asylum claim. This is particularly true in the context of arbitrary deprivation of nationality. According to the UN Human Rights Council, statelessness that results from the arbitrary deprivation of nationality, “especially on discriminatory grounds such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status, is a violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms.”68 In this context, discrimination is both the cause and effect of statelessness, and both are relevant to meeting the refugee definition.69 1. Persecution and Statelessness as Reflected in Existing Case Law In the context of statelessness, in determining whether the condition of statelessness rises to the level of persecution, one must examine the impact that the lack of nationality has on the individual. Some authorities “accept as persecution the denial of nationality together with the social and economic problems faced by a stateless person provided these problems are sufficiently intolerable or causing unbearable suffering.”70 In other cases, arbitrary deprivation of nationality, particularly on discriminatory grounds, can rise to the level of persecution.71 For example, in Ouda v. INS, a stateless Palestinian fled Kuwait and Bulgaria. The Immigration Judge (IJ) and the BIA found the requisite persecution where stateless Palestinians were forced to leave the country because they were perceived as enemies; however, the court rejected her well-founded fear of return to Kuwait because it did not believe she would likely be granted re-entry.72 The Circuit Court of Appeals, however, found that there was “no support for the proposition that an asylum applicant is precluded from seeking asylum in the United States should it prove to be the case that the country from which she seeks asylum will not take her back if the INS tries to deport her.”73 The court found the applicant proved a fear of future persecution and ordered the BIA to take into consideration that she was expelled from Kuwait, the State from which she was seeking asylum.74 More recently, three Circuit Courts of Appeals have found that denationalization on account of a protected ground does rise to the level of persecution.75 In Stserba v. Holder, the asylum applicant, who was ethnically Russian, had her Estonian citizenship revoked for two years after Estonia gained its independence. The Court found that denationalization that results in statelessness may constitute per se persecution when it occurs on account of a protected status such as ethnicity.76 Further, a person who is made stateless due to membership in a protected group may have demonstrated persecution, even without providing evidence that she suffered collateral damage from the act. Human Rights Council Res. 20/5, Human Rights and Arbitrary Deprivation of Nationality, 20th Sess., A/HRC/RES/20/5, at ¶ 3 (July 16, 2012), available at http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/5016631b2.html. 69 HELENE LAMBERT, REFUGEE STATUS, ARBITRARY DEPRIVATION OF NATIONALITY, AND STATELESSNESS WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF ARTICLE 1A(2) OF THE 1951 CONVENTION AND ITS 1967PROTOCOL RELATING TO THE STATUS OF REFUGEES, U.N. DOC. PPLA/2014/01 (Oct. 2014), at 74-75, available at http://www.refworld.org/docid/543525834.html (provides extensive research and analysis of the intersection of arbitrary deprivation of nationality and refugee status). 70 Id. at p. 56. 71 See Giday v. Gonzalez, 434 F.3d 543, 553-56 (7th Cir. 2006). 72 Ouda v. INS, 324 F.3d 445, 450 (6th Cir. 2003). 73 Id. at 452. 74 Id. at 456. 75 Jourbina v. Holder, 532 F. App'x 1 (2d Cir. 2013); Stserba v. Holder, 646 F.3d 964 (6th Cir. 2011); Haile v. Holder, 591 F.3d 572 (7th Cir. 2010); see also UNHCR, REFUGEE STATUS, ARBITRARY DEPRIVATION OF NATIONALITY, AND STATELESSNESS WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF ARTICLE 1A(2) OF THE 1951 CONVENTION AND ITS 1967 PROTOCOL RELATING TO THE STATUS OF REFUGEES, PPLA/2014/01 (Oct. 2014), available at http://www.refworld.org/docid/543525834.html. 76 Stserba, 646 F.3d 964. 68 16