebanon, 03 November 2014

1.5.3 Issuance of identity cards

Concerning identification cards of Palestinians from Lebanon, DPAR stated that every Palestinian registered in DPAR is issued a personal identification card which states that he or she is a Palestinian refugee in Lebanon. The card has no expiration date and will therefore not be replaced unless certain events [changing one’s civil status], i.e. marriage, divorce, death, etc. takes place or in case the photo is to be replaced according to age.

If a Palestinian loses his ID card, he is to report it to the court (“Niaba al-Aama al-Estenafiya”) of the area where he has lost his card. The court will initiate an investigation carried out by the relevant authorities (General Security or the Internal Security Forces) regarding the loss of the identification card. The court will then give the applicant a copy of the investigation report that proves the loss of his ID-card. This copy together with the application is to be submitted to DPAR by the applicant in order to get a new ID-card.

It was added that DPAR does not issue identification cards through proxies and that an individual must present himself personally in order to obtain a new identification card.

14. There is no indication in the evidence of the appellant where such a situation required a renewal of his ID card, such as marriage, divorce or death within the family.
15. In light of the above it is submitted that when viewed in the round in light of the established credibility issues, the evidence relied on by the appellant is neither sufficient, persuasive, nor consistent with the background material to establish that the appellant is a Palestinian refugee.

Evidence in relation to circumstances in Lebanon/submission in the alternative

16. The evidence of the appellant (witness statement dated 15/11/19 paras 6-7) sets out that despite claiming to be a Palestinian refugee, the family were able to reside in their own apartment, run an ice cream factory and become ‘successful and relatively wealthy’. The appellant was also able to attend school to the age of 17.
17. This stands at odds with the country background information relating to Palestinians living in Lebanon both historically and currently, for example:

Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) Australia, DFAT Thematic Report:
Palestinians in Jordan and Lebanon (March 2015), 02 March 2015 [Excerpt(s)] (AB79):

4.6… Palestinians in Lebanon have restricted access to the job market, social services (including health) and education. As a result, the Palestinian community in Lebanon is marked by high poverty rates, and poor infrastructure and housing conditions. In 2012, the International Labour Organisation rated 66% of Palestinians as poor (living on less than six US dollars (USD) per day….

4.7 … Approximately 80% of the Palestinian workforce, work informally..

4.13. Between 50 and 65% of Palestinians in Lebanon live in 12 refugee camps..

4.27… A 2012 survey of Palestinians in Lebanon revealed that the highest level of education, achieved by approximately half of the Palestinian population, was the completion of primary school. 12% of Palestinians in Lebanon had completed secondary school (a figure up from 6% in 1999)

4.30 In summary, DFAT assesses that Palestinians in Lebanon are subject to a high level of official, if indirect, discrimination. While Lebanese law generally does not specifically target Palestinians, legislative restrictions prevent the Palestinian community from substantially bettering its position or prospects.

18. This is reflective of the bulk of the country information relating to Palestinians living in Lebanon. The appellant does not, and has never outlined any degree of hardship relating to his family circumstances in Lebanon. This being the point made in the alternative within the SSHD’s decision letter at paras 24-29. On this basis, even if the appellant establishes that he is a Palestinian refugee registered with UNRWA, he would not be facing a risk of serious harm and return. The appellant states he remained in contact with his family whilst in the UK. Which it was claimed was the reason for some degree of animosity between his father and himself. On that basis, there is no reason to doubt he would benefit from such a support network and return.

22. Dr George records being “very struck” that the Positional Statement did not identity any feature of the ID card that might indicate that it is counterfeit and that in that regard the Positional Statement concurs with his initial report.
23. At [5] of the second report Dr George writes:

5. I would observe that the Home Office has a well regarded National Document Fraud Unit (NDFU), based near Heathrow Airport, that certainly has the capability to assess the likely authenticity of ID cards held by Palestinian refugees in Lebanon. I am surprised that in this case the Home Office has apparently not availed itself of that resource.

