Court of Helsinki. Migri appealed106 the decision of the Administrative Court to the Supreme Administrative Court, defending its authority to determine citizenship status in this case. Migri stated that the purpose of Section 2 of the Nationality Decree107 was first and foremost to map situations where a child born in Finland could become stateless as a result of the nationality legislation of the countries of nationality of the parents, and where, consequently, the provision of Section 9 of the Nationality Act on the secondary right to Finnish nationality through birth may become applicable (discussed in section 4.3.1.1 below). Moreover, Migri stated that one of the main aims of the Nationality Act is to prevent statelessness and that determining whether a child acquires the nationality of one of the parents serves that aim, as it ensures that children born in Finland are not rendered stateless. The Supreme Administrative Court inter alia stated that Section 36 of the Nationality Act is formulated in a way that the need to determine citizenship status may be based on various reasons. The court further stated that the responsibility of the Local Register Offices in this regard applies to situations where the child’s nationality, considering her or his parents’ nationalities, is typically unclear. Further, one of the purposes of the determination of citizenship status request by the Local Register Office to Migri is to ensure that the child will not become stateless. The court concluded that the initial decision of Migri in the matter was valid and should enter into force. The decision of the Supreme Administrative Court contains a very interesting and significant point regarding the determination of citizenship status procedure from the prevention of statelessness point of view. The decision clearly defines the prevention of statelessness as one of the purposes of the procedure, even though this is not explicitly mentioned in the Nationality Act or the Nationality Decree. Also, as part of the asylum procedure, the determination of citizenship status procedure is used to determine statelessness. Of the 34 cases in which “statelessness” was established in the asylum procedure during 2009 to 2011, 14 cases were determined through the determination of citizenship status procedure’.108 In the rest of the cases, “statelessness” was determined by the caseworker in the Asylum Unit of Migri, without using the determination of citizenship status procedure. No clear pattern could be seen as to when it was decided that the determination of citizenship status procedure was needed and when not. In 12 of the 15 cases where nationality was determined as “unknown”, the determination of citizenship status procedure was used. This procedure was not used in the cases where asylum-seekers from Kosovo received the status “nationality not known”. 109 Apart from the applicants from Kosovo, there were four other cases concerning applicants from other countries whose nationality was considered as “not known”. In two of these cases, the determination of nationality as “not known” was a result of the determination of citizenship status procedure.110 The possible outcomes of the determination of citizenship status procedure are various. The decision either states that the person is a Finnish citizen, is regarded in Finland as a citizen of a certain country, that the person is regarded in Finland as a stateless person, or that the person’s citizenship status in Finland is unknown. The citizenship status determination decision uses the wording “the person is regarded in Finland as a national of/stateless/of unknown nationality…”. Only in cases where the person has been determined to be a Finnish national is it stated in the decision that the person is a Finnish national. This reflects the fact that Migri only has authority to make legally binding decisions with regard to nationality of Finland, not of other countries. 30 106 Migri has the right to appeal the decisions of an Administrative Court in accordance with Section 42 of the Nationality Act to the extent that a decision by Migri has been reversed or changed by a decision of an Administrative Court. 107 Previous Nationality Decree 799/2004. 108 Conducted by the Nationality Unit of Migri. 109 Only in the cases of an unspecified number of children this procedure was used. According to Migri, the practice has been, that if persons from Kosovo only have a UNMIK document or another document which does not prove the nationality of Kosovo, their nationality was recorded as not known. The practice has however recently changed; person may be considered and register as a national from Kosovo based on the information provided by the person herself or himself too, without supporting documents. E-mail from Migri, 18 October 2012. 110 Again, it is not clear why the difference between nationality “unknown” and “not known” exists and what the difference entails. Based on the information in the asylum decisions, the circumstances of these two cases were very similar to those in which normally nationality had been defined as unknown. MAPPING STATELESSNESS IN FINL AND