Oxford Monitor of Forced Migration Vol. 7 No. 2 In an attempt to clarify this relationship, UNHCR advises, ‘[a]lthough an individual can be both stateless as per the 1954 Convention and a refugee as per the 1951 Convention, at a minimum, a stateless refugee must benefit from the protection of the 1951 Convention and international refugee law’ (UNHCR, 2014: 7). The possibility that a refugee may be stateless is recognised in the definition of a refugee in the 1951 Convention: … owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it. [Emphasis added] (UN General Assembly, 1951: Article 1A(2)). This recognition is important because for stateless refugees there are specific cessation provisions. These seek to ensure that stateless refugees, who no longer require protection from persecution, do not lose their refugee status unless specific criteria related to their statelessness are met 4. To ensure that stateless refugees do not lose their refugee status, in contravention of the cessations provisions, the identification of statelessness amongst refugees is required. This is not to say that there should be two types of refugee status, one for stateless refugees and one for those who hold a citizenship. Instead, it is argued here that, in line with the demands of the 1951 Convention, as well as the reality that a refugee may be rendered stateless after they have acquired refugee status, the identification of statelessness, or risk thereof, should be built into asylum procedures at various stages. States are, at a minimum, required to have identified statelessness prior to making a decision on cessation of refugee status. Therefore, an assessment would need to occur before this decision could be taken. It also seems prudent to undertake an assessment of statelessness, or risk thereof, during the asylum application stage, as, very worryingly, not identifying statelessness may negatively impact a refugee’s ability to be recognised as such (Berényi, 2016; Khanna & Garlick, 2017). With regard to the guidance from UNHCR they state that ‘cessation practices should be developed in a manner consistent with the goal of durable solutions. Cessation should therefore not result in persons residing in a host State with an uncertain status’ (UNHCR, 2003:3). Given that stateless refugees are under the mandate of the 1951 and 1954 Conventions simultaneously, with regard to cessation of refugee status, the ‘ability to return’ in Article 1(C) of the 1951 Convention should also be read in light of a state’s obligations under the 1954 Convention. In this regard UNHCR (2014) has provided guidance on the standards states should follow in assessing whether a stateless 4 The 1951 Convention Article 1 C:2-3,6, states that the Convention will cease to apply to stateless refugees who: ‘… (2) Having lost his nationality, he has voluntarily reacquired it; or (3) He has acquired a new nationality, and enjoys the protection of the country of his new nationality; or… (6) Being a person who has no nationality he is, because the circumstances in connection with which he has been recognized as a refugee have ceased to exist, able to return to the country of his former habitual residence; Provided that this paragraph shall not apply to a refugee falling under section A (1) of this article who is able to invoke compelling reasons arising out of previous persecution for refusing to return to the country of his former habitual residence.’ 23