24. That observation is factually correct and in was indeed commented upon by Mr Diwnycz in his submissions. The existence of the National Document Fraud Unit (NDFU) is well known and has produced some very useful work when assessing documentation in the past. The fact of the matter is, in this appeal, the documents do not appear to have been referred to the Unit for their professional opinion on whether the documents are genuine or not.
25. Dr George deals with what he perceives to be a criticism of his expertise as a document examiner in that he does not claim this is his main area of work. Dr George acknowledges that document examination is not the sole or primary focus of his professional activities but feels able to comment upon the documents he was asked to examine on the basis he is familiar with the style and format of documents used by Palestinians in Lebanon and keeps on file a number of such documents both genuine and counterfeit that he has acquired during the course of his work as an expert witness, which he uses as comparators when assessing the likely authenticity of documents. Dr George also in his report refers to the fact that since 2004 he has prepared an estimated 650 separate authentication reports on Middle Eastern documents, that he has visited the NDFU this several times in order to assess documents, is known to senior officials of the Unit, and has no reason to believe that they do not respect his abilities as a document examiner albeit that their approach may differ.
26. Mr Diwnycz in his submissions did not seek to undermine the expertise of Dr George, which has been accepted in a number of cases heard by the Upper Tribunal, and I find no reason for not placing appropriate weight upon Dr George’s expertise and the opinion he has expressed in his reports. In considering the weight to be given to the report it is noted that Dr George himself refers to the fact that he did not peruse any appeal related documents other than the original of the ID card itself as that was all he was asked to do; but states that had he perused the other documents it would not have altered his opinion in relation to the ID card.
27. Dr George also writes at [24 -25]:

24. At its Paragraph 8 of the Home Offices Position Statement notes that the photo of an ID card from the Alamy.com website that I had produced at Paragraph 37 of my initial Report ‘is not a close-up image of the document… which itself is partially obscured’.
25. In my opinion it is not relevant that the ID card in the photo is not a close-up; or that it is ‘partially obscured’. As I made plain in my initial Report, my key interest in this particular photo was specifically the signature of the official which is visible at the base of the document. It is correct that the document is not shown as a close-up; and that very small parts of the document - including part of the signature - are obscured by the finger holding it. In my opinion, however, enough of the photo was clearly visible to render it of use in my assessment of [DW] document.

28. A point emphasised by Dr George throughout the second report is the limited scope of instructions received from the appellant’s solicitors who only asked him to assess the likely authenticity of the ID card rather than dealing with the issue of how the appellant obtained the ID card or his family’s material circumstances. I accept that the limit of the instructions provided to Dr George dictate the issue he was required to consider in his professional capacity.
29. The report of Professor Joffe, dated 27 October 2019, sets out the scope of his instructions namely that he had been asked to comment upon the appellant’s appeal against the Secretary of State’s decision to refuse his fresh application for international protection and/or for leave to remain in the United Kingdom on any other basis. The report examines country conditions and comments on issues such as sufficiency of protection, internal relocation, conditions in the refugee camps, and issue of return, but a lot of the comments and observations have to be considered against the preserved findings in which the basis of the appellant’s claim was found to lack credibility by the First-tier Tribunal Judge.
30. The second report of Professor Joffe dated 7 October 2021 records him having been instructed to prepare a supplementary report in connection with an appeal to be heard in the Upper Tribunal over an alleged error of law in the decision of the First-tier Tribunal although by that date an error of law had been found in the First-tier Tribunal decision by Upper Tribunal Judge Blum.
31. The second report comments upon the contemporary situation in Lebanon including refugee crisis, the current situation in Beirut included by reference to the explosion in the port of Beirut of a ship carrying ammonium nitrate which was widely covered in the international press, and political developments.
32. The reference to the emails in this case is to a chain of communication between Mr Cole and a representative of UNWRA. In the initial email of 6 November 2018 Mr Cole writes “The UK Home Office do not believe that my client is a Palestinian refugee. My client has now produced to me an old ID card for Palestinian refugees in Lebanon and an old UNRWA Registration Card for his family (father, sister & my client). I am seeking to confirm that my client was a Palestinian refugee in Lebanon registered with UNRWA. Would you be able to assist in this matter? The UNWRA Registration Card was issued in December 2000 and has the registration No: 33014249. If you can assist, then I could scan and email the card to you.”
33. In a response email also 6 November 2018 Mr Cole is asked if he can get his client to fill out an attached form based on which UNWRA claim they will be able to make checks and provide an answer. That form was completed and returned with other identity documents by Mr Cole on 13 November 2018.
34. In an email dated 21 November 2018 a representative of UNWRA wrote:

“We have checked our records and wish to inform you that there is a person in the name of [AM], dob 1980, mother [S] registered with UNWRA as a Palestinian refugee with his father [IHS] and the Family Registration ID#1-00042425. His old registration number was 33014249.”

35. The reference to a DHL envelope in the papers is an envelope in which the appellant claims the ID documents were shipped to him in 2018.

Discussion

36. The Secretary of State’s position set out in the Refusal Letter in relation to the appellant’s fresh claim to be entitled to a grant of international protection as a Palestinian refugee from Lebanon is as follows:

5. The following point remains of relevance to your further submissions application. Immigration Judge Hemingway in their determination promulgated on 18 December 2006 made the following finding (AA/12715/2006):

‘… I find that the Appellant’s vagueness, and indeed inconsistency, in this regard, damages his credibility. (Para 20).

The Appellant has been vague, at times very vague, regarding his claimed family background as a Palestinian or a person with a Palestinian father living in Lebanon. (Para 23).

