AS (Guinea) v Secretary of State for the Home Department applicant has made his own efforts. That ‘points to a lower standard of proof’. 29 The SSHD relied on the reasoning of the Upper Tribunal: 30 1. The UNCHR Statelessness Handbook was ‘advisory’ only: the 1954 Convention says nothing about any evidential standards. 31 2. The assessment of statelessness was very similar to the assessment of ability to return, or of assertions that a person is unable to ‘obtain’ a nationality. The jurisprudence in those areas is relevant. 32 B Determination of the Appropriate Standard of Proof The court determined that a person claiming to be stateless must provide evidence satisfying the standard of balance of probabilities, and must even apply for nationality. It preferred the UK jurisprudence, which has been developed in cases where the appellant, in a Tribunal that can consider both fact and law, is required to prove whether they have a particular nationality in the context of asylum and removal. 33 It recognised it was departing from the guidance in the UNCHR Statelessness Handbook. 34 The Court accepted that the 1954 Convention must be interpreted in the light of its objectives, and that errors of interpretation may be ‘serious’, but considered that those consequences would be less serious than in refugee cases.35 Additionally: ‘the steps necessary to establish statelessness will usually be steps that an applicant can readily take without any risk of harm’. 36 ‘It is easy for the facts in issue to be proved’. 37 The court dealt with the other arguments briefly. Regarding the problem that people may be ‘left in limbo’: ‘I am not persuaded that the conventional balance of probabilities test has created a material problem in this regard’. 38 The judge noted that only six of 25 states with a determination procedure applied the lower standard of proof. 39 The court did not accept that the SSHD guidance to the Immigration Rules, indicating that the SSHD would assist the applicant, pointed to there being a lower standard of proof. 40 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 ibid [40]. There were arguments regarding statelessness and deportation, but these are not relevant here. See generally ibid [28]. ibid [29]. ibid. ibid [48]–[57]. ibid [44]. ibid [35]. ibid [46] ibid [51], citing MA (Ethiopia) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] EWCA Civ 289, [81] (‘MA (Ethiopia)’). The Court acknowledged that there may be cases where, if a person makes enquiries of a national authority, relatives or others may be at risk. Those were exceptions to the general rule. AS (Guinea) (n 1) [36], [58]. ibid. ibid [57]. 339