Practice Point Given that stateless persons do not have national passports and frequently lack other kinds of travel documents, and are thus often unable to travel, it is less likely that a stateless person would be categorized as an “arriving alien.” However, for those stateless people who either are able to secure some form of lawful travel document—for instance, stateless Bidoon from Kuwait who have secured an Article 17 passport for travel135—or who utilize fraudulent documents, a finding of inadmissibility at a port of entry and categorization as an “arriving alien” may occur. Note that it would be rare to find a stateless person classified as “arriving” during removal proceedings unless she was requesting asylum. 3. Designation for Non-“Arriving” Individuals For those individuals not taken into custody at a port of entry, and thus not designated as “arriving aliens,” INA §241(b)(2) governs the designation of the country of removal and is read as a series of four directives: (1) The individual shall be removed to the country of her choice, unless one of the conditions eliminating that command is satisfied; (2) Otherwise she shall be removed to the country of which she is a citizen, subject to conditions; (3) Otherwise she shall be removed to one of the countries with which she has a lesser connection; or (4) If that is “impracticable, inadvisable or impossible,” she shall be removed to “another country whose government will accept the [individual] into that country.”136 The order and impact of each of these approaches is critical to the approach taken when a respondent is stateless. While identifying a country of removal may permit the individual to present a case against a country for which she has a fear of persecution, torture, or other serious human rights violations, declining to designate a country of removal may be more consistent with the assertion that a person is stateless. These are strategies that must be considered by the stateless person and her advocate before entering pleadings. Both the non-arriving respondent and DHS have the authority, subject to certain conditions, to decide the country of removal. a. The Respondent’s Opportunity to Designate During removal proceedings, all respondents—with the exception of those classified as “arriving aliens”— have the right to “designate one country to which [she] wants to be removed.”137 Note that in general, there is no requirement that the respondent prove that she or he is a citizen or national of the designated See IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE BOARD OF CANADA, KWT37021.E, KUWAIT: INFORMATION ON ARTICLE 17 PASSPORTS (June 11, 2001), available at http://www.refworld.org/docid/3df4be5914.html. 136 Jama v. Immigration & Customs Enf’t, 543 U.S. 335, 341 (2005) (citations omitted). 137 INA §241(b)(2)(A). 135 31