Similarly, the Appellant was unaware of UN organisations who specifically helped displaced Palestinians. He was unable to give any information about such organisations in response to questions 24 and 25 of his interview. I think that as a Palestinian, in Lebanon, this is something which he would know. (Para 25)

… I believe that his description as to how he and his family live their lives, outside the refugee camp, is not consistent with what one might expect having read the objective materials. I also take the view that if the family were being financially supported by Palestinian organisations, he would know which organisations these were. He did not. (Para 26)

I find that the Appellant was born in Lebanon and has lived all of his life there. I find that he is not Palestinian and his family are not Palestinians. (Para 41).

I find the Appellant is, for whatever reason, disenchanted with his life in Lebanon and that this is why he has left the country rather than his having enemies or having any well-founded fear of persecution either for a 1951 Convention reason or for some other reason’. (Para 43).

6. In summary, the Immigration Judge (IJ) found the evidence you presented was vague and indeed inconsistent, which damaged your credibility. You were unable to provide information on UN organisations who specifically helped displaced Palestinians, nor could you provide information on the Palestinian organisations see you claimed financially supported your family.
7. The IJ found you were born in Lebanon and had lived there all your life and therefore concluded you were not Palestinian, nor were your family Palestinian. Furthermore, the IJ found you are disenchanted with your life in Lebanon and that was the reason you left the country rather than having any well-founded fear of persecution.
8. Following on from this you submitted further submissions and 19/08/2014 where you submitted a photo copy of an identity document. The document was assessed previously and the following was found:

‘came into possession of the document by randomly calling numbers from your memory and eventually called Joseph Makhael who you claim is a Lebanese man who still lives in Lebanon. You state Mr Makhael located a photo copy of the document from your old house in a district of Lebanon. You state the original document was not there and you do not know where the original is. You have not provided any explanation as to why a photo copy of the document would be stored at your previous address but not the original document.

You state Mr Makael faxed the document through to a shop in Sheffield. You have not provided any evidence to support this claim, nor does the document show a telephone number for the fax machine it was sent from.

There has been no evidence submitted to demonstrate this document was sent by Mr Makhael, nor have you demonstrated Mr Makhael sent this document from Lebanon.’

9. This was previously dismissed in your previous submissions due to the document not being the original document and also the information on how the document was obtained was inconsistent with previous information provided.

…

12. In your current further submissions you have provided the claimed original copy of the identity card you previously submitted as stated above. Consideration is now given to this.
13. You maintain your claim of being a Palestinian Refugee although the previous Immigration Judge dismissed this claim. Taking your claim to the highest, consideration is given to the identity card and UNWRA card you have provided in support of your claim.

…

18. In your current further submissions you have provided what you claim is the original identity card. You claim that you contacted your family back in Lebanon to obtain the original copy and that this was sent to you by your brother [MES] (as referenced on the claimed DHL Proof of postage). You have failed to state how you got in touch with your family after previously claiming that you called different numbers to ensure you can obtain a photo copy of the document from your old house in a district of Lebanon and also why you did not produce this previously when asked for proof of your identity and nationality.
19. You claim that your father had to renew the claimed identity cards for the whole family hence why the document is dated 2004 (as claimed on the translation provided by Linked Language). In your previous further submissions you provided a translation of the photo copied identity card. The translation does state that the majority of the identity card is illegible however, there are legible parts of the document. On the previous translation your religion is noted to be Christian, whereas on the current translation provided your religion is noted as being Muslim Shia. Other discrepancies include your name and your father’s name been stated differently on both translations. On your previous further submissions your name is stated as being [DW] and your father is stated as being Philip whereas the new translation states your name is being [AMS] and your father is stated as being [I]. The inconsistencies between the two translations add little weight to your claim.
20. The identity card is made from a piece of card with your photograph stapled to it. The card is laminated with the information sealed underneath. The card appears to have been hand written and does not have to have any watermarks to confirm that it is a genuine card from Lebanon issued by the authorities.
21. Therefore, the discrepancy between the two translations, the methodology of how you obtain the identity card from Lebanon, was previously not accepted by the adjudicator that you were a Palestinian refugee and it is not now accepted that this document substantiate your claims and the findings of the judge are maintained.
22. Consideration is now given to the UNWRA registration car you have provided with your further submissions….
23. Alongside this, you have provided email chains between your representative and UNWRA and a Registration Verification Form for Persons Registered with UNWRA along with the translated document. The document appears to be a photo copy of a handwritten document that was forwarded on to UNWRA via email regarding the confirmation of your Palestinian Refugee status. The email chain provided appears to confirm that your family are in fact registered with UNWRA.
24. Even if this is accepted as a genuine document, taking your claim to the highest, you could return to Lebanon and not be at risk of persecution due to previously living there and as per your appeal (paragraph 26) you failed to indicate why your family continued to live outside of a refugee camp and live the lifestyle you continue to do so with your family back in Lebanon. Country Policy and Information Note Lebanon: Palestinians – June 2018 states:

2.6.19 Palestinian refugees resident in Lebanon and eligible to be, or registered with, UNWRA fall within the scope of Article 1D of the Refugee Convention.

