2021 Statelessness & Citizenship Review 3(1) ‘presumed’ or ‘could be’ stateless, where are they going to be deported to? 70 Deportation without due process, without determining if the person is foreign, a refugee, a national or stateless, is contrary to international standards. 71 Following this reasoning, SDP norms start from the presumption or assumption that applicants seeking statelessness status recognition are foreigners. In this regard, in some countries, the same SDP norms regulate the route to naturalisation once the applicant has been recognised as stateless, while in other countries access to naturalisation is regulated by special laws or decrees from an executive branch. 72 However, it is possible that an applicant may be a national of the country in which they have applied for a determination of their statelessness — and this will be discussed in the following Part. VI WHAT IF THE APPLICANT COULD BE A NATIONAL OF THE COUNTRY IN WHICH THEY HAVE APPLIED FOR A DETERMINATION OF THEIR STATELESS STATUS? When an SDP process is conducted, it may be possible to identify applicants who are not stateless, foreigners or immigrants but are instead nationals of the state in which they are applying for stateless status recognition. The applicant may or may not be aware of the links with the relevant country of nationality, but for different reasons 73 the applicant has decided or is forced to apply for statelessness status recognition. If successful, the door may be open for residency, documentation and naturalisation. The question in this scenario is: what should be done if there is a suspicion 74 that the applicant could be a national of the state in which they have applied for a determination of their status during an interview, investigation or 70 71 72 73 74 ‘The States shall enforce the right of non-refoulement of any person in all places where they exercise jurisdiction, even within their own territory’: Organization of American States, InterAmerican Principles on the Human Rights of All Migrants, Refugees, Stateless Persons, and Victims of Human Trafficking that non-refoulement, Res 04/19 (7 December 2019) 6, s 1. See also Process in Procedures for the Determination of Refugee Status and Statelessness (n 8) 53 [125]. See Slivenko (n 30) 263 [120]; Mikolenko v Estonia (European Court of Human Rights, Fifth Section, Application No 10664/05, 8 October 2009) [64]–[68]; Auad v Bulgaria (European Court of Human Rights, Fourth Section, Application No 46390/10, 11 October 2011), cited by Strategic Litigation: An Obligation for Statelessness Determination under the European Convention on Human Rights (Report, European Statelessness Network 2014) 6, 10 <https://www.refworld.org/pdfid/582326c34.pdf>; Expelled Dominicans and Haitians v Dominican Republic (Judgment) (Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Series C No 282, 28 August 2014) 135 [386], 140 [403]–[404]; American Convention on Human Rights: ‘Pact of San José, Costa Rica’, opened for signature 22 November 1969, 1144 UNTS 144 (entered into force 27 August 1979) art 22 expressly prohibits deportations of nationals. Lei No 13.445, de 24 De Maio De 2017 ‘Institui a Lei de Migração’ [Law No 13.445, of 24 May 2017 ‘Instituting the Migration Law’], 99 Diário Oficial Da União 1 (Brazil) Brazil is the only state with an SDP stated in its law, which provides an expedited process for naturalisation. Once the statelessness status has been recognised, the person has the option to apply for naturalisation without prior residence time nor further requirements, arts 26(6), 26(7), 26(8). For example, material reasons, lack of information or evidence or a state policy of denial of citizenship. If the SDP authority identifies that the applicant could be a national of the country to which they are applying for statelessness status recognition, the question arises as to what standard of evidence or standard of proof is needed. This issue will be part of the analysis in Part VI of this article. 76