His situation was further complicated by the fact that borders had changed in Europe since his mother’s birth, meaning his mother’s birthplace was now in a different country. Therefore, he was not able to apply for citizenship in the countries of his parents’ births. Most interviewees spoke of having to go to the relevant embassy several times and of struggling to receive a response. ‘The embassy did not give me any answer. So many emails and letters but no one answered me.’ – Karim A couple of interviewees had received a response from their embassy but were unable to fulfil the requirements to redocument with their country of origin. For example, in one case, the interviewee had to be living legally in their country of origin to make an application for registration or naturalisation. However, with no passport, there was no route for him to live in his country of origin legally to make the application. He is in a catch-22 situation. Another interviewee, who has no family in his country of origin, was told he could obtain a visa to return but he must have a family member to receive him. Another who was in contact with the authorities from his country of origin, was asked to prove his citizenship by providing proof of his family there. However, he could not easily do this because he was in detention and had no funds to call his family. After he received news that the last member of his family passed away whilst he was still in detention, it was almost impossible to obtain death certificates. Therefore, his credibility was questioned. It can be very costly to make applications to different embassies. One participant who approached the embassies of countries to which his father was connected paid over 1000GBP to apply for citizenship there. Another challenge several interviewees raised was how hard it can be to remember all aspects of their situation given that many of them have been in limbo for decades. One explained that it can be difficult to relay their story to their solicitor because so much time had passed. 14 In addition, their stories are so complex, with so many details that it is hard to recall everything. Overall, it was clear from all the interviewees that the support of caseworkers and legal advisors was invaluable for them in the collection of this evidence. For example, one noted that they were aided financially by the British Red Cross to travel to London where they were able to visit their embassy to try and collect evidence. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW Three interviewees had applications which were refused, and they requested the internal Home Office administrative review. For one of them, their legal representative had to make the request, and the Home Office provided a second decision with almost identical wording to the first, which had to be reviewed again. The interviewee was granted statelessness leave on the third decision. For another, their legal representative also made the request and 10 months later, at the time of UNHCR’s interview, the new decision remained pending. DETENTION Two interviewees experienced extended periods of detention. One of the interviewees was detained twice prior to making an application for statelessness leave. He was required to report regularly to the Home Office, and on two occasions he was detained upon reporting. The second time he was detained, the Home Office suggested that he apply for statelessness leave. ‘I was told to go to signing. For a year, it was monthly, after that it was weekly. One day at signing, they told me I had an interview. So they asked me some questions such as my details and questions regarding my health condition. They said they would verify this information with the National Health Service and when they did not receive a confirmation from the National Health Service, they detained me. I was released after five weeks. Two months later, again, after going to report, I was detained for three months and a week in the same situation. They stated that they did not understand why I was undocumented.’ – Madhav