2.6.20 in general such persons are not subject to treatment that by its nature and/or repetition is likely to amount to persecution or serious harm. They are therefore likely to be excluded from the Refugee Convention under Article 1D as they receive assistance from UNWRA which has not ceased to be available for any reason.

25. As stated above, an individual who is UNWRA registered would not face persecution due to being a Palestinian Refugee as they will receive assistance from UNWRA. In your appeal (paragraph 26) it is noted that you stated your family did not face problems whilst in Lebanon. It is also noted that your brother continues to reside there as per the claimed DHL proof of postage that states he lives in Beirut. This indicates that your family continue to reside in the area you left and that they do not face any issues residing there, supporting that you would face no persecution on your return.
26. As stated above you have failed to provide any evidence as to why these documents were not previously available and how they add weight to your claim as the Judge previously ruled that you are a Lebanon national and not a Palestinian refugee. As stated above, if the UNWRA card is a genuine document and you were in fact a Palestinian Refugee, you would be returning as registered with UNWRA meaning you would not face any risk of persecution and return as your family continue to reside in Beirut, the area in which you left and you would receive family support and return.
27. One paragraph of your witness statement your representative states that you did not have huge problems because of your conversion to Christianity however in the next paragraph it is noted it states that you had difficulties because of your conversion to Christianity. His paragraph contradicts the other provided and you have also failed to provide any evidence to support this in your further submissions, therefore this adds a little weight to your claim.

37. The Secretary of State sets out a summary of her case at [29] under the heading ‘Summary of future fear’ in the following terms:

29. If you were to be returned to Lebanon, you have provided no acceptable evidence to suggest that you are a person of interest to any actors (state or nonstate). The evidence you have lodged has been carefully assessed and dismissed for the reason shown above. You have failed to provide any evidence that you were at risk back in Lebanon due to a nonstate actor. You have also failed to provide any evidence that you encounter difficulties back in Lebanon due to your conversion to Christianity (as stated in your witness statement). As stated above, if the UNWRA registration card is genuine and you are in fact a Palestinian Refugee, it is noted that you face no risk and return to Lebanon and can live facing no problems in the same way your family has done since you left.

38. The appellant was not born in any of the Palestinian Territories, and it is not in dispute that he was born and brought up in Lebanon. The term ‘Palestine refugee’ in the context of this appeal (and the work of UNWRA) applies to everyone who lost both their home in Palestine and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 conflict although the relatives of those who originally qualified are also eligible to receive protection or assistance from UNRWA.
39. Based on their legal status and registration with the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), Palestinian refugees in Lebanon can be categorized into four groups:

“Registered” refugees (“Palestine refugees”), which are registered with UNRWA and the Lebanese authorities;

“Non-registered” Palestinian refugees, which are not registered with UNRWA, but are registered with the Lebanese authorities;

“Non-ID” Palestinian refugees, who are neither registered with UNRWA nor with the Lebanese authorities; and

Palestine refugees from Syria, who have arrived in Lebanon since 2011.

40. The appellant asserts he falls within the first category.
41. It is not disputed that Palestinian refugees in Lebanon reportedly continue to face acute socioeconomic deprivation and legal barriers to their full enjoyment of a broad range of human rights and are said to have been historically marginalized and excluded from key aspects of social, political and economic life with no right to own immovable property; severely curtailed access to public services (other than those provided by UNRWA), such as health and education; and restrictions regarding specific professions and limited job opportunities, with those who are not registered or non-ID finding it more difficult than those who are registered.
42. It is against this background that the Secretary of State comments upon the apparent success of the appellant’s parents in owning and running their own business and the appellant’s access to education.
43. Palestine refugees are generally dependent on UNRWA services and relief due to the restricted access to public education, public health care and social services, as well as employment. The evidence does not show the appellant has any such dependency, a finding supported by his lack of knowledge of those who provide assistance to Palestinian refugees in Lebanon as found by Judge Hemingway and noted in the Refusal letter.
44. Whilst the possession of a valid residency or identity card is required to regularise residency status Palestine refugees are reportedly denied citizenship in Lebanon.
45. The appellant’s own evidence is that he has a valid ID card (issued by the authorities in Lebanon [DPAR]) and registration which in part is supported by the production of the card the appellant claims was applied for by his father naming the appellant even though he was in the UK at that time.
46. The appellant fails to adequately address this issue in the evidence and as noted by Dr George he was not asked to comment upon how the appellant obtained the documents.
47. If the appellant had been registered with UNRWA in the past, i.e. at birth, he will have remained registered as a refugee’s registration with DPAR is reportedly only cancelled in three specific events, namely:

(i) in the case of a refugee’s death and upon request of the General Security to DPAR to cancel the person’s registration following their death, or
(ii) if the refugee obtains the nationality of a third country, or
(iii) if the refugee has submitted an application to the General Security to have his/her registration cancelled.

