procedure by Migri. However, in principle, a significant part of clarifying the matter in the determination of citizenship status procedure regarding possible cases of statelessness depends on the facts that the applicant presents, as in most cases she or he is considered to be in the best position to provide the information and clarifications. If there is no reason to doubt the veracity of this information, the matter is decided on the basis of that information. It is worth noting though that while a grant of refugee status or other form of international protection is clearly understood as a favourable decision to the applicant, a decision for the person to be found stateless is not necessarily considered as such according to Migri.127 In light of the examples given by Migri with regard to drawing the line between stateless and “unknown nationality”, Migri relies heavily on the person’s ability to provide documents to support her or his claim of statelessness. If the person is unable to provide any documentary evidence with regard to her or his identity and nationality or the lack of it, and Migri deems that there is a possibility that the person has a nationality (i.e. Migri deems that they cannot rely on the person’s statements only), the person’s citizenship status is defined as unknown rather than stateless, until further information is provided. Consequently, the likelihood that the person is determined to be stateless is higher if the person is able to provide documents, e.g. a travel document, which supports the claim or the assumption that she or he is stateless.128 This approach however appears problematic; the assumption seems to be that the main reason why a person would not be providing documentary evidence regarding her or his statelessness claim is that the person is simply unwilling to do so, and that every stateless person has access to identity and other documents from the country of (former) residence. In nine of the reviewed asylum cases determined during the years 2009 to 2011 where the nationality of the applicant had been determined as unknown, the applicant’s previous country of residence had not as such been questioned. Most of these cases concerned Palestinians from various countries of habitual residence and Kurds from Syria. These cases in principle did not have any significant, obvious or consistent differences from those cases in which Palestinians from various countries of residence and Kurds from Syria had been considered as stateless. Based on the content of the asylum decisions, it is not possible to draw conclusions as to why exactly in these cases the persons were not considered as stateless. In a few of the decisions, it was more obvious that the conclusion of “unknown nationality” was arrived at because of general lack of credibility, which also concerned nationality (or the possible lack of it) and therefore there was a genuine uncertainty regarding the person’s nationality. A case of an asylum-seeker illustrates the difficulties with regard to the burden of proof. The person had provided his birth certificate and refugee identity documents (which had been considered as technically genuine by the Finnish authorities) and some documents regarding the country of origin and nationality of his parents. However, he himself did not believe that he was a national of the country of origin of his parents or the country of his habitual residence. The Nationality Unit, which determined his citizenship status, considered that the person should have provided reliable documents regarding his identity and nationality in order for his nationality to be determined; in the absence of such documents it was considered that his nationality was not known. However, it remained unclear as to what further documents were expected of the person and it appeared that the burden of proof with regard to the nationality or the lack of it was fully placed on the applicant. Further, the person’s credibility was generally not questioned in the asylum assessment and he was granted subsidiary protection that was partly based on the fact that the person did not appear to be a national of any country. In light of this, the decision to consider the person’s nationality as “not known” rather than stateless appears peculiar and unfortunate. The person’s own possibilities to further prove his nationality or lack of it appeared limited. Also, by not formally determining the person in question as stateless while granting him a residence permit in Finland, deprives him of the rights attached to statelessness in Finland. 34 127 E-mail from Migri, 7 August 2012 128 Ibid. MAPPING STATELESSNESS IN FINL AND