Legal briefing on the rights of stateless Palestinians in the UK September 2025 Rules, although this is understood to be an interim position pending further policy review. It should be noted that public-facing Home Office guidance on family reunion for stateless sponsors has not yet been updated (as of 22 September 2025). This High Court’s decision is a positive development that acknowledges the unique circumstances of stateless persons and the need for specific protections on account of their status. Importantly, the Immigration Rules Part 1 provide explicit exemptions to the requirement to produce proof of identity in family reunion applications. Applications can be made without any identity documents for family members of stateless persons applying under Part 14, and if made by a person in the UK with refugee or humanitarian protection (para. 34(5)(c)(iv) and (v)). In practice, the Home Office respects these provisions, and identity is collected at the biometric registration stage. Relying on these procedural safeguards, legal practitioners have successfully submitted applications for clients with no identity documents. 4.2. Prevention of expulsion Expulsion of refugees or stateless persons may violate Articles 3 and 8 ECHR, as well as Article 32 of the Refugee Convention and Article 31 of the 1954 Convention. There have been cases before the ECtHR considering the expulsion of stateless Palestinians under Article 8, also in connection with the prohibition of arbitrary detention under Article 5 ECHR.164 In Al-Nashif v. Bulgaria the Court considered the case of a stateless Palestinian whose permanent residency in Bulgaria was revoked on national security grounds. The applicant had two Bulgarian citizen children and was held in detention before being deported to Syria. While the Court found a violation of Articles 5(4), 8, and 13 ECHR, it failed to address the applicant’s argument that the authorities’ decision was flawed in not having considered the fact that the applicant was a stateless person.165 Further, where substantial grounds can be shown that a person would face a real risk of being subject to treatment contrary to Article 3 if deported, the Contracting State is under an obligation not to deport the individual to the country in question.166 In L.M. and others v. Russia, the expulsion from Russia of a stateless Palestinian to Syria was found to be in violation of Article 3 ECHR due to the risk of ill-treatment and death there. 167 In Auad v Bulgaria, the Court held that the expulsion of a stateless Palestinian to Lebanon would be in breach of Article 3 if carried out. The Court considered the specific circumstances facing the applicant as a stateless Palestinian who had been involved in conflict with members of militant groups returning to Lebanon, noting the likelihood that the applicant would have to return to the camp from which he fled, Ein El-Hilweh, and the violent conditions in the camp which is under the control of Palestinian armed factions and not the 164 See, for example, ECtHR, Amie and Others v. Bulgaria, application no. 58149/08 (12 February 2013); ECtHR, Miari v. Denmark, application no. 2852/24 (15 July 2005). In Miari v Denmark, the Court considered the expulsion and six-year entry ban of a stateless Palestinian who had resided in Denmark for 34 years to Lebanon. The Court ruled that the right to family life was not engaged and that the expulsion order was not disproportionate to the applicant’s right under Article 8 ECtHR. The fact of the applicant’s statelessness was not substantively considered in the judgment. 165 ECtHR, Al-Nashif v. Bulgaria, application no. 50963/99 (20 June 2002) para 105. See the Joint Partly Dissenting Opinion of Judges Makarczyk, Butkevych and Botoucharova, where the dissenting judges took the applicant’s possession of a Syrian stateless persons’ identity document as a factor in favour of the fact that the applicants could lawfully establish their family home in Syria (para 6). See also ENS and The AIRE Centre, ‘Statelessness and the Right to Respect for Private and Family Life’ (n 146) p 31-32; and ECtHR, Amie and Others v. Bulgaria (fn 164), paras 90-102. 166 ECtHR [GC], Ilias and Ahmed v. Hungary , application no. 47287/15 (21 November 2019), paras 125-126; see also ECtHR, Auad v. Bulgaria, application no. 46390/10 (11 October 2011) para 96. In Hélène Lambert, ‘Nationality and statelessness before the European Court of Human Rights: a landmark judgment but what about Article 3 ECHR?’ (Strasbourg Observers, 16 May 2018), the author has made the argument that Article 3 ECHR should also be considered in the context of statelessness in itself. 167 ECtHR, L.M. and others v. Russia, applications no. 40081/14 et al (5 October 2015). 34