48. As there is no evidence of any of these three events having occurred the appellant’s registration with DPAR and UNRWA, if valid, will remain so.
49. It is not made out that the appellant does not have contact with his family in Lebanon or that they will not be willing to provide support and assistance to him on his return.
50. The respondent refers in the Refusal Letter to the CPIN at 1.2.1 which reads:

Palestinian refugees in Lebanon who were receiving protection and / or assistance from the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) are excluded from the protection of the Refugee Convention under Article 1D unless such protection has ceased for any reason.

51. The significance of Article 1D of the Refugee Convention 1951 is that it provides that “the Convention shall not apply to persons who are at present receiving from organs or agencies of the United Nations other than the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees protection or assistance”. UNRWA is an organ or agency of the United Nations and not the UNHCR.
52. This issue was considered by the Grand Chamber of the CJEU in Abed El Karem El Kott and Others v Bevándolási és Állampolgársági Hivatal(Case C-364/11) CJEU (Grand Chamber) in which the Applicants were Palestinians in refugee camps in Lebanon which were operated by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (“UNRWA”). They fled to Hungary after being threatened and ill-treated in the camps in Lebanon. On appeal challenging a refusal to recognise them as refugees, it was submitted that, since UNRWA protection had ceased within the meaning of Article 1D of the Convention, they were automatically entitled to recognition as refugees. It was held that the fact alone that an applicant for refugee status had departed from UNRWA’s area of operations could not, regardless of the reasons for the departure, end the exclusion from refugee status laid down in the first sentence of Article 12(1)(a)of the Qualification Directive. However, if the person concerned had been forced to leave for reasons unconnected with that person’s will, such a situation might lead to a finding that the assistance from which that person benefited had ceased within the meaning of Article 12(1)(a). In examining the circumstances giving rise to the departure from the area, the national authorities must take account of the objective of Article 1D of the Convention and thus a Palestinian refugee must be regarded as having been forced to leave the UNRWA’s area of operations if his personal safety was at serious risk and if it was impossible for that agency to guarantee that his living conditions in that area would be commensurate with the mission entrusted to that agency (paras49 –65). In carrying out an examination of an asylum claim, the national authorities must verify not only that the applicant actually sought assistance from UNRWA, and that the assistance had ceased, but also that the applicant was not caught by any of the grounds of exclusion laid down in Article 12(1)(b) or (2) and (3) of the Directive.
53. In this appeal there is no credible evidence of the appellant being forced to leave Lebanon for reasons unconnected with his will. The finding of Judge Hemingway that the reason the appellant left Lebanon was because he became disillusioned with life there has not been shown to be an unsafe finding especially in light of the preserved adverse credibility findings in this appeal.
54. In Nawras Bolbol v Bevándorlásiés Állampolgársági Hivatal(Case C-31/09) CJEU (Grand Chamber), 17 June 2010 the Claimant, a stateless person of Palestinian origin claimed asylum on the basis that she could not return to Gaza on account of the unsafe situation there. The Claimant submitted that refugee status could be granted under Article 1D(2) of the Refugee Convention on a separate basis from recognition as a refugee under Article 1A. Article 1D provided that the Convention did not apply to persons receiving protection or assistance from a United Nations agency, other than the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (“UNHCR”), unless such protection or assistance had ceased for any reason in which case the person ipso facto would become entitled to the benefits of the Convention. The Claimant had never availed herself of the protection or assistance of the UNRWA the relevant UN agency but stated that she was entitled to be registered with the UNRWA due to family connections. She submitted that unconditional refugee status applied due to her being a former resident of Palestine, now living outside of the UNRWA’s area of operation, which meant she had ceased to receive protection and assistance from the UN agency in accordance with Article 1D. The ECJ held that UNRWA’s Instructions stated that while the term ‘Palestine refugee’ applied to everyone who lost both their home in Palestine and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 conflict, other persons were also eligible to receive protection or assistance from UNRWA. It could not be ruled out a priori that the Claimant, who was not registered with UNRWA, could nonetheless fall within Article 1D (paras 45 –46). It was clear, however, that the specific Convention rules applicable to displaced Palestinians concerned only those persons who at present were receiving protection or assistance from UNRWA. Article 1D excluded those who were “at present receiving” protection or assistance. It followed that only those who availed themselves of this protection or assistance came within this provision. In light of the fact that the Claimant had not availed herself of protection or assistance from UNRWA, it was not necessary to rule on the question about whether being outside the area of operations constituted a cessation of the protection or assistance (paras 55 –56).
55. In this appeal it is not made out, due to the economic success of the family lack of knowledge of the organisations providing support for Palestinian refugees in Lebanon and evidence considered cumulatively, that the appellant was seeking the protection or assistance from UNRWA and is therefore it is not made out that he is excluded from the protection of the Refugee Convention on the basis of Article 1D.
56. As the appellant is registered and has a valid ID card he is deemed to be legally resident in Lebanon, to have identity documents, and generally to be able to access travel documents to enter and leave the country. In relation to registered Palestinians it is recorded in the CPIN:

