‘Rainbow Statelessness’ viewed me as less than human’. 81 Since Hong Kong is not a signatory to the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, 82 she was unable to claim asylum there. Eventually, she was accepted for resettlement to New Zealand through the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and was naturalised as a citizen of the country in 2018 in recognition that she was stateless. Eliana’s case highlights the complexities that LGBTIQ+ individuals, particularly trans and intersex persons seeking to realise their gender expression, might experience when their appearance does not match with identity documents. With the disputed sovereignty status of Taiwan and the special administrative status of Hong Kong sub-state authorities, her story further underscores the important impacts that grey areas between different regimes of governance and international regulation can have upon the rights of citizenship, leading in the most extreme case to an individual being forced to self-declare as stateless. Eliana concludes: I blame everyone … all the countries involved. I blame my government for refusing to support me. I blame Taiwan for not doing more to help me fix my situation locally, or warn me about the risks in going to Hong Kong, where I was treated so badly. Eliana confirmed with the author that she knows several other LGBTIQ+ individuals who have similarly renounced their only citizenship in order to prevent deportation to their country, having previously been persecuted on SOGIESC grounds. These are clear-cut cases of statelessness caused by the realities specific to LGBTIQ+ individuals. Also, she states that she is aware of other intersex and trans individuals who have been denied recognition and assistance from their embassies due to their changed physical appearance and gender identity/expression. Such cases might be considered as occupying a grey area that may constitute statelessness. C Statelessness for Children of Rainbow Families Children born within the context of rainbow families may be at particular risk of becoming stateless. In some cases, this is related to the explicit non-recognition of relationships between LGBTIQ+ persons and their ‘illegality’ in certain jurisdictions; in others it is the result of falling through the gaps in complex sets of legislation and procedures that create grey areas where a child may be left de facto unable to acquire the parents’ citizenship counter to the state’s nationality law. Different legal regimes and official approaches to definitions of family and parenting further complicate matters. Specifically, the patchwork situation with regards to recognition of non-heteronormative marriages, civil unions and relationships worldwide, alongside disparate practices of parental recognition in such cases, are likely to mean that children born in ‘rainbow families’ are at disproportionate risk of ending up stateless. The European Network on Statelessness has noted the ‘emerging problem’ of jus sanguinis conferral of nationality for children of same-sex couples. 83 81 82 83 ibid. Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, opened for signature 28 July 1951, 189 UNTS 150 (entered into force 22 April 1954). No Child Should Be Stateless (Report, European Network on Statelessness 2015) 20. 80