In Haile v. Holder, the court found that while loss of citizenship as a result of a change in national boundaries was not persecution per se, this did not preclude a finding of persecution where a State denationalized an individual because of his religion or ethnicity.77 Based on the facts of the case, the court held that if Ethiopia denationalized the applicant because of his Eritrean ethnicity, it did so because of hostility to Eritreans. In so finding, the court found that the BIA’s conclusion that the petitioner has to prove “denationalization plus”' does not follow from its premise, and that it had to provide a reasoned justification for its rulings. In Jourbina v. Holder, the court found that the BIA abused its discretion in denying an untimely motion to reopen.78 In so finding, the court held that the BIA did not consider the applicant’s argument that the revocation of their citizenship by Kazakhstan constituted a changed country condition. The BIA also did not consider the applicant’s argument that lack of citizenship would subject them to future persecution upon return to Kazakhstan because Kazakhstan discriminates against non-Kazak nationals. Practice Point This kind of denationalization can occur before or after a person has fled her State of last habitual residence, and thus, may arise as the primary asylum claim or after an order of removal has been issued. For these claims, a statelessness argument may be made at all stages of an asylum process, including affirmative, defensive, appeals, and motions to reopen. 2. Additional Circumstances of Persecution and Statelessness If returned to their country of last habitual residence, some stateless persons face almost insurmountable obstacles to securing access to their rights, including birth certificates and other identity documents, education, worker rights, health care, freedom from arbitrary detention, family unity, and freedom of movement. Many also face severe discrimination, threat of detention, and vulnerability to exploitation. In presenting an asylum claim based on statelessness, in the absence of overt acts of violence, the following factors should be given due consideration in proving persecution. a. Mental or Psychological Harm As stated above, in order to support a finding of persecution, physical harm is not required.79 Severe forms of mental harm may rise to the level of persecution.80 Being born without a nationality or otherwise being rendered stateless, whether due to specific discrimination or gaps in nationality laws, has profound consequences for stateless people. Moreover, the discrimination that many stateless people face because of their statelessness can have similarly deep consequences. Any mental, emotional, and psychological harm suffered due to statelessness may arguably rise to the level of persecution if fully demonstrated through documentary evidence. b. Severe Economic Deprivation Haile, 591 F.3d 572. Jourbina, 532 Fed. Appx. 1. 79 See Kovac v. INS, 407 F.2d 102, 106-07 (9th Cir. 1969) (finding that in removing the word “physical” from the definition of persecution evinced intent to encompass more than just physical harm). 80 Mashiri v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 1112 (9th Cir. 2004); see, e.g., Sumolang v. Holder. 723 F.3d 1080 (9th Cir. 2013) (finding that the suffering inflicted on parents after their child was refused medical care on the basis of her religion and subsequently died was persecution, as the harm to the child resulted in harm to the parents). 77 78 17