4.2 Registered Palestinians

4.2.1 UNRWA defines Palestinian refugees as ‘“persons whose normal place of
residence was Palestine during the period 1 June 1946 to 15 May 1948, and
who lost both home and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948
conflict.”’ The same source also stated that ‘UNRWA services are available
to all those living in its area of operations who meet this definition, who are registered with the Agency and who need assistance. The descendants of Palestine refugee males, including adopted children, are also eligible for
registration.’

4.2.2 The DFAT Report 2015 clarified: ‘UNRWA only registers Palestinians
displaced during the 1947–1949 Arab–Israel war, as well as their
descendants. Palestinians displaced as a result of the 1967 Arab–Israel war
are thus ineligible for registration with UNRWA (though UNRWA may provide them with services when necessary).’

4.2.3 The American University of Beirut (AUB) / UNRWA socio-economic survey of Palestinians in 2015 observed:

‘Registered Palestine refugees are those registered with UNRWA and are
usually also registered with the Directorate General of Political and Refugees Affairs (DPRA).[…] They are registered in the UNRWA registration system and are included on the registration card of their family. They also usually hold an “Identification Card for Palestine Refugee” issued by DPRA,[…] which is the officially recognized identification card for Palestine refugees in Lebanon (not Palestine refugees from Syria).

57. The success of the family and the fact the appellant attended education does not undermine his claim alone as the statistics for those living in the camps or in poor conditions in percentage terms clearly admit that there is also a percentage who can be economically better off than others. Also not being in one of the refugee camps prevents an individual coming into conflict with the armed groups who may dominate such settlements as identified in the country reports where it is noted, for example, by Professor Joffe that some camps are more internally militarised and radicalised with Islamic militia with freedom of speech being curtailed in camps where Islamic factions are more influential.
58. It is not disputed the appellant has a right of internal relocation within Lebanon. Professor Joffe in his report writes:

4.81 All Lebanese nationals may legally relocate and resettle, subject to financial constraints, to any area within Lebanon (though for social reasons many live where their confession is the majority or else a substantial minority).

4.82. Palestinians may legally live anywhere in Lebanon if they can afford to pay rent and other fees, such as municipal fees, and an equal footing with Lebanese citizens. Palestinians may rent property in Lebanon, on an equal footing with foreigners. However, as discussed in ‘Property Ownership and Housing’, above, Palestinians may not legally buy property in Lebanon. Palestinians who live outside camps in properties rented or bought prior to 2001 and not considered to be living illegally.

4.83. Palestinians in some refugee camps are under movement and residency controls. For instance, restrictions to freedom of movement remain in place for Palestinians in Nahr al-Bared camp, including a military-administered permit system. Palestinian camps in southern Lebanon are fenced, with a limited number of entrances and exits. Restrictions are imposed on these camps at night.

4.84. Many non-ID Palestinians will reportedly not leave their camps, the fear of being arrested for not having identification.

59. As noted above the appellant’s family have been able to accommodate themselves, own or rent premises in which to live and run their businesses and to have moved within Lebanon indicating they have enjoyed freedom of movement and an ability to function both socially and economically. It is not made out that the appellant, if returned, will be denied the access and support of his family especially as he has maintained contact and the reasons he claims his family have ostracised him have been found not to be credible. The appellant’s claim his family may not support him as he has been out of Lebanon for a number of years is speculative with no evidence that his family would turn their back on him. There is evidence of family member clearly lives in Beirut were the appellant’s early evidence shows his family achieving their economic success.
60. Mr Cole in his submissions referred to another specific point namely difficulties that the appellant would have re-entering Lebanon and therefore being able to gain access to his family or support that may be available. This in the section of his report entitled ‘Entry and Exit Procedures’ Professor Joffe writes:

4.85. In practice, Palestinians have been denied entry to Lebanon in all but exceptional circumstances since September 2013, due to the large number of Syrian refugees entering Lebanon. Palestinians wishing to leave Lebanon must obtain an exit permit and may be required to pay a fine.

