Chapter Two: Avenues of Relief for the Stateless Client Section 1: Preparing an Asylum Petition for a Stateless Client A. Overview A stateless person in the United States may be eligible for an immigration benefit or relief from removal by virtue of, or in conjunction with, her lack of a nationality.46 One form of potential benefit or relief from removal is asylum. In order to receive a grant of asylum, the individual must demonstrate that she meets the definition of a refugee under U.S. domestic immigration law. U.S. law defines a refugee as: “any person who is outside any country of such person’s nationality or, in the case of a person having no nationality, is outside any country in which such person last habitually resided, and who is unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of, that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.”47 In asylum cases, the way a person became stateless is critical to determining how to approach the case. U.S. courts have generally held that the fact of statelessness alone does not warrant asylum protection.48 However, the fact of statelessness, depending on the underlying reasons, can be a central part of a claim for asylum. This section discusses key areas of asylum law and eligibility of particular relevance to stateless persons. B. Country of Last Habitual Residence 1. Determining the Country of Last Habitual Residence In order to establish eligibility for asylum, stateless individuals must show that they cannot return to their country of “last habitual residence.”49 Determination of the asylum applicant’s last habitual residence controls the analysis of where the alleged persecution occurred. Thus, a court’s decision to grant or deny asylum or other forms of relief may often turn on the determination of the individual’s last habitual residence. See generally Maryellen Fullerton, The Intersection of Statelessness and Refugee Protection in U.S. Asylum Policy, 2 J. ON MIGRATION AND HUM. SECURITY 144-64 (2014). 47 INA §101(a)(42)(A). 48 In one case, for example, the court rejected a Latvian applicant’s asylum and withholding of removal application. The fact that she had been rendered stateless due to the fall of the Soviet Union was deemed irrelevant. See Fedosseeva v. Gonzales, 492 F.3d 840, 845 (7th Cir. 2007). Another court found that a denial of reentry to Saudi Arabia for two stateless Palestinians did not constitute persecution. See Najjar v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1262, 1291 (11th Cir. 2001). In a final example, the applicant, a resident of Jordan who lived in the West Bank before arriving in the U.S., argued “that the IJ's refusal to cancel his removal ha[d] resulted in unequal treatment on the basis of national origin in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments because, as a stateless Palestinian, he c[ould] neither depart the United States nor work or live here legally.” Nonetheless, the court rejected the equal protection violation claim and noted that “statelessness alone is an insufficient basis on which to grant a petition for asylum or withholding of removal without additional factors present.” See Abusheikh v. Attorney General of United States, 225 Fed.Appx. 56, 58 (3d Cir. 2007). 49 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(42)(A)(2012). 46 13