AS (Guinea) v Secretary of State for the Home Department High Commissioner for Refugees (‘UNHCR’), as intervener, that the standard should be the lower one of ‘reasonable likelihood’ suggested in the UNHCR Handbook on Protection of Stateless Persons (‘UNCHR Statelessness Handbook’), 4 a standard elaborated upon in the European Court of Human Rights (‘ECtHR’) decision of Hoti v Croatia (‘Hoti’). 5 Instead it followed UK jurisprudence in the context of asylum and removal cases. 6 Given that the court did not accept that the appellant had made out his case to be stateless, it declined to enter into the question of whether a finding of statelessness was relevant to the Secretary of State’s decision to deport the appellant. 7 FACTS OF THE CASE The appellant was born in Guinea in 1986. 8 He entered the UK as an asylum seeker in 2004. 9 He committed some offences and was sentenced to imprisonment for two years. 10 In 2014, a deportation order was made against him and he did not appeal. 11 He had never had a UK residence permit. 12 He approached the Guinean embassy, without any documents, to request return to Guinea. 13 The Guinean authorities refused to issue documents to enable him to return. 14 In 2015 they confirmed in writing that they did not consider him a national. 15 He requested that the respondent, the Secretary of State for the Home Department (‘SSHD’) revoke the deportation order, arguing that statelessness was a ‘very compelling circumstance’, which overcame the public interest in deporting him. 16 The SSHD refused to revoke the deportation order. 17 The appellant appealed that decision to the First-Tier Immigration and Asylum Tribunal on Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (‘ECHR’) art 8 grounds (the only permissible ground of appeal in his case), citing his statelessness. 18 The First-Tier Tribunal determined that the appellant had been ‘remarkably inactive’ and had not carried out his own enquiries to evidence his nationality to the Guinean authorities. 19 The Upper Tribunal agreed that the appellant had not 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ibid [28]–[29], [33], citing Handbook on Protection of Stateless Persons (Handbook, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees 30 June 2014) 34 [91] (‘UNHCR Statelessness Handbook’) <https://www.unhcr.org/dach/wp-content/uploads/sites/27/2017/04/CHUNHCR_Handbook-on-Protection-of-Stateless-Persons.pdf>. Hoti v Croatia (European Court of Human Rights, First Section, Application No 63311/14 26, 26 April 2018) (‘Hoti’). AS (Guinea) (n 1) [23]–[26], [30]. ibid [60]. This question, therefore, remains outstanding. ibid [15]. ibid. ibid [16]. ibid [21]. See ibid [15]–[22]. ibid [22]. ibid. ibid [28]. ibid [60]. See also at [12]: The paragraphs of the Immigration Rules (n 2) invoked, [A398]– [399A], reflect the UK’s obligations under Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, opened for signature 4 November 1950, 213 UNTS 221 (entered into force 3 September 1953) art 8 (‘ECHR’). AS (Guinea) (n 1) [21]. ibid. ibid [25]. 337