61. It is not made out, even if the appellant did not obtain a permit permitting him to leave that any fine would be persecutory. The report also refers to the ability of 1948 Palestinians to receive five-year passports which can be easily renewed. It is therefore not a case of the appellant as a Palestinian with no connection to Lebanon or documentation seeking to return taking his case at its highest, but a person who may be able to obtain or renew a passport and return to a country to which he has been recognised as a person with a lawful right to reside there.
62. In relation to travel in and out of Lebanon the CPIU states:

12.2 Travel into / out of Lebanon

12.2.1 The 2015 DFAT report mentioned that ‘In practice, Palestinians have been denied entry to Lebanon in all but exceptional circumstances since September 2013, due to the large numbers of Syrian refugees entering Lebanon. Palestinians wishing to leave Lebanon must obtain an exit permit and may be required to pay a fine.’

12.2.2 The 2017 DFAT report noted that:

‘Hizballah exercises substantial control over Beirut’s Rafic Hariri International Airport (the international airport is located in an area where Hizballah has substantial influence). Hizballah may therefore be aware of citizens who have sought asylum elsewhere returning to Lebanon. Hizballah is unlikely to target a returning individual unless that person presented a direct threat to its authority. Hizballah’s influence over Beirut’s Rafic Hariri International Airport would therefore create no problems for the majority of returnees. More broadly, airport security screening is not rigorous, due to understaffing.’

12.2.3 The UNHCR reported in 2016 that:

‘Palestine refugees in Lebanon who are registered with the Lebanese authorities and who wish to travel from and to Lebanon need to acquire Palestinian travel documents issued by the Lebanese General Directorate of General Security, or General Security Office (GSO). While such documents allow them to leave and re-enter the country, Palestine refugees from Lebanon are, however, reported to be confronted with various limitations in applying for visas to third countries due to their status as Palestine refugees. Those who leave Lebanon without Palestinian travel documents are reportedly readmitted to the country but would be considered to have left the country illegally and would be subjected to detention (between one week to three months) and/or fines (1,250 to 7,500 Lebanese Pounds) upon return, in line with applicable legislation.

‘Palestine refugees who are registered with both UNRWA and DPAR can reportedly obtain travel documents valid for one, three or five years.’

12.2.10 The 2016 Finnish Immigration Service report stated:

‘Palestinians can use their Palestinian travel document for travel in and out of Lebanon if it is for multiple uses despite the Lebanese passport renewal. According to UNRWA there was an announcement in April 2016 that the travel document would be accepted again at airports while the Lebanese authorities adapt their system. UNRWA has not encountered cases where a Palestinian would have faced problems concerning this.

‘The website of the GS stated in early 2016 that updated versions of the Palestinian travel documents are in use and that new biometric travel documents will be adopted. In the meanwhile, “[t]here will be no more renewals when it comes to the Palestinian travel documents.”

‘If a Palestinian is abroad and does not have the travel document, the have to go to the Lebanese embassy. It is a complex and time consuming process. When entering Lebanon, the person will be questioned for hours. One cannot enter Lebanon without the travel document.’

