Is Discriminatory Denationalization Persecution? “To be deported to the country that made you stateless and continues to consider you stateless is to be subjected to persecution”. Mr. Haile, an Ethiopian of Eritrean ethnicity, fled to the United States when the Ethiopian Government began arbitrarily expelling 75,000 persons of Eritrean ethnicity. He sought asylum based on his fear that he too would be stripped of his citizenship by the Ethiopian authorities. His claim was denied by the Immigration Judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals based on the conclusion that forced denationalization without additional harm is not persecution. On appeal, the circuit court ruled that in some circumstances forced denationalization could constitute persecution. “If Ethiopia denationalized [him] because of his Eritrean ethnicity, it did so because of hostility to Eritreans.... To be deported to the country that made you stateless and continues to consider you stateless is to be subjected to persecution”. Haile v. Holder, 591 F.3d 572 (7th Cir. 2010). Designation of a Country of Removal In proceedings before an immigration judge, one of the first steps is to designate a country for removal in the event that an individual is found not to have any relief from deportation. In most instances, this will be the individual’s country of origin or nationality. The designation is based on a presumption that if a final order of removal is issued, the individual will be accepted into that country. This fairly routine matter can raise complicated issues for stateless persons because they are not recognized as nationals of any country and as such, it is highly unlikely any country will agree to accept them. If an individual indicates he or she is not recognized as a national of any country and declines to designate a country for removal, the court must undertake a specific process to determine whether Solutions for the Stateless in the U.S. there is an appropriate country to designate in the event the individual becomes subject to a final order of removal.85 There is no defined procedure for making a statelessness inquiry under law or regulation nor has any uniform procedure been established for the immigration courts to follow. The process immigration judges must follow in determining what country to designate for removal set out in U.S. immigration law may lead to a finding that an individual is or may be stateless. The U.S. Supreme Court consolidated this process into four consecutive steps, which can be summarized as follows: 1) an individual shall be removed either to a country he or she designates86 or to the country where she or he boarded the vessel or aircraft that brought her or him to the U.S.,87 unless one of the exceptions to the applicable provision applies; 2) if the first measure cannot be satisfied, an individual shall be removed to the country of which he or she is a citizen, unless one of the exceptions to this provision applies; 3) if the second measure cannot be satisfied, an individual shall be removed to a country where he or she has a lesser connection; or, 4) if the third measure cannot be fulfilled, an individual shall be removed to any country whose government will accept him or her into that country.88 In going through these procedures, an immigration judge may conclude that an individual for whom there is no country to which he or she can be deported is or may be stateless. A finding of statelessness by an immigration judge does not in itself constitute a defense against removal. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the permission of a country is not required for it to be designated as the country for removal.89 However, a designated country that does not recognize an individual as a citizen may refuse to accept that person into their territory. As a practical matter, it is rare that any country other than the country of citizenship will accept an individual who has been ordered removed from the United States. This renders stateless individuals with a final order of removal subject to discretionary practices and policies 19