63. Although it is submitted the appellant with experience difficulties with documentation there is insufficient evidence to show that he has approached the embassy in the United Kingdom with the documents he has provided in support of his claim in this appeal, which he claims are valid, to obtain the necessary travel documents to enable him to return to Lebanon. The appellant’s claim has not been made on the basis of his being stateless.
64. Even though country conditions in some parts of Lebanon are difficult and that the conditions for the majority of Palestinians in some refugee camps are poor, it was not made out the appellant will require to live in one of the camps be if he is returned. It is not made out on the evidence that Article 15(c) of the Qualification Directive is met in the event the appellant is unable to succeed under the Refugee Convention, or that the general situation in Lebanon will mean removing the appellant back to that country will be a breach of Article 3 or entitle him to a grant of Humanitarian Protection. There is insufficient evidence to warrant a finding that the appellant has faced a real risk of serious harm simply by virtue of exposure to any violence or violent groups within Lebanon in the past or that he would do so in the future. It is not made out on the evidence that this is an exceptional situation in which conditions in Lebanon, for example, absence of water, food or basic shelter, are unacceptable to the point that return in itself would constitute inhuman and degrading treatment for the appellant. It is not made out that factors such as the appellants age, gender, ill-health, other family circumstances, or availability of a support structure give rise to any enhanced risk.
65. The report of Dr George confirms that the documents relied upon by the appellant are in the same format of an original document. Is that in light of the adverse credibility findings by both Judge Hemingway and First-tier Tribunal judge in this appeal, little weight should be given to this document in line with the principles set out in Tanveer Ahmed [2002] UKIAT 00439.
66. If the document is not genuine then the appellant is, as set out in the Refusal Letter and unable to substantiate his claim to be a Palestinian refugee supporting a finding that he is a citizen of Lebanon who faces no real risk on return. If it is accepted that, to the lower standard applicable in appeal of this nature, the balance of evidence shows the documentation relied upon by the appellant is genuine, I find the appellant has not established that if returned to Lebanon he will be unable to re-enter. I do not find he has no viable and effective support network within that country from his family, or that he will face persecution. In light of his specific circumstances it is not made out any discrimination will be sufficient to amount to persecution or be a sufficient level to engage article 3 ECHR. I find the appellant has failed to establish that he will face very significant obstacles to his reintegration into Lebanon notwithstanding the time he has been in the United Kingdom sufficient to entitle him to a grant pursuant to paragraph 276ADE of the Immigration Rules or to establish any disproportionate interference with any private life he has formed as a result of his time in the United Kingdom when his status has been precarious.
67. I do not find the appellant has established that if returned to Lebanon he will suffer persecution for a Convention Reason sufficient to entitle him to a grant of international protection as a refugee on either basis. There is insufficient credible evidence to warrant a finding in the appellant’s favour in relation to his claim for international protection or on any alternative basis when considering the evidence made available to the Upper Tribunal as a whole and the preserved findings of the First-tier Tribunal.
68. It is not made out the appellant would not be able to obtain the necessary permits which the country information clearly shows will be available to him, even if he may experience difficulties obtaining the same to enable him to work. It is noted most of the Palestinian population work in the informal economy and it is not made out that his family will not be able to provide assistance by way of financial support or introductions to him. The appellant is not in the same position as a Palestinian refugee from Syria where, as a result of the conflict in that country and the substantial number of refugees seeking to enter Lebanon, restrictions on the border have been put in place.
69. In Auad v Bulgaria (Application no. 46390/10) ECtHR(Fourth Section) the ECtHR held that the situation in Lebanon did not appear so serious that the return of the Palestinian Applicant would itself constitute a breach of Article 3. However, the Applicant’s status as a stateless Palestinian originating from a refugee camp meant that there was a likelihood that he would not be allowed to reside in Lebanon proper but would have to return to the camp from which he fled. The country information confirmed that Palestinian refugee camps were outside the control of the Lebanese authorities and continued to be plagued by violence and armed clashes between various factions. Ain al-Hilweh appeared to be one of the more chaotic and violent camps where Fatah and radical Islamist groups were engaged in a historical conflict. It was not evident that Fatah, despite its relative dominance in Ain al-Hilweh, would be able to provide the Applicant with effective protection. Nor was it apparent that he would be able to settle in another Palestinian refugee camp. Those circumstances, coupled with the Applicant’s own personal account, amounted to at least prima facie evidence capable of proving that there were substantial grounds for believing that he would be exposed to a real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 if expelled to Lebanon(paras 103 –104).
70. In this appeal the element of past refugee camp life and requirement to return to a refugee camp is not present.
71. In KK, IH, HE (Palestinians-Lebanon-camps) Lebanon CG (2004) UKIAT 00293, the Tribunal said that, although conditions for stateless Palestinians living in refugee camps in Lebanon were harsh and they did not enjoy the same political economic and social rights as Lebanese citizens, these matters did not in themselves cross the Article 3 threshold.
72. IN MM and FH (Stateless Palestinians–KK, IH, HE reaffirmed) Lebanon CG (2008) UKAIT 00014 the Tribunal held that

(i) The differential treatment of stateless Palestinians by the Lebanese authorities and the conditions in the camps does not reach the threshold to establish either persecution under the Geneva Convention, or serious harm under paragraph 339C of the Immigration Rules, or a breach of Articles 3 or 8 under the ECHR.
(ii) The differential treatment of Palestinians by the Lebanese authorities is not by reason of race but arises from their statelessness; and
(iv) The decision in KK, IH, HE (Palestinians-Lebanon-camps) Lebanon CG (2004) UKIAT 00293, is reaffirmed.

73. The answers to the key question posed by Judge Blum, whether the appellant will face a well-founded fear of persecution on return to Lebanon is “no” whether he is a citizen of Lebanon or registered with UNRWA and the Lebanese authorities.
74. I accordingly find that the appellant has failed to establish an entitlement to a grant of any form of international protection or leave to remain in the United Kingdom on any basis and accordingly dismiss the appeal.

Decision

75. I dismiss the appeal.

Anonymity.

76. The First-tier Tribunal made an order pursuant to rule 45(4)(i) of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (Procedure) Rules 2005.

I make such order pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008.

Signed

Upper Tribunal Judge Hanson

Dated 16 December 2021